Fired For Recreational Drug Use - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-24-2006, 05:16 PM   #31
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 02:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

An employee has very limited privacy when at work (essentially, the bathroom), but not much more.
So it's OK to give up your right to privacy at home in order to gain the priveledge to work and earn a living?
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-24-2006, 05:18 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
So it's OK to give up your right to privacy at home in order to gain the priveledge to work and earn a living?
You lose no privacy at home. When one brings the lingering effect of drugs into the work place, there is no right of privacy.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-24-2006, 05:27 PM   #33
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 09:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


You lose no privacy at home. When one brings the lingering effect of drugs into the work place, there is no right of privacy.


what are the lingering effects? a small amount of THC in one's urine? if it doesn't affect workplace function, haven't we violated one's right to privacy?

how about this as an example: say at home i have a laptop, and at home i go to websites that i would never go to at work. one day, i bring my laptop into work because my computer is broken, i log onto the internet through the company, and then my internet history is revealed. all of the sites i have visited have been on my computer, on my own time, yet, because the employer was able to view my internet history, might i be in danger of being fired if the employer were to so choose?

this seems like what's going on in regards to drug use. it might have nothing to do with my performance, but if you catch me doing something illegal in my off hours -- like THC in my urine, or a list of NSFW websites -- then you are under legal grounds to fire me?

that strikes me as an invasion of privacy. what business is it of yours, the employer, what i do on my own time if it doesn't affect my performance? there seems to be a false assumption afoot.

(this is all very interesting, though)
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-24-2006, 06:36 PM   #34
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 02:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

You lose no privacy at home. When one brings the lingering effect of drugs into the work place, there is no right of privacy.
If what we want is to rid our workplaces of unproductive employees who don't meet work performance standards, great, let's do that. And let's measure that using work performance standards.

If what we want is to stop people from using illegal drugs, great, let's do that. And let's let criminal laws and not labour laws do the punishing.

If what we want is for people to stop smoking, great, let's do that. And let's keep pushing for public bans until people decide between smoking at home and not smoking.

If what we want is to let personal freedom and dignity be pissed on by corporate control and greed, great, pass the piss pot.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-24-2006, 07:19 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Calluna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 3,542
Local Time: 07:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
If what we want is to let personal freedom and dignity be pissed on by corporate control and greed, great, pass the piss pot.
Great post, AliEnvy.

But seriously guys, I don't see what the big deal about privacy is. We're all good, straight upstanding Christian citizens around here so we have nothing to worry about, right?
__________________
Calluna is offline  
Old 02-24-2006, 07:36 PM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 10:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Calluna

But seriously guys, I don't see what the big deal about privacy is. We're all good, straight upstanding Christian citizens around here so we have nothing to worry about, right?


__________________
indra is offline  
Old 02-24-2006, 08:50 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 12:48 PM
im goutraged, guys. very much so.

frankly, it's a battle. the employer may be concerned with extracting productivity at all costs - that's his concern. your/our concern should be keeping what we enjoy in our lives - not agreeing with him!

I think, as with so many things of this sort, we're talking large companies here mainly. Such organisations are under the delusion that they constitute their own private nation.
__________________
Kieran McConville is online now  
Old 02-24-2006, 10:24 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:48 AM
I never cease to be amazed at the readiness of a proportion of the population to give up their liberty to the nanny state.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-24-2006, 10:32 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:48 PM
It isn't the nanny state though, it is the corporation.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-24-2006, 10:34 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
It isn't the nanny state though, it is the corporation.

Taking their lead from the nanny state, I would suspect.

I don't know about the States but in Britain organisations which have implemented a policy like this are almost aways public sector.

In any case I view it as an encroachment on liberty pure and simple.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-24-2006, 10:43 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Calluna
But seriously guys, I don't see what the big deal about privacy is. We're all good, straight upstanding Christian citizens around here so we have nothing to worry about, right?
What has religion go to do with this?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-24-2006, 10:46 PM   #42
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


If what we want is to rid our workplaces of unproductive employees who don't meet work performance standards, great, let's do that. And let's measure that using work performance standards.

If what we want is to stop people from using illegal drugs, great, let's do that. And let's let criminal laws and not labour laws do the punishing.

If what we want is for people to stop smoking, great, let's do that. And let's keep pushing for public bans until people decide between smoking at home and not smoking.

If what we want is to let personal freedom and dignity be pissed on by corporate control and greed, great, pass the piss pot.
A tad dramatic. This is not about corporate greed. This is about healthy work environments. If there are strong correlations between workplace harassment, injuries, accidents, etc. and drug use, it would seem reasonable to allow employers to screen for drug use.


And calling illegal activity "personal freedom and dignity" is a stretch.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-24-2006, 10:52 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
If there are strong correlations between workplace harassment, injuries, accidents, etc. and drug use, it would seem reasonable to allow employers to screen for drug use.
A tad dramatic. The article posted refers to nicotine use, not heroin use.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-24-2006, 11:25 PM   #44
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 02:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

This is about healthy work environments. If there are strong correlations between workplace harassment, injuries, accidents, etc. and drug use, it would seem reasonable to allow employers to screen for drug use.
If it's about healthy work environments and you have one set of laws allowing urine testing and another set of laws that say you can fire employees for off-duty activity, the potential for discrimination of basic human rights is rather unlimited.


Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

And calling illegal activity "personal freedom and dignity" is a stretch.
Alcohol and cigarettes are not illegal. Tylenol 3s with codeine are not illegal. Allergy meds are not illegal. Blood pressure meds are not illegal. HIV meds are not illegal. Being pregnant is not illegal. Being genetically predisposed to heart disease is not illegal.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-25-2006, 11:19 AM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
If it's about healthy work environments and you have one set of laws allowing urine testing and another set of laws that say you can fire employees for off-duty activity, the potential for discrimination of basic human rights is rather unlimited.
You create a false dilema here. Drug use does not remain a completely off-duty activity. Affects of drug use are brought into the workplace.

The arguments you raise have been considered and rejected by courts at all levels. Drug testing policies are established as a reasonable intrusion for the greater good - especially when they deal with illegal substances.


Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
Alcohol and cigarettes are not illegal. Tylenol 3s with codeine are not illegal. Allergy meds are not illegal. Blood pressure meds are not illegal. HIV meds are not illegal. Being pregnant is not illegal. Being genetically predisposed to heart disease is not illegal.
Talk to the FDA. All the drugs you mentioned are already tiered - some deemed acceptable for consumer purchase, others requiring perscription, others illegal.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com