MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles) (09/12/86)
---------------
Return-Path: <@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 86 15:48:04 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Dignity
To: hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA
From: James B Hofmann <hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
>From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Kieth writes:
>...
> ...Keith
However, Kieth, there is a question here of individual dignity.
Quite so. For instance it is undiginified to have one's name
misspelled, especially right next to lines where I had spelled it.
In order to do urine tests fairly, someone must witness one peeing
into the cup.
Not necessarily. So long the employer is sure that nobody else is
in the bathroom, nor is someone else's urine sample stored there where
the employee can claim it for his own, he need not be watched.
Where do you draw the line and where do personal beliefs fit in
here?
That is between each individual employee and his employer.
If enough people refuse to take the tests, the tests will be
discarded. Note that an employee is free to demand such tests from
his employer as a condition of his (the employee's) continued
employment. The situation is really quite symmetrical. Either party
can put any condition on the continuation of the relationship. Nobody
is required to take a job which requires drug testing.
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.
What if in some religions it is against the law to witness someone
in the act of defecation or urinating?
So? In some religions one is not allowed to drink wine. If such a
person applies for a job as wine taster, and refuses to taste any wine
on religious grounds, is it discrimation to not hire this person?
If a person has religious objections to working on Saturday, is it
discrimination to not hire him for a weekend job?
If a person has religious objections to shaving his beard, is it
discrimination not to hire him to star in a shaving commercial?
If a person is a pacifist, is it discrimation for the Army to refuse
to let him enlist?
Employment is (or should be) a symmetrical uncoerced arrangement.
If and only if the employee and the employer agree on what the
employee is to do for the employer and vice versa, will people be
free, and will the free market system work at its best. If government
puts impediments on employers, fewer people will be hired, and they
will be paid less. This is the main cause of the current unemployment
rate.
...Keith
[ On urine tests, its easy to fake it. Just bring in a container of a
drug-free urine sample into the bathroom, hide the container they give
you, and turn in the drug-free one. In a humorous case involving the
US Army, many soldiers turned in urine sample containers with gasoline
in them - after all, its drug free - until someone caught on.
Soldiers regularly paid for 'drug-free' urine to pass the drug tests.
If you want to stop that, you'll have to watch your subject urinate,
and take the container from him/her; unless you want to strip-search
the subject... - CWM]
-------hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA (09/16/86)
First to your points, Keith - On the witnessing of the piss test: If I was a drug user and the employer didn't witness me in the act, I could slip a vial into my pocket from a non-user and put it in the jar. Correct? Ergo - in order to be fair, the employer is required to witness the emission ... 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. You Randroids think that just because you don't believe in God that everyone else should follow suit. > If enough people refuse to take the tests, the tests will be >discarded. Note that an employee is free to demand such tests >from his employer as a condition of his (the employee's) continued >employment. The situation is really quite symmetrical. Either party >can put any condition on the continuation of the relationship. >Nobody is required to take a job which requires drug testing. 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? Also, this just doesn't wash except in cases where security or safety is very neccesary. 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. Until the Randroids change the Justice system (however shoddy it is) will I accept that an employer has a right to have my piss but that I don't have a right to get that job (exceptions noted). > 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. Some people don't have a choice if they can't find a job such as the one they are applying for elsewhere. Will you then require people to get piss-tested in order to register to vote on the basis that the compensation should be worth the indignity on YOUR grounds? What about MY grounds and MY right to apply for the job on the basis of my ability (affirmative action aside). What if in some religions it is against the law to witness someone in the act of defecation or urinating? > So? In some religions one is not allowed to drink wine. If such a >person applies for a job as wine taster, and refuses to taste any >wine on religious grounds, is it discrimation to not hire this >person? so? Typical. Did your schooling with Pope Rand also cause you to leave your logic behind? A person who is applying for a job as a secretary at Coors is NOT applying for a job as a pisser (tho' some may say this about their beer), he is applying for a job as a SECRETARY. A wine tester is applying on the basis of his ability to taste and evaluate wine. Your analogy is EXTREMELY shoddy. The same goes for the rest of your analogies which I won't clutter the rest of this posting with... Except for: > If a person is a pacifist, is it discrimation for the Army to >refuse to let him enlist? Again, if it will affect that person's ability to do a job which in this case means destroying and killing in defense of one's country. On a tangent, will you then allow the Army to make people USE drugs in order to stay up and fight battles? Will that person have a chance to make a protest? No. He'll be thrown in the brink if he disagrees. I guess the indignity of being in prison just might be worth the compensation? Which brings us to another point - what happens after a postitive is found on a person (regardless of whether it is false or not...) - will the employer then forward the results to the authorities ( I betcha COORS would...)? Can people be locked away for having illegal drugs in their system on the basis of possession? Will the employer eventually be required to forward the results to the police? Do you see where this is leading, Keith? 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. > Employment is (or should be) a symmetrical uncoerced arrangement. >If and only if the employee and the employer agree on what the >employee is to do for the employer and vice versa, will people be >free, and will the free market system work at its best. If >government puts impediments on employers, fewer people will be >hired, and they will be paid less. This is the main cause of the >current unemployment rate. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Wow. It's all there in black and white, huh? 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. Wow... statistics never lie in your world do they keith? (By the way, it has been found that drug testing on blacks has even higher chances of false postitives - looks like there will be even more unemployed blacks in Keiths Randian Order). ...Keith Hofmann -------