hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA (09/16/86)
To: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mit-mc.ARPA>
Keith:
Unfortunately, your "hands off business" attitude will lead to
more problems and bring us closer to the world as described in
"Brazil" than a simple regulation stating "NO DRUG TESTING" as
a condition to employment would. Will you then allow employers
to put cameras in people's apartments? Is that next? In your
view, the employees would "gang up" on the employer. Obviously,
you don't understand corporate culture. The employees would
be infiltrated from above and any move at rebellion would be
quashed by the mgmt through threats of firing.
Also:
Requiring drug testing before getting a job would lead to
a brain drain in this country as people head towards free-er
regions.
Hofmann
-------KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/16/86)
From: James B Hofmann <hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
On personal beliefs and how they tie into drug testing:
> That is between each individual employee and his employer.
No, it is between the indivicual employee and his God.
Certainly. It doesn't matter whether the employee is acting on
instructions from God, or from his mother, or what. If he and his
employer cannot agree on drug testing, he should seek work elsewhere.
You Randroids think that just because you don't believe in God
that everyone else should follow suit.
I deeply resent your presumption about my religious beliefs. I have
not mentioned my religious beliefs on this list simply because I do
not think they are germane to the discussion.
I hardly find this "symetrical" - I mean, I can't go up to my
boss and ask HIM to piss in a cup and then send it away for
testing, now can I?
You sure can! You can tell him that is a condition of your
continued employment. If he refuses to take the test, you can demand
that of your next employer. If no employer is willing to do so, you
will have to moderate your position or do without a job. Similarly,
employers are free to ask employees to take such a test as a condition
of their continued employment. If the employee refuses, the employer
can demand that other employees take the test. If they all refuse,
the employer can moderate his position or can do without employees.
It is perfectly symmetrical. In an uncoerced economy there is no
distinction between buyer and seller, and there is no distinction
between employee and employer.
... To REQUIRE someone piss in a bottle and have his personal
dignity trampled on in order to get a job where the safety or
security of others isn't threatened is to PUT ASIDE the
Constitution and the English Common Law principle of innocent
until proven guilty.
You misunderstand the constitution and the law. To be PRESUMED
innocent until proven guilty is a right due to all criminal suspects.
It has nothing to do with the behavior of private citizens and
corporations. For instance if a bank suspects a teller of embezzling,
they do not have to prove it in court and send him to jail in order to
fire him for it.
You mention jobs relating to the "safety and security of others" as
an exception. Who decides which jobs those are? Doesn't the behavior
of every employee affect the safety and security of fellow employees
and of the company's customers and stockholders?
> What about game show contestants on TV? Or people on the old
> show "Candid Camera". Don't you think that behavior is
> undignified? But I see no problem with it so long as
> individuals agree that the compensation they are getting is
> worth the indignity.
You are mistaking TV with reality, Keith... ding dong. You in
there? Just like Ayn, you have this problem of confusing the
screen with real-life. Those game shows are fun and leisure -
here we're talking about SERIOUS BUSINESS, Keith.
Performing on TV is just as legitimate a job as any other. People
who appear on game shows are not guaranteed a payment for their
performance, but have to beg, and guess what's behind door number two,
and demonstrate that they are willing to jump up and down and scream
and make an ass out of themselves if they win something. Most of the
people who do this do this because they need the money. Not because
they think it's a neat idea to play the fool in front of millions of
viewers.
... Will you then require people to get piss-tested in order to
register to vote ...
NO!
1) EVERYONE should be allowed to vote. Not just non-users of drugs.
2) The tests are not very reliable.
3) This discussion is about PRIVATE use of drug tests, not about
government use, which I have made clear I totally oppose, just
as I oppose all drug laws.
What about MY grounds and MY right to apply for the job on the
basis of my ability ...
What about it? If you and your potential employer reach a meeting
of minds on salary, job requirements, etc, nobody is stopping you.
YOU are trying to infringe the employer's right to set requirements as
he sees fit.
... what happens after a postitive is found on a person ...
Well, if the employer intends to not hire people who test positive,
the person who tests positive will not be hired.
... will the employer then forward the results to the
authorities...?
Well, as you know I oppose laws against drug use. In fact, as far
as I know there ARE NO laws against drug use, only against possession,
buying, selling, and manufacture. In any case, a positive urine test
is not reliable enough to base a prosecution on.
... Will the employer eventually be required to forward the
results to the police? ...
You are not arguing against anything *I* advocate.
In order to be fair to EVERYONE, the U.S. goverment will either
have to make drug testing a priori ILLEGAL or have EVERYONE in the
U.S. tested.
People, even employers, have the right to be unfair. You seem to
totally misunderstand my position. It doesn't matter if the employer
uses a crystal ball and a horoscope to make employment decisions.
That is his right. He has the right to be stupid.
So, in essence what you are saying is that the employer should
round up all the unemployed and give them piss tests and then file
away everything (with cc's to the gov't of course) and classify
everyone on the basis of a test that is 90% effective.
No.
In fact I got chewed out by my supervisor for having complained to
our personnel officer about our company's drug tests. The personnel
officer said that the tests were 99% accurate (which I disputed) and
that it was none of my business anyway since I wouldn't have to take
one, only new employees would. She also insinuated that maybe I was a
drug user myself if I felt that way about the tests.
I pointed out to her all the arguments that you have used, and I
also said that I was aware of some employees who use drugs, and that
they are more productive than others who don't. I said that the
company should measure the worth of an employee to the company by
examining the employee's work output, not his bladder output.
My contention on this list is not that I think the drug tests are
good (I don't) or that I think they are reliable (I don't), but that I
think they are none of GOVERNMENT'S business. Just because somebody
is doing something foolish is no reason to pass a new law. We have
more laws than anyone can keep track of already. Do most of them do
any good?
...Keith
-------hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA (09/16/86)
Keith:
Unfortunately, your "hands off business" attitude will lead to
more problems and bring us closer to the world as described in
"Brazil" than a simple regulation stating "NO DRUG TESTING" as
a condition to employment would. Will you then allow employers
to put cameras in people's apartments? Is that next? In your
view, the employees would "gang up" on the employer. Obviously,
you don't understand corporate culture. The employees would
be infiltrated from above and any move at rebellion would be
quashed by the mgmt through threats of firing.
Also:
Requiring drug testing before getting a job would lead to
a brain drain in this country as people head towards free-er
regions.
Hofmann
-------KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/24/86)
From: James B Hofmann <hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
... Will you then allow employers to put cameras in people's
apartments? Is that next?
If the employee agreed to it. Which is unlikely. And if he does,
so what? Similarly an employee could insist on installing a camera in
his employer's apartment as a condition of his continued employment.
Unlikely? Yes. So is your scenario. Why do you assume that
employers have such enormous power over people? Why do you assume
that government doesn't have such power, or that if it does it would
never abuse it?
Suppose your employer told you he suspected you of stealing company
property and storing it at home, and told you that your one chance for
continued employment is to allow him to immediately thoroughly search
your apartment? You might object to working for someone who doesn't
trust you, and quit on the spot. Or you might value the job
sufficiently that you are willing to allow the search to prove to your
employer's satisfaction that you are no thief. It is entirely up to
you.
But under the laws you advocate, it would be ILLEGAL for him to
suggest such a search. He would have no recourse but to fire you.
You might beg him to search your apartment to prove your innocence,
but since such a search would be construed as a condition to continued
employment, he would have to refuse, and fire you.
*I* think that these drug tests are a bad idea. But I admit that I
might be wrong. I don't think it should be up to me to decide what an
employer and employee should do that doesn't affect me. If drug tests
are irrational, then employers who insist on them are at a competitive
disadvantage. If a sufficient number of employees simply refuse to
take any drug tests, then employers who insist on them are at a
competitive disadvantage. They will continue only if they are useful
and most employees don't mind them.
In your view, the employees would "gang up" on the employer.
Obviously, you don't understand corporate culture.
The feeling is mutual. You seem to feel that employers employ
people as a favor to them, and suffer no consequences when employees
chose to leave. You seem to think that employers can impose the most
draconian rules on their employees and the employees will consent, and
that any who leave will be unable to find work elsewhere and will be
quickly replaced with other, more subservient, employees. Obviously,
you don't understand corporate culture, or even the rudiments of
economics.
Requiring drug testing before getting a job would lead to
a brain drain in this country as people head towards free-er
regions.
What regions are those? Employers within this country who DON'T
require such tests, perhaps? Seems to me that undermines your whole
argument.
Or are you assuming that EVERY employer would require such tests?
That is only possible if the government required them to require them.
I think I have made it clear that I totally oppose anything like that.
...Keith
-------hofmann@amsaa.arpa (09/29/86)
Keith Lynch writes: > Suppose your employer told you he suspected you of stealing company >property and storing it at home, and told you that your one chance >for continued employment is to allow him to immediately thoroughly >search your apartment? You might object to working for someone who >doesn't trust you, and quit on the spot. Or you might value the job >sufficiently that you are willing to allow the search to prove to >your employer's satisfaction that you are no thief. It is entirely >up to you. If the employer REALLY suspects me, he should bring his evidence to the Police and have them obtain a search warrent. You mean you advocate people losing their job by waivering their constitutional rights? Ever hear of "search warrents"? An Employer can't tell you that you one chance of continued employment is to allow him to search your apartment! That's against the law and would be EASIBLY contestable in court. Alot of people, though, might not have the resources to fight such an infringement. > But under the laws you advocate, it would be ILLEGAL for him to >suggest such a search. He would have no recourse but to fire you. >You might beg him to search your apartment to prove your innocence, >but since such a search would be construed as a condition to >continued employment, he would have to refuse, and fire you. First of all: I think you led me into saying I advocate some laws. Come to think of it, the laws already exist - I'll just advocate enforcement. As for your point: It IS ILLEGAL!!! What kind of cloud are you ON? Sure, you can let him search your dwelling if you want - but if you say "no" and he fires you, there is legal recourse. If, however, he has enough evidence to bring it to the police and get THEM to obtain a search warrant, then he should do so. If any "laws" will need to be made - it will be "laws" to support your "hands off" business/ let them trod on people all they want views. Now that we've agreed on this. (I assume you do have some sort of labor law reference handy) - we have only to say that my bodily fluids are JUST as (even more so?) private as my dwelling. Perhaps, a search warrant should be issued before any drug testing. The drug tests are a unconstitutional invasion of privacy. They also presume people to be guilty until proven innocent. The potential for abuse is extremely high. The number of false positive tests that could result are high. The humiliation of peeing in front of your boss is tremendous. What's wrong with pre-job drug testing being illegal? I mean, I don't even see any new legislation that needs to be made! Just enforce existing laws and principles. > You seem to feel that employers employ people >as a favor to them, and suffer no consequences when employees chose >to leave. You seem to think that employers can impose the most >draconian rules on their employees and the employees will consent, >and that any who leave will be unable to find work elsewhere and >will be quickly replaced with other, more subservient, employees. >Obviously, you don't understand corporate culture, or even the >rudiments of economics. This type of view is all well and good when you are a computer professional much in demand but what about the average blue-collar worker? Leaving a steady job for alot of them means relocation and upheaval of a life which they can barely afford right now. Don't Libertarians know about the common man or are they so busy catering to yuppies? > Or are you assuming that EVERY employer would require such tests? >That is only possible if the government required them to require >them. I think I have made it clear that I totally oppose anything >like that. Yes, I think that this will become inevitable. And allowing drug tests at all prior to employment except in a safety or secret-sensitive job will pave the way for whole-scale testing. You think have Renquist as head of the Supreme Court will stop this from occuring? ...Keith Jim -------
campbell@maynard.UUCP (10/02/86)
KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU writes: > Well, as you know I oppose laws against drug use. In fact, as far >as I know there ARE NO laws against drug use, only against >possession, buying, selling, and manufacture. It's pretty hard to use drugs without possessing them. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvard.ARPA 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA UUCP: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell (617) 367-6846 -------
KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (10/30/86)
[ On urine tests, its easy to fake it. ... you'll have to watch
your subject urinate, and take the container from him/her; unless
you want to strip-search the subject... - CWM]
I do oppose drug tests. I think they are a stupid idea. Certainly
if people are to be allowed to smoke tobacco at work, they should be
allowed to shoot heroin and snort cocaine. Those may interfere with
their productivity - in which case their employer should tell them to
straighten out or leave the company - but they are not as likely to
interfere with other employee's productivity as is smoking.
In any case, I do not think it is really any business of an employer
to enquire into what a person does on their own time. If it decreases
their productivity, the employer should be concerned about that and
only about that. There may be people who can do better work drunk
than I can sober. They should not be fired.
I have in fact complained to the management of the company I work
for about their requirement for all new employees to take a urine
test.
HOWEVER, I firmly believe that a person's association with their
employer should be purely voluntary, which means that either party can
terminate the association at any time for any reason. Employers have
the right to require urine tests of employees as a condition of
employment. Similarly employees have the right to require urine tests
of their supervisors as a condition of employment. Either party has
the right to refuse such a test, in which case the other party can end
the association or not as he or she sees fit.
An employer can examine tea leaves to decide who to hire or fire.
An employee can cast horoscopes to decide which company to work for
and what salary to ask for. I agree that these aren't rational. But
there is no limit on individual rights that says that they only apply
if they are used rationally. If there were such a restriction, the
rights would be worthless since they would be at the whim of whatever
bureaucrats set themselves up as supreme arbiters of reasonableness.
But no two people ever quite agree on what is reasonable. If Pat
Robertson were to be elected, all sorts of things would be considered
reasonable and unreasonable by the administration that would come as
quite a shock to non-fundamentalists who are not part of the
government. Should the rights of the latter be vetoed by the former?
Is there such a thing as inappropriate use of the first amendment, for
instance? Voltaire is supposed to have said "I disagree with what you
say but will fight to the death for your right to say it". Today, it
seems, people would add "... so lng as it isn't TOO disagreeable, and
so long as Meese doesn't find it obscene".
So what rights do businessmen have? Less than the rest of us? The
supreme court seems to think so. Several times in recent years they
have concluded that "commercial speech" is less protected that other
forms. This term "commercial speech" does not appear anywhere in the
constitution. Does anyone know where it came from? Marx, perhaps?
They have ruled that cigarettes cannot be advertised on radio or TV,
and seem close to ruling that they cannot be advertised in the print
media either. Nobody hates cigarettes more than I do, and I make it a
point never to buy magazines in which cigarettes are advertised, and
to encourage others to do the same, but I would be willing to fight to
protect the tobacco companies' freedom of speech. I couldn't disagree
with their message more if they were advertising communism, but they
have the right to say what they choose no matter how repugnant to how
many or to whom.
The right of free association is just as valuable as the right of
free speech. Nobody can be compelled to associate or to not associate
with anyone against their will. Just as nobody can be compelled to
speak or to keep silent against their will. Anti-discrimination laws
have casually discarded this fundamental right, and for no benefit.
You think there is a benefit? Well, if women work just as hard as
men, and are willing to work for a lower salary than men, then a
company which discriminates against women is at a strong competitive
disadvantage. We don't NEED anti-discrimination laws, even if we
could somehow have them without violating more fundamental rights.
Their only function seems to be to stir up old antagonisms, to make
employers look like bad guys, to encourage members of officially
recognized minority groups to become more strident instead of more
competent in order to advance, and to encourage million dollar
lawsuits instead of years of hard work to become wealthy, and in
general to soften us up for further socialist steps.
The most dangerous enemies of this country aren't in Moscow, but in
Washington. You don't need to consult secret papers or look for
microfilm in pumpkins to find out who they are. Just look at their
voting records.
...Keith
-------