From: Brian Phillips (deepbluehalo@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Aug 09 2002 - 16:04:25 MDT
From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
Subject: Re: Degrees of Freedom (Was :Re: As war with Iraq seems ..)
Brian Phillips wrote:
> Is it at all unjust for a company to make drug testing
> (random, entrance or incident/suspicion based) a condition
> of hiring or retention?
Yes. It violates people's privacy to little good result.
> Seems as a libertarian I can't really complain about a private
> employer who makes this stipulation...a honest contract is
> sacred after all. (Of course to be fair I think employers
> should be able to do lots of things via hiring/retention that
> are presently unlawful :)
> Thoughts anyone?
>
Being a libertarian doesn't keep me from telling such an
employer just what he can do with his drug test. :-) >>>
Samantha,
I certainly support anyone's right to decline to contract based
on the prescence of an unbearable stipulation in the contract
(i.e. the urinalysis). I would celebrate anyone who had the
financial ability to do just this!
<Seriously, the employers must be kept in check by the employees
drawing a line in some cases. If a drug test is more important
to a potential employer than having me (who would pass the test)
as an asset to the company then let them choose accordingly.
But I will not refrain from telling them what a weak-minded
intrusive idiot I think they are being. Mind you, this is in
the world of software employment. I would feel a bit
differently if being higher to pilot a jet.>
So you wouldn't put up with it (bravo), but you don't
object to the employer's right to insist on it as a condition
of future association? Do I have that right?
Brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:59 MST