bandy@lll-lcc.UUcp (Andrew Scott Beals) (03/08/86)
In article <2547@pixar.pixar> good@pixar (Craig Craig, Bo-Baig, Banana-Fana Fo-Faig, Me-My-Mo-Maig, Craig.) writes: >In article <172@lll-lcc.UUcp>, I write: >> What business does your employer have telling you what to do and >> what not to do in your off-hours? I can see a big case for firing >> someone if they show up drunk or stoned for work, but after hours? > > Let's say I'm an employer. I want smart people to work for me. I >want honest people to work for me. I want responsible people to work for me. >I don't want people who are in a self-destruct mode. Fine. Are you going to give them psychiatric testing beforehand also? Just look at any gathering of people and you'll find a good proportion of them (not quite the majority but close) in a mental self-destruct mode. >That means I don't want people with drug habits. Are you going to test for alcohol and valium addicts? I bet not. How are you going to test for people with gambling habits? Are alcohol and valium okay because they're depressants? Are they okay because they're *your* habits? >The time of day they do the drugs is quite irrelevant. Just because you test positive does not mean that you have a "habit". Do you get to come into my house to search for things if you're my employer? After all, can't have any long-overdue library books there or you know that this is a Dishonest Person! > I'm not telling you not to do drugs, I'm just telling you that if you >do you can't work for me. I see nothing unfair about that. It's a violation of someone's privacy to take samples of their "precious bodily fluids" when and where you feel like it. A court conviction is another matter. -- I'm PROUD to be a CARBON-BASED lifeform! andy beals bandy@lll-crg.arpa {ihnp4,seismo,ll-xn,qantel,sun}!lll-crg!bandy LLNL, P.O. Box 808, L-419, Livermore CA 94550 (415) 423-1948