Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Would you/do you submit to drug tests at work?
- Thread starter zachoff
- Start date
- Status
These are all expenses that are incurred by a centralized testing lab, but they can spread the expenses over a much larger number of tests conducted. And they can more easily control who has access to the equipment and chemicals, etc. A police department would have to deal with a breathalyzer in the same way, and this is one reason why it's nice to have trained, professional police officers who are already familiar with chain-of-evidence procedures.
Also, with regard to these new tests that prove if you are currently high, I would point out that the ACLU, which is a leading opponent of random drug testing, claims that clinical lab tests for drugs are inaccurate. So if a full work up by scientists is inaccurate, what does that say about a swab in your mouth?
Again, are you going to trust the safety of your children, gramma or the 300 people on that plane to a swab US Air bought at Walgreens?
Again, are you going to trust the safety of your children, gramma or the 300 people on that plane to a swab US Air bought at Walgreens?
well, if you want a "right" to be paid a certain wage, then your employer has got to pay that wage, whether you are worth it or not.
if you want a "right" to a month's paid vacation, then the employer has to pay it regardless of whether he would volutarily provide it or not.
if you want the "right" to a home loan regardless of whether it looks like you can repay it or not, then the lander has got to make the home loan or get sued...regardless of whether, in the abstract, he would have made you the loan.
all of these so-called "rights" come at the expense of someone else.
These aren't rights. When it comes to wages, a worker has the right to minimum wage or the stipulations agreed upon within a contract. It only becomes an issue when an employer breaches those. Then the worker has a right to sue, because the employer broke the law. Wages are not at the 'expense' of the employer. Wages are determined by the employer so he can utilize another person's labor for profit. It's not charity. It's an agreement.
A month's vacation is not a 'right' either. It's something agreed upon within a contract. Here in the US an salary employee usually gets 10 days. This part of a contract or agreement. There is no law about vacation. Without a law there are no rights implied or otherwise.
Right to a home loan?
Come on, you can do better than that. Again, this is a contract between two parties. Now whether one party qualifies, or whether one party is coercing the other party into taking a loan they can't afford is an entirely different subject.There are laws about work safety, amount of hours, minimum wage, sexual harassment, and slavery for that matter, and in turn there are 'rights' implied within these laws. If you're saying that these aren't rights because they're at the expense of the employer's rights, then I pose you this question: does an employer's right to pursue profit outweigh basic human rights? I say no. What do you say?
The point of law is to serve citizens.
If enough citizens think a law is unfair, the law will have to change. This kind of thing doesn't happen by itself. People have to actively fight for it.
Is your point that everybody should shut up, not discuss existing laws and leave everything as is?
I'm not enough of an expert to say anything about US labour laws.
I know the law strictly forbids drinking at working places in France, UK, Germany and Spain.
The point is that labour laws are the only thing preventing workers from abusive contracts.
1. It's a factory sealed kit. No further equipment needed.
2. 18 months.
3. Put the swab in the mouth. When it's wet enough, a visible line appears.
4. No refrigeration necessary.
Have I? Yes. Would I? Yes. Do I think they're an invasion of privacy? No. If marijuana was legalized, would I think it was still an invasion of privacy? Maybe but only under certain circumstances. Why? Because it's a mind-altering substance, not unlike alcohol and prescription meds in that regard; that may affect your ability to perform the task you are being paid to do. It becomes especially important in certain fields where lives and property are at stake. There are already rules/laws in place to prevent people from performing certain tasks while under the influence of legal prescription medications, what would be so different about marijuana and other drugs?
You are creating a false dilemma. There's shades of grey here.
As mentioned early in the thread, pee tests are mostly only efficient against marijuana users as the harder stuff doesn't stay in your system for a long time like marijuana traces.
Now if we were talking about randomly testing for hard drugs IF there's suspicions one is using or if we were talking about those "right-now" tests it would be different and I would probably not object myself.
Of course if MJ would be legal part of the argument would be rendered moot. But I'd still be against mandatory drug tests upon employment as a matter of principles.
The ACLU is opposed to testing of any sort. They're going to use every argument they can.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
http://www.americanscreeningcorp.com/ORALERT-6-Panel-Saliva-Drug-Test-Case-of-25-P141.aspx
Accurate enough for police to submit them as evidence. These things were made with police departments specifically in mind.
Mandatory testing upon employment? No.
Tested if there's suspicions that they might be using? Yes. But not via a piss-test.
Mandatory "right now tests" before a work-shift? Yes.
If the job required operating heavy machinery or if inattentiveness could cause bodily harm, then I would submit to a drug test.
Otherwise, the company has absolutely no right to dictate behaviors outside the office.
Their rights to tell employees what to do end when they stop paying wages at the end of the work day, and resume the following morning.
Otherwise, the company has absolutely no right to dictate behaviors outside the office.
Their rights to tell employees what to do end when they stop paying wages at the end of the work day, and resume the following morning.
The ACLU are vehemently opposed to testing of any sort. They are going to use any and every argument out there that they think supports their point. AND, no test is 100% accurate, not even genetic testing.
As a high school graduate in 1969 who went to Woodstock who read 1984 and Animal Farm and is quite concerned about our liberties, let me say the business' rights do supercede yours when you choose to work there.
I keep posting here hoping that you will entertain (try) a belief set different then your own to see where some of us are coming from.
It isn't about morality or civil disobedience. It's about your right to do what you want vs the right of a business owner to do what he wants. They are the same and you seem to miss that.
- Status
