latham@bsdpkh.UUCP (Ken Latham) (03/18/86)
In article <263@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP > -Barry Shein, Boston University writes: > >Ok, I'll throw my 2c in. I would say its worth more around $0.5 million, probably more!!! ( average individual lifetime income ) >would get a lawyer and ask them first to sign a document that would >state something like: > > a) If they find evidence that would lead them to my dismissal, > the must also file a criminal complaint against me and commit > themselves to serving as a witness on the state's behalf. > > b) That they understand that depending upon the outcome of that > criminal case, if I were found innocent by a court of law not > only would I have the choice of being re-instated, but they > would be liable to all guaranteed rights by me to pursue > remuneration for wrongful accusation. If I were found guilty > then obviously the loss of the job and the sentance imposed > upon me by the court would be my burden to bear. > >The problem with this testing thing is that there is no risk on the part >of the employer for their invasion of rights and accusations (and damage.) > >It should be there. Yes it should DEFINITELY BE THERE! I AGREE 100% I think its a sound reasonable approach! They MUST be HELD responsible for their ERRORS!!! I do believe employers need to be able to protect themselves against drug dependent related theft, accidents directly related to drug use, etc. Personally I would not object to being contractually required to make myself available for testing. This is (or was) fairly common practice. ( Try applying for work with the CIA, FBI, etc. ) You have a choice at the time of the contract. However, there are those who believe even this is Unconstitutional, they MAY be right I don't know. But you do strike this contract with the State of Florida when you get a driver's liscence! Ken Latham P.S. I have nothing to fear, I can say what I like ..... The only thing that scares me is the supposed UNRELIABILITY of the tests!
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) (03/21/86)
>>Ok, I'll throw my 2c in.
OK, I'll throw my 1c worth in.
There are 2 points that seem not to have come up
in this discussion.
(1). The reason employers can get away with drug testing.
(Wealth & Power: ie employers tend to have more than
individual employees. If one potential employee
won't cooperate, there are lots of other desperate
folks willing to accept the drug testing in return
for work. So by "divide and conquer" the workers
are forced to go along.)
(Of course when workers have more power, ie through
organizations such as unions, or the labor supply is
scarce, for example in highly skilled technical fields,
it is more difficult for employers to get away with it.)
(2). How to cheat the drug testing system if it exists, and
what are the incentives of the parties involved. Usually
when this type of protocol is established few people
really care to enforce it and it degenerates into a
kind of absurd ritual which few really care much about
(example is signing loyalty oaths).