mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (12/16/86)
Yes, I do oppose those laws. It has been so long now since I
sent the mail that I have forgotten the context; I believe that it had
something to do with drug testing.
Anyway, while I agree with you in general, I think your
argument needs a little work. Most employers can dismiss employees
during or following a short "probationary" period and show little or
no cause; hence an employer can try out a new employee with less risk
than you imply (of course, the expense of hiring new employees is
still substantial, what with SS benefits, Federal and state
checkoffs...but I digress).
The major point is still this. Employers have a hard time
establishing to a court that employees aren't doing an adequate job.
So long as employers can't can people for arbitrary reasons, you're
going to have things like widespread drug testing. Why? Courts may
not accept "he was doing a lousy job" as adequate for dismissal, but
"he snorted enough cocaine to choke a medium-sized horse" ought to do
the trick.
Liberals take note: *this* is the effect of labour protection
and civil rights legislation. I wonder how our friends in the ADA,
the ACLU and the AFL-CIO feel now? Of course, if they regretted, this
would imply that liberals can learn -- in which case, of course,
they'd be conservatives.
This message brought to you courtesy of Redbusters.
-- Rick.
-------KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (12/16/86)
[Due an error on my part, the reply to this message appeared in the
last issue of Poli-Sci. My apologies to both gentlemen - CWM]
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
Wrongo, Keith. Under current law in most states employers
are subject to a civil suit if they dismiss an employee without
cause, and may be forced to rehire the employee and pay damages if
cause cannot be shown.
I oppose those laws, of course. Don't you? If not, please tell us
how you would feel about a law which subjected shoppers to civil suits
for ceasing to shop at a given store without cause, or which subjected
employees to civil suits for resigning from their jobs without cause?
If there were such laws, don't you think that shoppers would be very
reluctant to try shopping at a new store, knowing that they wouldn't
be allowed to stop shopping there without being subject to a lawsuit?
Wouldn't employees be reluctant to start working for a given company
if they knew that they would not be allowed to quit? And don't you
think that proponents of these laws would point out how these very
reluctances as evidence that the laws are needed?
...Keith
-------kfl@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (01/05/87)
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
The major point is still this. Employers have a hard time
establishing to a court that employees aren't doing an adequate
job.
They shouldn't have to, any more than employees should have to
establish anything in court in order to resign.
So long as employers can't can people for arbitrary reasons,
you're going to have things like widespread drug testing.
Probably true. Which makes it ironic that most opponents of drug
testing apparently oppose individual rights for employers.
Why? Courts may not accept "he was doing a lousy job" as adequate
for dismissal, but "he snorted enough cocaine to choke a
medium-sized horse" ought to do the trick.
Sad but true. Of course employers ought not fire someone simply
because they use drugs, unless the drug use causes them to do poor
work. And if they are doing poor work, it is hardly relevant whether
it is due to drug use or not.
(Which is not to say that employers should be forbidden by law from
requiring drug tests - in case anyone misinterpets my saying
"employers ought not" as meaning "there ought to be a law".)
Liberals take note: *this* is the effect of labour
protection and civil rights legislation. I wonder how our friends
in the ADA, the ACLU and the AFL-CIO feel now? Of course, if they
regretted, this would imply that liberals can learn -- in which
case, of course, they'd be conservatives.
More likely they would be libertarians or objectivists.
...Keith
-------mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (01/20/87)
[From KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu Sun Nov 16 15:49:48 1986]
Sad but true. Of course employers ought not fire someone
simply because they use drugs, unless the drug use causes them
to do poor work. And if they are doing poor work, it is
hardly relevant whether it is due to drug use or not.
(Which is not to say that employers should be forbidden by
law from requiring drug tests - in case anyone misinterpets my
saying "employers ought not" as meaning "there ought to be a
law".)
I forgot to mention employer costs for sickness and disability.
Suppose an employee does an adequate job, but uses cocaine, alcohol,
or tobacco to an extent that causes him to miss work time due to
drug-related illness, or to use his employer-provided health benefits
to an extent that the premiums increase? I merely point this out to
observe that employers in the 1980's have legitimate concerns about
their employees' fitness, which of course means that employers have an
interest in ensuring that their employees do not abuse substances such
as cocaine, alcohol, or tobacco. Of course, one can argue that
substantial sick leave is one component of job performance, and that
the solution to the health plan problem is to refuse to cover
employees that fail to abide by a health code rather than refuse to
hire such employees. Of course, the unions and the liberals will
scream blue murder ... and the courts would probably hold such
exclusions unlawful...but these are details that need not concern us
here.
Well, we are so close to full agreement that this is my last message
on the subject, unless you think that there is some point in
continuing...
All the best, Rick.
-------