Daniel:
I’m not sure if we agree or not because I don’t understand your argument.
Here is how it seems to me:
YOU: Drug testing is legal.
ME: Drug testing is a bad idea and shouldn’t be legal.
YOU: Drug testing is legal.
I don’t see any argument here.
This is off-topic, but this statement (especially the bolded parts) prompts me to comment. How arrogant and vain can you be? At least try to conceal your arrogance a little better, please. The little aside about “I’m just some schmuck on a BBS” doesn’t cut it.
I do recall on some thread recently (was it this one?) that you demanded that people acknowlege that you are intelligent. That has got to be the most bizarre thing I have ever read on this board. DEMANDING such a thing. You get over it.
Joe Malik:
Who gets to decide what “Objective necessity” is?
yosemitebabe:
Well I, for one, would disagree that drug testing for your job is a matter of necessity. But as Joe Malik points out, that argument is not essential to the main point here.
I’m afraid I don’t understand. Could you explain why you think my employers should not drug test, under the circumstances I have described? What do you think would happen, liability-wise, if a drug user made a med error, and no drug screening was in effect?
yosemitebabe:
I believe employer drug testing is wrong, even for your job. Parents might be outraged by discovering drug use among the people who take care of their children, but they might also be outraged by any kind of moral iffiness among them.
I don’t believe employers should be held liable for failing to screen for past drug use either.
If a staff member dispensed the wrong medication, causing harm to a child, and it turned out he was drunk, parents might ask to have breathalyzers installed at the workplace. I’m not opposed to tests that measure immediate intoxication. But I’m pretty sure that anyone who insists they should only hire teetotalers would be laughed out of the office.
Do you believe this risk still exists with employees who use alcohol after hours? I understand that you only support testing for substances that are both illegal and mind-altering, but doesn’t alcohol still pose the same risk, even though it’s legal?
**yosemitebabe **:
If drug screening were illegal, then this question is moot.
Other than that, since drug users are no more ( or less ) likely to make an error ( I am assuming that you agree since you haven’t debated the point ) than anyone else then why test to see whether someone uses narcotics or not in the first place?
2sense ( who is off to bed )
Mr. 2001:
The parents cannot justify the State testing people for use of legal substances. But when drug tests are legal, and drugs are illegal, the parents want them used. I can imagine what would happen if the State did not drug test. If a person in our care got harmed (or died) because an employee was under the influence of drugs, I’d imagine that the parents could sue for everything in the entire State, and win. That’s just the reality.
I suppose it’s easy for you to merely say that you disagree with drug testing. But you are not the parent of one of these kids. And you are not responsible for the care of these people.
The parents would feel that there would be more of a chance of an error happening with a drug user. (And I am not sure that they would be incorrect.) I thought that was implied in my last post.
Let’s see, since I willingly submit to drug testing, then, by your reasoning, i am not reasonable. Why am I not reasonable? Becuase I disagree with you that drug testing is immoral. :rolleyes: Next, since your writing style, especially the part where you like to speak for everyone, “pisses me off”- i am “without a clear grasp of logic”. And, then to top it off, in you next post, you somehow also manage to equate employer drug testing with SLAVERY, as well as, in past posts, with employers discriminating against folks for their sexual preferences. But, WE are the ones without a “clear grasp of logic”? :rolleyes: How on earth did you manage to work slavery in there? Next, I suppose, you will equate Employer drug testing with thw Holocaust, as that, too, was legal under Hitler. I guess that Employer drug testing is one of those “crimes against humanity”, eh? :rolleyes:
<sigh> I suppose it would be too much to ask everyone to debate, in a thread about 'employer drug testing"… umm, I dunno, let’s see, Oh, I know… employer drug testing? Instead of, say, slavery?
Well, if you manage to change the law, and make drug testing Illegal, then I would also agree with that. I can see a benefit to Employer drug testing for certain occupations, so I am not sure I would support such a law.
yosemitebabe:
No? If there’s clear evidence that failure to test for substance X will place lives in jeopardy, whether it’s legal or illegal, I think the parents will have a pretty good case.
Then use a test that measures immediate intoxication.
I’m not a parent, so I suppose I can’t really answer… but I believe that if I had kids, I would be more concerned with how well their caretakers treated them than what the caretakers did at home.
Danielinthewolvesden:
I believe this entire thread is about supporting the law - i.e., the question of whether it should be legal! Simply talking about whether it’s currently legal would not be a debate, it’d be a GQ.
I simply do not believe that this is true. Check out this site for some stats. http://www.freestatepreemp.com/pubpage2.htmWORKPL~2/sld005.htm
It states that drugs in the workplace means 5 times more accidents w/ injuries. That 38% to 50% of workers comp. claims involve substance abuse. Workers who use drugs are absent 10 times more than workers who do not and they utilize medical benefits 300% more. Drug users are more likely to make errors.
Drug use in the workplace is a problem with a very large price tag, in insurance costs and lost productivity. Do employers absorb all these cost themselves? No. They tend to pass them along to us in higher prices for consumers, and sometimes in increased employee contributions to health benefit costs.
I live in California, which does not allow for random testing. It does, however, allow for pre-employment drug screening and testing for cause. I am in favor of both. Pre-employment makes sense because, as I said before, firing or disciplining a worker, even for just cause, can be a costly legal nightmare.
I do believe that there should be limits. I oppose random screening. And above all, I believe that an employer should keep test results to themselves! I found this on the net: “According to a 1996 survey by David F. Linowes and Ray C. Spencer of the University of Illinois, a quarter of 84 Fortune 500 companies surveyed released confidential employee information to government agencies without a subpoena, and 70 percent gave out the information to credit grantors. Paradoxically, about three fourths of companies barred employees from seeing supervisors evaluations of their performance, and one fourth forbade them from seeing their own medical records.” This needs to change.
Mr 2001:
I think I have clarified the parents’ concerns and reasons for wanting drug testing. It is safe to assume that many parents drink alcohol, so probably would not understand why prospective employees should be tested for alcohol, or other legal substances. I cannot assume that no parent has never tried, though. But since drinking is legal, they probably didn’t get very far in their insistance.
And I think I have already clarified why just testing for immediate intoxication would not be sufficient. The parents would be more worried that there would be a higher risk of a drug user coming to work high. Whether this feeling is something you agree with is not the point. It’s their kids’ lives on the line. Not yours.
The State is liable for these peoples’ safety. They do not want to get sued. I have seen what happens when parents sue, or threaten to sue. They have the State by the short and curlies, and the parents can make all sorts of crazy demands. The State does not want this, for many reasons, and on many levels.
I don’t see how I can explain it any more. You are obviously highly motivated to not understand how these parents would feel, and why the State would feel like they’d need to be extra careful in screening employees. But once again, you are not one of these parents. And you are not going to be liable if something goes wrong.
yosemitebabe:
So you think that drug testing should be allowed, limiting everyone’s freedom, just because some people are prejudiced?
<sigh> Let me try to explain it one more time. We ALL agree employer drug testing is legal right? (And most of us agree it is Ok for some occupations, and in certain circumstances)
Ok, then, when you go to apply for a job, you and your employer “contract” for the terms of said job. As long as neither one of you ask for anything illegal, as long as you both agree, then everything is fine by me. But, if your employer has conditions you don’t like- then don’t work for him, and if you ask for too much, he has every right to not hire you. Let’s give an example. There is a job that often gets $20/hr. Your employer offers $6. Is that 'wrong", either morally or legally? I do not think so. It may be silly, as no-one will take it, but it is not “wrong”. Or, he may offer you $1. Since that is illegal, that is wrong. Or, you may demand $40. Is that, also wrong? No, and it is not wrong if your employer declines. So, do I “support” the employer offering only $6? (Ie do you have some sort of “right” to a “living wage”) No, but neither do I think it is “wrong”. Do I “support” employer drug testing? No, but neither do I think it is “wrong”.
Sigh.
Did you not read Spooje’s cite? I don’t care if you agree, the parents have a concern that you obviously don’t want to understand. From Spooje’s cite, I think the parents’ concern has some basis. So I would not agree that it is “prejudiced”. Whether or not you agree with it is beside the point. I am sure the State doesn’t care that you don’t agree, and I’m sure the parents don’t care if you think they are “prejudiced”. They have other concerns in mind.
If you don’t want to take such a job as the one I have, feel free to not apply.
Daniel got in there before me!
Obviously my last post was directed at Mr 2001’s “prejudiced” reference.
Here’s another cite:
http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/texts/guide/hmg06_0008.html#top
And another:
http://www.miph.org/area/fs6.html
Another one:
http://www.fish4jobs.co.uk/career/drugs.html
Apparently a lot of people have the same “prejudice”.