(Note–the opening to this is written in the style of Newtonsapple and his/her/their/its ilk)
Bricker, you fukgin aswhole! I did so reed yoru post so dont get so high and,mighty with me or i will fly to whear you lifv and mush jello in your face because theres always roo for jello!
(We now resume as a sane person)
I did read your whole earlier post. I would still say that testing for booze and other legal drugs is prohibited and so employers can’t do it, in the sense of that they sometimes do but that they are prohibited. It’s like the asking of illegal questions in interviews–they celarly “can” because they do, but they “can’t” in that it’s illegal.
That said, you’re absolutely making an excellent point on testing for illegal drugs. I have not heard the argument before that the reason there’s no real violation is because the person doesn’t have a legal right to the drugs in the first place.
Kudos. If this is an original argument, double kudos!
DSYoung: Your points are well-taken, and I’m well aware that there is no ‘right’ to a particular job. It’s why I said, “At that point, he has an interest in the job, and the employer should not unilaterally change the conditions.” (emphasis added)
An employer can terminate an at-will employee at any time, for any reason, except if the reason transgresses statutory limits. My point was to suggest that an employer changing the rules in the middle of things is a far cry from the one who tells you, upfront, what the rules will be. Both courses are legal - but one leaves no room for the employee to cry foul.
Bucky:
Why thanks! I’m sure this has come up before somewhere, so I’ll just credit myself with the single-size serving for now.
Bricker: I knew what you meant, which is why I also addressed the issue of how to deal with an employer who acts badly. I wasn’t disagreeing with you so much as I was nipping the argument that its illegal or unfair of an employer to behave ‘badly’ in that regard.
I never understand why it is so many people think they have a ‘right’ not to be treated poorly… <sigh>
Heh heh heh … because it says so in the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, or something. I have my rights!!
On a somewhat related note: if the government is the employer, does a firing implicate constitutional guarantees with respect to due process and deprivation of property? I seem to recall several cases which addressed that, but I tend to skim over anything that isn’t criminal-law related in the various Digests and Reporters and Weekly Reviews that I get.
And I’m too lazy to look.
And on the general subject of people knowing their rights… maybe I should start a new thread, but cops are expert in the nuances of phrases like, “Do you mind if I look around?” such that the person is meant to feel as though, really, he doesn’t have a choice. But if anything is found, the search will be characterized as ‘consensual’ - which, in a sense, it is. But if every criminal knew his rights, and asserted them in every encounter with law enforcement… it would dramatically change how many cases got to court… or at least their dispositions at suppression hearings.
Of course it won’t, but the reason I quoted this is to bring attention to the fact that many illegal drugs simply cannot be tested for. LSD is one of them. In fact, virtually all psychedelics fall into this category.
In this respect, drug testing is patently unfair. Life-draining drugs such as methamphetamine are out of your system in 3 days, whereas semi-innocuous substances like pot could be there for weeks. Alcohol (which IS tested for, BTW) is out of one’s system in just a few hours.
I know the guy driving a semi behind me isn’t stoned, but he could have dropped acid an hour ago and nobody will ever be the wiser.
See, that’s one of my biggest concerns with testing. Those who want to smoke pot but can’t because of UA constraints will move on to stuff that can’t be tested for.
So who do you want flying your plane :
A. a mildly-stoned Tommy Chong
or
B. Timothy Leary in the middle of the most mind-bending trip of his life?
I had to undergo drug testing recently…it annoyed me. And I’m as anti-drug as you can get, and have NEVER (and I mean NEVER ingested an illegal drug.) I also feel, personally, that what someone does on their own time is none of my business, as long as they are in no way impaired when they are on the job. This is just my personal feeling, though.
However, I do not think that drug use is a mandatory thing. (Not that anyone here is suggesting that. But some people almost act as if it is.) It’s not. Unless you are suffering from cancer or some other disease that can be helped by pot, as far as I’m concerned, using illegal drugs is something that you take your chances with. Sure, we can argue about whether some of these drugs should be illegal, but the fact is, that currently they are illegal. And in most cases, they are not life-sustaining. So, if someone wants to partake of them, they will have to accept the consequences and assume the risks. And if that means maybe missing out on a job they’d like to have because the job insists on drug testing - well, that’s the breaks. And, frankly, even though I acknowlege that drug testing can be unfair and imperfect, if an employer wants to use drug testing, it is still their right.
If someone wants to do a “civil disobedience” thing to protest drug testing, that’s a fine idea. But, I don’t see the laws (or “rules” changing any time soon. Drug abuse is a concern for employers, and I think they have a right to attempt to do something to protect themselves.
