If they are the same why are you defending an approach in which the business owner rights trumps the individual ones?
I discussed this earlier, it's about the non-interference of one's right on someone else rights.
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
If they are the same why are you defending an approach in which the business owner rights trumps the individual ones?
I discussed this earlier, it's about the non-interference of one's right on someone else rights.
You keep overlooking the fact that your employer is not forcing you to work for him. He cannot possible be violating your rights when you agreed to his rules upon taking the job. That's simply you infringing upon his rights.
Like I mentioned earlier, there's certain things you are not legally allowed to ask an employee and asking for a piss-test is a bad as asking those things even if not regulated in the same way.
The argument that he's not forcing me to work there is simply BS. You are in a position of power, asking me to let go on my rights when my job is in the balance is akin to coercion.
You just want your cake and it eat it too.
You want to debate whether your home habits affect your work. You know if they don't affect you they affect some friend of yours.
You miss that the employer has costs and investment that you'll never have.
You miss that he considers the well being of his employees and families.
You miss that were the business to lose a contract because of a mess up everyone would be affected. All the employees, the companies reputation and your long term job security.
Your parents new this stuff about your family but when you were a kid you could afford to only have your own cares.
I've been out of work for a while and have had to cover My own cost.
It's been a solid six figure gulp out of what I had saved for retirement. And the So called Affordable Health Care act has already caused my expenses to raise.
I wished they would have went with a European Style plan, where EVERYBODY Including welfare recips, government employees etc) kicks in 15% and EVERYBODY gets the same health care. Their system makes it easier for a small business to survive since the business isn't required to provide Health Care.
I suggest everyone who has an employer who is providing health care in this environment give them a big Thank You!
_______________________________________________
I think the costs involved in healthcare is an ancillary issue. The way the debate has been constructed is more philosophical; the question being about a worker bees right to privacy and the intrusive nature of a corporation.
Btw, I am so very grateful for my health plan. For about 6 years I had no coverage and believe me it sucked.[/QUOTE]
It's been a solid six figure gulp out of what I had saved for retirement. And the So called Affordable Health Care act has already caused my expenses to raise.
I wished they would have went with a European Style plan, where EVERYBODY Including welfare recips, government employees etc) kicks in 15% and EVERYBODY gets the same health care. Their system makes it easier for a small business to survive since the business isn't required to provide Health Care.
I suggest everyone who has an employer who is providing health care in this environment give them a big Thank You!
_______________________________________________
I think the costs involved in healthcare is an ancillary issue. The way the debate has been constructed is more philosophical; the question being about a worker bees right to privacy and the intrusive nature of a corporation.
Btw, I am so very grateful for my health plan. For about 6 years I had no coverage and believe me it sucked.[/QUOTE]
So because he has more responsibilities he's entitled to more rights, and rights that overlap mines? It does not work that way. If it would the president could kill your family, rape you while high on cocaine in all impunity because he has more responsibilities.
What you listed is part of the cost of being a business owner and not an employee. It justifies nothing.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
Some of them do, some of them don't, a lot of that depends on the legislation which may change, city to city, and state to state.
California and Illinois already passed laws denying employers from demanding Facebook passwords. There's no reason to believe that urine can't be next.
I understand that you're interested in maintaining your livelihood, and because of the litigious climate we live in, increased scrutiny is a preemptive measure to reduce exposure.
I get that.
They are not the same. Desire for greater scrutiny isn't the same as desire for privacy. Even if they were, look at the numbers of people that are employees v. the number of people that are employers. As an employer you have the desire to demand private personal information from anything from dozens to hundreds to thousands of people depending on the scale of your business. The ratio of information v. privacy is heavily unbalanced by sheer number of people it touches. Blocking that intrusion through law would negatively impact one employer's ability to scrutinize through one means (you have many others), but extends the privacy of dozens of people on average, per employer.
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 first sentence of your post and i are exactly in agreement... but there are people who say they are rights & the second sentence of your post contradicts the first sentence...is minimum wage a right or is it not? if it is a "right" then it has been granted at the expense of an employer who may not wish to pay minimum wage...exactly like i said in my post that you pooh pooh'ed
here is what i think (and i apologize for not making myself clear earlier)
minimum wage...there should be no minimum wage law...the employer and the employee should be free to agree to whatever wage they want. to say i have to pay any certain wage to any certain employee is to steal my rights and give them to somebody else...i no longer have the freedom to pay what i want (or do without an employee)...you have, in effect, stolen my rights to artificially create a right in the employee.
vacation..i and my employees will decide what vacation, if any, i give them...to artificially create the "right" to some definite (or even indefinite) term of vacation, means you have stolen my rights as an employer to set the terms and conditions of working for me.
home loan...yeah, tell that to the bank who's sued for not making loans...they determined that the person wasn't credit worthy, but got sued anyway on some bogus claim of discrimination.
now, i know what you are going to say (well, actually, you are probably going to say a lot, and i don't know all of it...but i do know some) what about safety issues Dave...isn't workplace safety the same...why do we have to have workplace safety laws...can't the employer and employee agree on an unsafe workplace and just keep the government out....to which i say, well yes they could, but that is unrealistic to even the most hardcore Libertarian.
when it comes to safety and a safe workplace that seems to me to be where we draw the lin e...i am not even sure why, but i know i draw it there... no employee should have to work in a place of UNREASONABLE hazard (unreasonable, of course, being militated by the nature of the job, what steps the employer took to protect them etc)
drug use on the job is definitely one of the thing that can create an unsafe workplace. no one should be allowed to use drugs while at work, nor to be intoxicated while at work.
as far as wage laws, vacation laws etc...that should be between the employer and the employee and if the employee does not like what the employer offers, don't work for him.
That's funny, I always felt like I was in a position of power looking for a job, until lately.
And now that I'm getting near 60 it is harder to get a job. I have no doubt that this is caused by the fact employers have been regulated to the point where many are afraid to hire. It's very difficult, despite all the talk about at will employment to fire some employees.
Case in point. An old buddy of mine was sent to rehab 3 times. This was on top of the various and sundry other events that blacken his record. And remember that as a teacher he was working with children.
Well the school decided that 3 strikes is an out. The union didn't agree. So rather than get the axe he got disability. That's right a paycheck and benefits for life.
I didn't realize how common this was until the local newspaper did a front page piece about the practice.
An employer does well to avoid a mis-hire. This one will cost millions of dollars.
With every possible respect I disagree with the theory that the employer is in a position of power. They are regularly forced to hire people that are not their first choice. They are forced to deal with people who don't show up for work but are protected. They are forced to match most of the deductions made in your paycheck like SS, unemployment, medicare, etc etc.
INC recently compared Norway with the US and found that among other advantages Norway has is the availability of an educated capable literate workforce. Being forced to hire from a less than stellar pool of applicants isn't being in a position of power.
And then an employer can held responsible for your action not only on the job but increasing off the job.
There's a reason fewer and fewer people are willing to deal with this.
I suggest that we as a people start to respect those willing to engage in the act of starting a business and providing jobs for people.
_________________________________________________________
And now that I'm getting near 60 it is harder to get a job. I have no doubt that this is caused by the fact employers have been regulated to the point where many are afraid to hire. It's very difficult, despite all the talk about at will employment to fire some employees.
Case in point. An old buddy of mine was sent to rehab 3 times. This was on top of the various and sundry other events that blacken his record. And remember that as a teacher he was working with children.
Well the school decided that 3 strikes is an out. The union didn't agree. So rather than get the axe he got disability. That's right a paycheck and benefits for life.
I didn't realize how common this was until the local newspaper did a front page piece about the practice.
An employer does well to avoid a mis-hire. This one will cost millions of dollars.
With every possible respect I disagree with the theory that the employer is in a position of power. They are regularly forced to hire people that are not their first choice. They are forced to deal with people who don't show up for work but are protected. They are forced to match most of the deductions made in your paycheck like SS, unemployment, medicare, etc etc.
INC recently compared Norway with the US and found that among other advantages Norway has is the availability of an educated capable literate workforce. Being forced to hire from a less than stellar pool of applicants isn't being in a position of power.
And then an employer can held responsible for your action not only on the job but increasing off the job.
There's a reason fewer and fewer people are willing to deal with this.
I suggest that we as a people start to respect those willing to engage in the act of starting a business and providing jobs for people.
_________________________________________________________
I support your position on no minimum wage. The fact is there are millions of people who are not worth minimum wage.
Many of these would be worth much more than minimum wage if they were to work a couple of years at a job and develop a skill set that was marketable.
However minimum wage laws prevent this from happening and thus we have millions of people who will never escape from a trap they set for themselves.
And I agree about the banks being coerced into making bad loans to people who are, were, will be unable to pay them back.
Allowing people to live with the results of their choices is a good learning experience for them.
Many of these would be worth much more than minimum wage if they were to work a couple of years at a job and develop a skill set that was marketable.
However minimum wage laws prevent this from happening and thus we have millions of people who will never escape from a trap they set for themselves.
And I agree about the banks being coerced into making bad loans to people who are, were, will be unable to pay them back.
Allowing people to live with the results of their choices is a good learning experience for them.
the first sentence of your post and i are exactly in agreement... but there are people who say they are rights & the second sentence of your post contradicts the first sentence...is minimum wage a right or is it not? if it is a "right" then it has been granted at the expense of an employer who may not wish to pay minimum wage...exactly like i said in my post that you pooh pooh'ed
here is what i think (and i apologize for not making myself clear earlier)
minimum wage...there should be no minimum wage law...the employer and the employee should be free to agree to whatever wage they want. to say i have to pay any certain wage to any certain employee is to steal my rights and give them to somebody else...i no longer have the freedom to pay what i want (or do without an employee...you have, in effect, stolen my rights to artificially create a right in the employee.
vacation..i and my employees will decide what vacation, if any, i give them...to artificially create the "right" to some definite (or even indefinite) term of vacation, means you have stolen my rights as an employer to set the terms and conditions of working for me.
home loan...yeah, tell that to the bank who's sued for not making loans...they determined that the person wasn't credit worthy, but got sued anyway on some bogus claim of discrimination.
now, i know what you are going to say (well, actually, you are probably going to say a lot, and i don't know all of it...but i do know some) what about safety issues Dave...isn't workplace safety the same...why do we have to have workplace safety laws...can't the employer and employee agree on an unsafe workplace and just keep the government out....to which i say, well yes they could, but that is unrealistic to even the most hardcore Libertarian.
when it comes to safety and a safe workplace that seems to me to be where we draw the lin e...i am not even sure why, but i know i draw it there... no employee should have to work in a place of UNREASONABLE hazard (unreasonable, of course, being militated by the nature of the job, what steps the employer took to protect them etc)
drug use on the job is definitely one of the thing that can create an unsafe workplace. no one should be allowed to use drugs while at work, nor to be intoxicated while at work.
as far as wage laws, vacation laws etc...that should be between the employer and the employee and if the employee does not like what the employer offers, don't work for him.
Here's a few facts most of you probably don't realize. Particularly where a small business earning under 150k a year are concerned. Two employees cost me around 18k per year in Workers compensation insurance, which by the way, if an employee is hurt he is drug tested. If he is dirty, he is screwed. Not my rules. Ten years ago I had a choice.The premiums were higher if I did not require drug testing and I paid them because I knew my employees smoked weed occasionally. These days they are mandatory. No way around it.
Then you have actual payroll, which is approximately 90k. UI, to the tune of about 2k per worker, which is completely paid by the employer so no, none of you paid into your unemployment fund. Matching FICA to the feds, which I am sorry to say, I did not enjoy the same 2% decrease they called an "Income tax holiday" that my employees received. Then you have federal UI, to the tune of about 1k per worker. Then you have general liability and a policy to cover my equipment, which is another 2k. Then you have lead abatement licensing, which is around $400 per worker. This is all above regular operating costs. Basically when it comes down to it, I bring home less than my employees do. The main difference being that I have all the headaches, or more appropriately, my wife has all the headaches involving paperwork, regulatory fees, etc..
Yes I am a business owner and therefore I am evil and corrupt. Except that even though I now have a great job ( which I submit to drug testing for) and I no longer need to have this business, I choose to keep it open so that my employees continue to have jobs. Do I randomly drug test them? No. Would I if it would save me a couple grand a year? I would almost have to. Now, you add into it the cost of implementation of the new health care law and my employees very well may end up looking for new jobs, we'll see.
Anyway, slightly off topic, but I am trying to make you understand that owning a business is NOT easy and is not nearly as lucrative and greed/profit driven as you all seem to think. I like to think I am doing my two employees a favor by continuing to provide them with a decent living, but between the government and insurance companies, it makes it extremely difficult.
Then you have actual payroll, which is approximately 90k. UI, to the tune of about 2k per worker, which is completely paid by the employer so no, none of you paid into your unemployment fund. Matching FICA to the feds, which I am sorry to say, I did not enjoy the same 2% decrease they called an "Income tax holiday" that my employees received. Then you have federal UI, to the tune of about 1k per worker. Then you have general liability and a policy to cover my equipment, which is another 2k. Then you have lead abatement licensing, which is around $400 per worker. This is all above regular operating costs. Basically when it comes down to it, I bring home less than my employees do. The main difference being that I have all the headaches, or more appropriately, my wife has all the headaches involving paperwork, regulatory fees, etc..
Yes I am a business owner and therefore I am evil and corrupt. Except that even though I now have a great job ( which I submit to drug testing for) and I no longer need to have this business, I choose to keep it open so that my employees continue to have jobs. Do I randomly drug test them? No. Would I if it would save me a couple grand a year? I would almost have to. Now, you add into it the cost of implementation of the new health care law and my employees very well may end up looking for new jobs, we'll see.
Anyway, slightly off topic, but I am trying to make you understand that owning a business is NOT easy and is not nearly as lucrative and greed/profit driven as you all seem to think. I like to think I am doing my two employees a favor by continuing to provide them with a decent living, but between the government and insurance companies, it makes it extremely difficult.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
minimum wage...there should be no minimum wage law...the employer and the employee should be free to agree to whatever wage they want. to say i have to pay any certain wage to any certain employee is to steal my rights and give them to somebody else...i no longer have the freedom to pay what i want (or do without an employee)...you have, in effect, stolen my rights to artificially create a right in the employee.
Funny. I think there should be a maximum wage, because the wage gap in this country is nearly unsustainable.
So do they require that you use drugs or that you don't use them?
Some jobs could sure benefit if some people had some pot...
Some jobs could sure benefit if some people had some pot...
It's your right to be unemployed if you won't conform to your employers rules. At some point there has to be accountability of one's behavior. I don't ever recall working for a successful business owner that let everyone do whatever they thought they had "a right" to do. And bare in mind, there are no rights if there aren't wrongs.
Put on your big boy/big girl pants and do the job. If you don't like it then you try running a show where you're dodging everyone's "rights".
Put on your big boy/big girl pants and do the job. If you don't like it then you try running a show where you're dodging everyone's "rights".
I can't make people do a test to see if they are religious or homosexual or ugly or old and then hire them based on that decision. Of course I could always hire somebody else, but even requesting somebody disclose most of that information in a job interview is unlawful as it provides a basis for discrimination.
If you could accurately test someone to see if they are intoxicated while actually on the job, I'm all for it. Obviously it's something that should only really be used to confirm suspicions, but in a job where other peoples lives are at risk it's quite necessary.
Are you allowed to hire or fire employees based on the fact that they drink alcohol at home? smoke cigarettes? Play bass guitar? Surf?
Why should an employer have a right to discriminate against one particular facet of society when nearly all others are protected by anti-discrimination laws?
Arguably yes, simply because it is illegal, but I don't believe that to be just for exactly the same reason.
- Status
