Although not scientifically formulated, here are some of the ground rules for us to follow. Please let me know if something needs to be added:

1. Discuss the theory, analyze examples
2. Speak to fellow members with respect
3. No name calling, insults, braggadocio, screaming, shouting, or threats
4. If you have a difference with another party, discuss it with them privately and civilly while striving to understand their perspective and terminology. If that doesn't work, call in one person to be a mediator. Still can't work it out? Bring it to the moderator.
5. Gossip, drama for the sake of drama, and intrigue will not be tolerated.
6. Please refrain from personal testimonials. Personal experiences as examples will probably work for analyzing in order to more clearly understand the situation. Refer to No. 1, above.
7. It's okay to talk about the law and what you know or understand. But please do not practice law if you're not licensed to do so.
8. Concerns about the governance of this Network will be brought to the moderator first.
9. Please, no advertising. However, sharing information about events is a good thing.

Federal Regulations

It isn't a rating system. It is another industry's Code of Ethics, and the industry is extremely close to Recruiting. I wonder how effective the Code of Ethics of the Direct Selling Association is.

Then, there is the college recruiting side of the picture. Canadian Association for Co-operative Education Recruiting Ethics sets forth guidelines for the university, the student, and the employer.

May 24, 2007:
Here are some case articles I found on ERI. They bring up some of the issues already posed before us. But they also provide some additional things to consider. Take them in and use the Forum to discuss any or all of them:

Some interesting cases:

• Handling the Mentally Ill Employee
• Pitfalls of Hiring Internet Applicants
• Can We Bend the Rules?
• The Audit Disclosed Unequal Pay
• Preventing Downsizing Lawsuits
• Did We Have an Oral Contract?

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 20, 2007
US v. Thompson, No. 06-3676
In a case against a section chief in Wisconsin's Bureau of Procurement alleging improper steering of a contract for political reasons, the conviction is reversed where there was no indication that defendant's motives were corrupt for purposes of 18 U.S.C. section 666, and neither an increase in salary for doing what one's superiors deem a good job, nor a feeling of increased job security, is a "private benefit" for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. section 1341. Read more...

Supreme Court of Texas, April 20, 2007
In re RLS Legal Solutions, LLC, No. 05-0290
A petition for mandamus to compel arbitration of an employment dispute is conditionally granted where the court of appeals erred in holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying employer's motion to compel arbitration of the dispute on the basis that relators used economic duress to force the plaintiff to agree to arbitration. Read more...

California Appellate Districts, April 17, 2007
On-Line Power v. Mazur, No. B189251
Order denying attorney's fees after settlement of action for unpaid wages pursuant to a statutory offer of compromise is reversed where the trial court erred in ruling that the Labor Code provisions ensuring an employee's right to payment of wages did not apply to salaried corporate executives. Read more...