They can't fire you for not giving up the password, but they can sure find a different reason to fire you. If somebody is working in a $10/hour job and is concerned about their ability to find another job, I don't think that "protection" will amount to anything.

Serfdom is a somewhat appropriate term, if your actions are monitored and controlled 24x7.

If I were Facebook, et al, I would be opposing this with everything I had. Nothing will hurt Facebook more than people being concerned that posting on it will negatively impact their jobs.

No, this is completely wrong: if you are asked for credentials, and you refuse to provide them, and you're fired afterwards for what your employer claims is an unrelated reason, you can sue your employer alleging that you were fired in retaliation; that is why the law specifically says it's "unlawful" to demand those credentials.

By your logic, no anti-discrimination law is enforceable either, because you'd have to be a complete nitwit to actually tell an employee they were being fired for being a woman, or African American. In practice, employers always make up excuses for unlawful termination.

Also, in practice, each of these exceptions to at-will employment is a vast gaping constantly-looming risk for employers, since litigation is extraordinarily expensive and terminated employees are extremely quick to threaten suit. I've seen meritless discrimination suits brought at previous employers; they're settled immediately no matter how wrong they are.

So the net effect of laws like this is to create an incentive for employers to be extremely careful and process-bound for how they handle credentials, because credentials in Illinois are officially an employment law minefield.

All of them. It's one of the easiest suits in the world to bring. You could also sue if you were denied promotion after refusing to hand over credentials.

Again: this law tips the balance of power AWAY from employers.

You're talking about a supply side scenario, after they already ask.

The text of the bill instead discusses the demand side "It shall be unlawful for any employer to request".

I am not seeing the punishment this unlawful act would result in. Maybe there isn't one. However, I am not a lawyer and anyone relying on this post for official legal advice is a moron.

On the job, assuming you've actually been out there, for quite a few years its "normal" for coworkers and bosses and such to friend each other and talk smack about each other and the boss. From observation of extensive experience the biggest problem with social media mixing with work tends to be professional contacts both making and reading highly unprofessional comments outside of work resulting in huge raging arguments / battles at work. (edited to emphasize battles between employees not mgmt vs employee. Although this inevitably drags mgmt into it when one employee whines about another's comments online about their religion/ethnicity/orientation/blah make it impossible for them to ever work together again, even though the topic would never have been discussed on company property at any civilized employer. Most of the mgmt where I work would relish a law prohibiting people from work socializing in any manner, especially social media flamewars, outside work.)

> They can't fire you for not giving up the password, but they can sure find a different reason to fire you.

If you work for an employer who does not care about the law, then the law is not going to affect them, this is correct.

Not true! The employer is going to have to care about the law, because it is very cheap for a terminated employer to get an attorney to bring a case under this statute.