No, we don't, really. The choice is, let us invade your privacy or you don't get the job. You have a right to privacy in that you don't have to give them your password, but you exercise your right at your own peril (in this case, not getting the job). There are already several questions that you are not allowed to ask during a job interview; this just adds to that.

Shut up, Glenn.

If they fire you, good for you.

What color is the sky on your planet? They'll fight you on the unemployment claim, and win (not because they're right, but because they're the employer and you're not), and then you have no job, no income, and drastically reduced job options (as nobody wants to hire someone who isn't working already).

How is any of that 'good'?

"You're fired." "Because I wouldn't work uncompensated overtime?" "No, we don't have to give a reason, clean out your desk."

My point was that you didn't have a choice, even if it paid less than unemployment, you HAD to take it.

I'd appeal that decision, and I'd win.

Take it from someone who knows first-hand, unemployment coverage appeals are almost always found in the favor of the ex-employer. You refused to cooperate with the person interviewing you, thus you were not doing everything you can to get a new job. And without video surveillance or other records, it's your word versus the word of the employer, who is damn likely to be able to afford better lawyers than you to handle the appeal.

And *some* money is better than *no* money. The fact that UI is a cruel joke in this country is another issue. You're *required* to take that burger-flipping job if it's offered to you.

The TSA is an employer like any other. Big Business has made the rules that apply to employers. The fact that the TSA is a quasi-government entity is not germane to the discussion at hand. But good job trying to muddy the waters and deflect focus from the real issue.

No law background required. Any layman can tell you that unless specifically prohibited by law, an employer can discriminate against you for anything they see fit. You have no right to privacy if you want to get hired. If standing on principle is worth not getting the job (and losing your unemployment coverage) for you, then go on with your bad self. Me, I have bills to pay. If my employer came to me today and said "Give me your facebook password or get fired on the spot", I'd have no choice but to give it to them.. as I have a family to feed. I'd quickly be looking for a new job, but it's always better to leave a company on your own terms (and with another job in your back pocket) than to get fired for what most people unfortunately consider 'not a big deal'.

Your "government meddling" wouldn't be necessary if the market were free and not fatally tilted in the direction of the employer. Until a job applicant and a potential employer can meet on equal terms, the "government meddling" will be necessary. As it is right now, the employer controls your ability to make a living, and it's not too far a leap to say that they hold your life in their hands.

When laws to protect employees are no longer necessary, I will be the first one agreeing with you about your vision of an objectivist free market paradise. Unfortunately, I live and work in the real world, so I don't think I'll be agreeing with you anytime soon.

Find me one person who likes the fact that he/she can be terminated at any time for no stated reason. Employment contracts generally don't exist in the USA because in at-will states they're unenforceable.

You: losing your unemployment benefits.

Because they need a job. Also, if there's a fight over unemployment benefits, and it comes out that you refused to cooperate with a potential employer in the hiring process, you could lose your benefits.

You're wrong about that. Employment law (such as it is in this country[USA]) specifically forbids you from asking certain questions in a job interview setting. These include things like your age, your marital status, your sexual orientation, your ethnic background and so forth.

These laws wouldn't be necessary unless there was a problem to begin with that required regulation. The opacity of the job interview/hiring process made it waaaay too easy for someone to discriminate on the basis of age/sex/orientation/ethnic background, so laws were written to make those practices specifically illegal. Doesn't mean it doesn't still happen, but now if you're asked these questions in a job interview, you have recourse. No sane potential employer wants to get sued over asking a question.

Because the liability (and other) insurance companies MAKE them care. "Drug test your employees or your liability insurance premiums double". "You had an employee have the nerve to get cancer last year, your health insurance premiums just went up 50%" (This could be used as an excuse to fire anyone who smokes. You laugh, but it's happened.)

Just another case of a country run for the corporations, by the corporations. It isn't the 1 president or 535 congresscritters or the 9 justices that make the decisions that matter in this country, it's whoever has the most money.

What means this 'work contract'? They're mostly unenforceable in the USA, and therefore useless to employer and employee alike.