Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Drug testing in the workplace

jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 6:13:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The title pretty much says it all. Should a company have the right to require a drug test in order to get hired and or require random drug tests for employee's?

I am personally strongly against this and I think it violates people's privacy. Wanted to get some other opinions on this.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 2:44:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 6:13:49 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
The title pretty much says it all. Should a company have the right to require a drug test in order to get hired and or require random drug tests for employee's?

I am personally strongly against this and I think it violates people's privacy. Wanted to get some other opinions on this.

Yes, businesses should have the right to ask this of potential employees.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 6:52:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 2:44:39 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:13:49 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
The title pretty much says it all. Should a company have the right to require a drug test in order to get hired and or require random drug tests for employee's?

I am personally strongly against this and I think it violates people's privacy. Wanted to get some other opinions on this.

Yes, businesses should have the right to ask this of potential employees.

Why? It has nothing to do with your job unless your applying to be a cop or DEA agent.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2014 8:19:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 6:52:28 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 9/22/2014 2:44:39 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:13:49 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
The title pretty much says it all. Should a company have the right to require a drug test in order to get hired and or require random drug tests for employee's?

I am personally strongly against this and I think it violates people's privacy. Wanted to get some other opinions on this.

Yes, businesses should have the right to ask this of potential employees.

Why? It has nothing to do with your job unless your applying to be a cop or DEA agent.

Why would it have to do with those jobs and not others?
My work here is, finally, done.
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 6:15:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2014 8:19:34 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/22/2014 6:52:28 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 9/22/2014 2:44:39 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:13:49 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
The title pretty much says it all. Should a company have the right to require a drug test in order to get hired and or require random drug tests for employee's?

I am personally strongly against this and I think it violates people's privacy. Wanted to get some other opinions on this.

Yes, businesses should have the right to ask this of potential employees.

Why? It has nothing to do with your job unless your applying to be a cop or DEA agent.

Why would it have to do with those jobs and not others?

Well if your enforcing the same anti drug laws that you are actively breaking its a bit hypocritical.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 7:27:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 6:15:15 AM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 9/22/2014 8:19:34 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Why? It has nothing to do with your job unless your applying to be a cop or DEA agent.

Why would it have to do with those jobs and not others?

Well if your enforcing the same anti drug laws that you are actively breaking its a bit hypocritical.

Oh, I wasn't aware police lose their jobs if they get a speeding ticket.

So, your point is that they are enforcing laws, and nothing more?
So, why can't a business owner say "I don't want people who actively break the law on a regular basis"?
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 7:30:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 7:27:04 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/23/2014 6:15:15 AM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 9/22/2014 8:19:34 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Why? It has nothing to do with your job unless your applying to be a cop or DEA agent.

Why would it have to do with those jobs and not others?

Well if your enforcing the same anti drug laws that you are actively breaking its a bit hypocritical.

Oh, I wasn't aware police lose their jobs if they get a speeding ticket.

So, your point is that they are enforcing laws, and nothing more?
So, why can't a business owner say "I don't want people who actively break the law on a regular basis"?

Drug testing...background checks...closely related.

However, most jobs that involve heavy machinery are required to drug test or they lose their insurance. It's voluntary, you can take a walk.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 7:41:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 7:30:04 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/23/2014 7:27:04 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/23/2014 6:15:15 AM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 9/22/2014 8:19:34 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Why? It has nothing to do with your job unless your applying to be a cop or DEA agent.

Why would it have to do with those jobs and not others?

Well if your enforcing the same anti drug laws that you are actively breaking its a bit hypocritical.

Oh, I wasn't aware police lose their jobs if they get a speeding ticket.

So, your point is that they are enforcing laws, and nothing more?
So, why can't a business owner say "I don't want people who actively break the law on a regular basis"?

Drug testing...background checks...closely related.

However, most jobs that involve heavy machinery are required to drug test or they lose their insurance. It's voluntary, you can take a walk.

I'm aware of this.
I was exploring his exceptions first.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 7:44:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 7:41:59 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/23/2014 7:30:04 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/23/2014 7:27:04 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/23/2014 6:15:15 AM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 9/22/2014 8:19:34 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Why? It has nothing to do with your job unless your applying to be a cop or DEA agent.

Why would it have to do with those jobs and not others?

Well if your enforcing the same anti drug laws that you are actively breaking its a bit hypocritical.

Oh, I wasn't aware police lose their jobs if they get a speeding ticket.

So, your point is that they are enforcing laws, and nothing more?
So, why can't a business owner say "I don't want people who actively break the law on a regular basis"?

Drug testing...background checks...closely related.

However, most jobs that involve heavy machinery are required to drug test or they lose their insurance. It's voluntary, you can take a walk.

I'm aware of this.
I was exploring his exceptions first.

I was attacking his violation of privacy claim sorry.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 3:50:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 6:13:49 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
The title pretty much says it all. Should a company have the right to require a drug test in order to get hired and or require random drug tests for employee's?

I am personally strongly against this and I think it violates people's privacy. Wanted to get some other opinions on this.

Strictly only when such a policy can be justified by safety considerations.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 4:04:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 7:30:04 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
It's voluntary, you can take a walk.

To the unemployment line or homeless shelter (our society is in fact most certainly not a worker's paradise in which one always has ample employment opportunities to choose among)? Perhaps such a "choice" is technically a "voluntary" one, but in the harsh reality of real-world capitalism it's frequently somewhat coercive.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 4:10:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 7:27:04 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

So, why can't a business owner say "I don't want people who actively break the law on a regular basis"?

Because then s/he is arrogating to him/herself the role and authority of boss of his workers' lives, not merely boss of the workplace. (Not that I consider the autocracy of the workplace to be legitimate, as a socialist I most certainly hold a quite different view.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 4:32:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 4:10:34 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/23/2014 7:27:04 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

So, why can't a business owner say "I don't want people who actively break the law on a regular basis"?

Because then s/he is arrogating to him/herself the role and authority of boss of his workers' lives, not merely boss of the workplace. (Not that I consider the autocracy of the workplace to be legitimate, as a socialist I most certainly hold a quite different view.)

How is that different that than judging employment eligibility based on past personal experiences, like criminal history?
How is that different than firing someone for going to jail?

Also, didn't you live in NYC? Did you move?
My work here is, finally, done.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 5:20:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
When drug use impacts worker performance and productivity, it is a company's business to know. If you have prescription medications, that should not be held against you--but if you're taking recreational drugs that could hinder your ability to be an effective employee, a company should be able to fire you, make you go to rehab, or tell you to quit.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 6:07:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 4:04:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/23/2014 7:30:04 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
It's voluntary, you can take a walk.

To the unemployment line or homeless shelter (our society is in fact most certainly not a worker's paradise in which one always has ample employment opportunities to choose among)? Perhaps such a "choice" is technically a "voluntary" one, but in the harsh reality of real-world capitalism it's frequently somewhat coercive.

Not everyone wants to work and not take drugs Charles.
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 6:44:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 7:27:04 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/23/2014 6:15:15 AM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 9/22/2014 8:19:34 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Why? It has nothing to do with your job unless your applying to be a cop or DEA agent.

Why would it have to do with those jobs and not others?

Well if your enforcing the same anti drug laws that you are actively breaking its a bit hypocritical.

Oh, I wasn't aware police lose their jobs if they get a speeding ticket.

So, your point is that they are enforcing laws, and nothing more?
So, why can't a business owner say "I don't want people who actively break the law on a regular basis"?

I never said that a cop should be fired for speeding.... Your putting words in my mouth

Business owner can't require lie detector tests to see if you've ever commuted a crime so I don't see why they should be allowed to drug test? Both seem to be equally invasive in my opinion.

As for the breaking the law part it's legal in several states and decriminalized in many other and yet you can still be drug tested and fired "although it is still illegal federally". But I'm thinking from more of a moral standpoint than a legal one.
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 6:45:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 3:50:32 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:13:49 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
The title pretty much says it all. Should a company have the right to require a drug test in order to get hired and or require random drug tests for employee's?

I am personally strongly against this and I think it violates people's privacy. Wanted to get some other opinions on this.

Strictly only when such a policy can be justified by safety considerations.

How could me smoking weed at home on my free time possibly create safety concerns while I'm at work and sober?
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 6:50:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 5:20:08 PM, bsh1 wrote:
When drug use impacts worker performance and productivity, it is a company's business to know. If you have prescription medications, that should not be held against you--but if you're taking recreational drugs that could hinder your ability to be an effective employee, a company should be able to fire you, make you go to rehab, or tell you to quit.

I agree completely, but what about when your drug use does not hinder your work ability? If you suspect someone is intoxicated on the job sure give then a drug test to see if they really are. But testing people for no reason is unreasonable.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 6:58:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 6:50:56 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 5:20:08 PM, bsh1 wrote:
When drug use impacts worker performance and productivity, it is a company's business to know. If you have prescription medications, that should not be held against you--but if you're taking recreational drugs that could hinder your ability to be an effective employee, a company should be able to fire you, make you go to rehab, or tell you to quit.

I agree completely, but what about when your drug use does not hinder your work ability? If you suspect someone is intoxicated on the job sure give then a drug test to see if they really are. But testing people for no reason is unreasonable.

I think that it isn't always apparent if you're intoxicated or not. Companies should be able to exercise their prerogative (i.e. they should be able to enforce policies that promote an effective work force) in this matter and should be able to test for drugs. If prescription drugs or over-the-counter medication, or medication that is neither illegal nor harmful to productivity is detected, no action should be taken. If drugs that are illegal or harmful to productivity are detected, then employees should be warned, disciplined, fired, or reported to the local law enforcement as appropriate.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 7:37:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 6:44:39 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 9/23/2014 7:27:04 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/23/2014 6:15:15 AM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 9/22/2014 8:19:34 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Why? It has nothing to do with your job unless your applying to be a cop or DEA agent.

Why would it have to do with those jobs and not others?

Well if your enforcing the same anti drug laws that you are actively breaking its a bit hypocritical.

Oh, I wasn't aware police lose their jobs if they get a speeding ticket.

So, your point is that they are enforcing laws, and nothing more?
So, why can't a business owner say "I don't want people who actively break the law on a regular basis"?

I never said that a cop should be fired for speeding.... Your putting words in my mouth

You said it is hypocritical.
Therefore it is hypocritical to enforce any law of which the cop has broken.

Business owner can't require lie detector tests to see if you've ever commuted a crime so I don't see why they should be allowed to drug test? Both seem to be equally invasive in my opinion.
It's called a background check.
Invasion of privacy? You mean like personal/professional references?

As for the breaking the law part it's legal in several states and decriminalized in many other and yet you can still be drug tested and fired "although it is still illegal federally". But I'm thinking from more of a moral standpoint than a legal one.

Some people are fired for having an affair or other non-legal things.
What, exactly, is your issue?

Privacy? You have if you are aware of these drug tests upon hiring, are you not? You agree to them, do you not? So where is the infringement?
There is no right, unless you have a right to a job. Is that your contention?

Is it an infringement of privacy if work requires a doctors note for my absence, too?
My work here is, finally, done.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2014 11:42:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is drug testing mandated to rid employees who are using the drugs because the drugs are enacted as illegal, or for the notion that the drugs potentially hinder the employees performance? Perhaps both, albeit, personally if I was a business owner, the latter would be the incentive for my drug testing.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 12:15:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 11:42:05 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
Is drug testing mandated to rid employees who are using the drugs because the drugs are enacted as illegal, or for the notion that the drugs potentially hinder the employees performance? Perhaps both, albeit, personally if I was a business owner, the latter would be the incentive for my drug testing.

Because they are illegal, one could make the argument that allowing illegal use of drugs is an unnecessary risk, given the employee may at any time be thrown in jail and/or have a bad image for the company.

However, assuming they were legal, the issue is that performance may be affected. There are insurance issues to be considered, too.
I think that as long as use stays out of the workplace and performance is unaffected, it shouldn't matter, but it is the employer's choice.
My work here is, finally, done.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 5:17:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 4:32:45 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:10:34 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/23/2014 7:27:04 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

So, why can't a business owner say "I don't want people who actively break the law on a regular basis"?

Because then s/he is arrogating to him/herself the role and authority of boss of his workers' lives, not merely boss of the workplace. (Not that I consider the autocracy of the workplace to be legitimate, as a socialist I most certainly hold a quite different view.)

How is that different that than judging employment eligibility based on past personal experiences, like criminal history?

I would only be in favor of employers being allowed to take a job applicant's criminal record into consideration when it's unambiguously relevant to the position in question; for instance, a convicted embezzler seeking a position as company accountant.

How is that different than firing someone for going to jail?

If someone is jailed and held for a term in jail then s/he can't very well perform his/her job and might therefore be discharged from employment for that legitimate reason. If someone is jailed and in short order released on bail then his/her employer shouldn't even be aware of his/her run-in with the so-called criminal justice system. At any rate, that I'm aware of, there are no persuasive rationalizations for allowing employers to intrude into, judge, and impinge upon every aspect of an employee's life as if an employee is a mere peon of a subject and an employer a little tin king, the jurisdiction of whose realm by divine right encompasses the private lives of those who toil for him.

Also, didn't you live in NYC? Did you move?

No.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2014 5:33:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/23/2014 6:07:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:04:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/23/2014 7:30:04 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
It's voluntary, you can take a walk.

To the unemployment line or homeless shelter (our society is in fact most certainly not a worker's paradise in which one always has ample employment opportunities to choose among)? Perhaps such a "choice" is technically a "voluntary" one, but in the harsh reality of real-world capitalism it's frequently somewhat coercive.

Not everyone wants to work and not take drugs Charles.

But then of course that one is using a criminalized chemical substance is not relevant to every form of work that working-class drug takers might perform. When it's indeed the case that one's drug use is not relevant to one's reliability or job performance then employers should certainly not be permitted to mandate drug tests and discriminate on the basis of their results. Again, employers are not little tin kings who have the divine right to do whatever they please in their realm. That employers are in fact permitted to behave like such high-and-mighty autocrats much of the time is of course one of the fundamental evils of the capitalist system.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 6:18:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/24/2014 5:33:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/23/2014 6:07:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:04:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/23/2014 7:30:04 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
It's voluntary, you can take a walk.

To the unemployment line or homeless shelter (our society is in fact most certainly not a worker's paradise in which one always has ample employment opportunities to choose among)? Perhaps such a "choice" is technically a "voluntary" one, but in the harsh reality of real-world capitalism it's frequently somewhat coercive.

Not everyone wants to work and not take drugs Charles.

But then of course that one is using a criminalized chemical substance is not relevant to every form of work that working-class drug takers might perform. When it's indeed the case that one's drug use is not relevant to one's reliability or job performance then employers should certainly not be permitted to mandate drug tests and discriminate on the basis of their results. Again, employers are not little tin kings who have the divine right to do whatever they please in their realm. That employers are in fact permitted to behave like such high-and-mighty autocrats much of the time is of course one of the fundamental evils of the capitalist system.

Interesting. Why would employers automatically be disqualified from deciding if drugs are inappropriate or relavant for their workplace?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 3:04:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 6:18:43 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/24/2014 5:33:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/23/2014 6:07:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:04:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/23/2014 7:30:04 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
It's voluntary, you can take a walk.

To the unemployment line or homeless shelter (our society is in fact most certainly not a worker's paradise in which one always has ample employment opportunities to choose among)? Perhaps such a "choice" is technically a "voluntary" one, but in the harsh reality of real-world capitalism it's frequently somewhat coercive.

Not everyone wants to work and not take drugs Charles.

But then of course that one is using a criminalized chemical substance is not relevant to every form of work that working-class drug takers might perform. When it's indeed the case that one's drug use is not relevant to one's reliability or job performance then employers should certainly not be permitted to mandate drug tests and discriminate on the basis of their results. Again, employers are not little tin kings who have the divine right to do whatever they please in their realm. That employers are in fact permitted to behave like such high-and-mighty autocrats much of the time is of course one of the fundamental evils of the capitalist system.

Interesting. Why would employers automatically be disqualified from deciding if drugs are inappropriate or relavant for their workplace?

Well, it's actually quite elementary. An employer's interests don't take precedence over the civil rights of workingpeople.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 11:21:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 3:04:18 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/25/2014 6:18:43 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/24/2014 5:33:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/23/2014 6:07:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/23/2014 4:04:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/23/2014 7:30:04 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
It's voluntary, you can take a walk.

To the unemployment line or homeless shelter (our society is in fact most certainly not a worker's paradise in which one always has ample employment opportunities to choose among)? Perhaps such a "choice" is technically a "voluntary" one, but in the harsh reality of real-world capitalism it's frequently somewhat coercive.

Not everyone wants to work and not take drugs Charles.

But then of course that one is using a criminalized chemical substance is not relevant to every form of work that working-class drug takers might perform. When it's indeed the case that one's drug use is not relevant to one's reliability or job performance then employers should certainly not be permitted to mandate drug tests and discriminate on the basis of their results. Again, employers are not little tin kings who have the divine right to do whatever they please in their realm. That employers are in fact permitted to behave like such high-and-mighty autocrats much of the time is of course one of the fundamental evils of the capitalist system.

Interesting. Why would employers automatically be disqualified from deciding if drugs are inappropriate or relavant for their workplace?

Well, it's actually quite elementary. An employer's interests don't take precedence over the civil rights of workingpeople.

But there is no infringement of anyone's rights.
Employees voluntarily sign a work contract.
Noone has a right to force people to sign or accept contracts. That is liberty.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 11:47:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let's take a step back and look at what we know about the subject of smoking tabacco.

How many employers enjoy the lost productivity in smoke breaks?
How many employers enjoy the inconsistency of behavior, due to addiction of nicotine?
How many employers/employees pay more in health insurance because of smokers?
How many employers enjoy the smell of it?
Enjoy the complaint by other of it?

Why is any other drug immune from these concerns?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 12:38:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Now, let's examine life issues that people aren't hired for:

Criminal history - because they may rape a coworker or steal from you
Legal matters - because if they have sued every employer in the past, they may sue you
Education - What's that, they are currently going to college? Why should I hire a fry cook if he is likely going to quit when he graduates.
Financial troubles - hmmmm, he has a gambling problem or his car may be repossessed
Second job - why hire someone who is only looking for part time help if you need a long term employee?
Married/Kids - will they miss work? Is the spouse the breadwinner and may move....again due to job (like army)?
Intelligence - duh.......
Known associates - rule of thumb is to not hire friends and/or family if it can be avoided. Managers are not allowed to date their underlings.
Non-competition agreement - How dare you work for a competitor in your free time?!?

These all deal with life choices.
Should all of these factors be ignored as well?
My work here is, finally, done.