Fired For Recreational Drug Use - Page 4 - 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 02-25-2006, 11:21 AM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
A tad dramatic. The article posted refers to nicotine use, not heroin use.
The article dealt with a minor who is not legally permitted to purchase cigarettes. And, she wasn't fired for smoking. She was fired for refusing to take a drug test.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-25-2006, 12:14 PM   #47
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

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.
There is nothing false about that dilema and it's at the very least naive to deny the potential for discrimination.

Drug use causes problems in the workplace, we can agree on that. Many of us have witnessed it I'm sure. Some of us have had to manage the ripple effect.

Termination of employment is fairly straightforward without testing.

Personal liberty and the greater good are in constant conflict at opposite ends of the spectrum and sacrifices to personal liberty are often made to serve the greater good. Yup, got that, always has and always will make sense.


Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

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.
Who is REALLY being served as "the greater good" with widespread urine testing that is not proven to be a bonafide occupational requirement for safety? An organization can already protect productivity and a healthy working environment by legally firing an employee for any reason at all and not have to justify it. Random testing is nothing more than insidious, systematic behaviour control.

So the courts side with big business as usual, no surprise there. As most American labor law is HEAVILY weighted to employers in a capitalist econmony, I get that (can't say I agree agree with all of it mind you).

It still perplexes me that this particular issue hasn't crossed a freedom boundary for the majority of working Americans though.


Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

Talk to the FDA. All the drugs you mentioned are already tiered - some deemed acceptable for consumer purchase, others requiring perscription, others illegal.
What is illegal among the ones I mentioned?
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-25-2006, 12:43 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:33 PM
You are jumping back and forth in your arguments. You recognize the problems in the workplace and the burden added by having to manage the ripple effect. Yet, you want to test for the limited purpose of "a bonafide occupational requirement for safety".

Saying that "courts side with big business as usual" completely ignores the significant evaluation that has occurred over the years in favor of simple bias. In fact, there are judicial channels that always tip the balance in favor of the employee.

This thread is about testing for illegal drugs. Simply saying that other substances are drugs, so we should test for all or nothing, ignores the years of evaluation and regulation done on that subject.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-25-2006, 12:46 PM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:33 AM
I'd be up a creek without a paddle if they tested for Alleve.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-25-2006, 02:28 PM   #50
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
You are jumping back and forth in your arguments. You recognize the problems in the workplace and the burden added by having to manage the ripple effect. Yet, you want to test for the limited purpose of "a bonafide occupational requirement for safety".
How am I jumping back and forth? I stated from the beginning that I recognize the workplace (and larger societal) problem, I recognize that for limited types of jobs that random drug testing serves the greater good as it may prevent significant loss of life (i.e. pilot). I also recognize that legislation already allows employers a workable solution without urine testing. So why don't you tell me why that's not enough?

Make me understand why an across-the-board workplace policy that is tantamount to entrapment and guilty until proven innocent and that leaves the door wide open to enable systematic discrimination is acceptable.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-25-2006, 03:58 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Calluna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 3,542
Local Time: 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


The article dealt with a minor who is not legally permitted to purchase cigarettes. And, she wasn't fired for smoking. She was fired for refusing to take a drug test.
No. The article dealt with an employee that had been working for that company for fifteen years, not a fifteen-year-old person. It was perfectly within her legal rights to smoke cigarettes.
__________________
Calluna is offline  
Old 02-25-2006, 04:43 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
Make me understand why an across-the-board workplace policy that is tantamount to entrapment and guilty until proven innocent and that leaves the door wide open to enable systematic discrimination is acceptable.
Entrapment? Perhaps if your employer supplied you with the illegal drug, and then tested you for the substance.

Blanket testing is similar to blanket searches when entering an airport. A minimal level of intrusion to support a greater good.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-25-2006, 11:44 PM   #53
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

Blanket testing is similar to blanket searches when entering an airport. A minimal level of intrusion to support a greater good.
So you're comaring potential residual effects of illegal or legal substances on your workplace to potential terrorism?

Can't say I buy the comparison.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 09:47 AM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


So you're comaring potential residual effects of illegal or legal substances on your workplace to potential terrorism?

Can't say I buy the comparison.
Of course you wouldn't. You viewed the comparison in the extreme.

Airport security screens everyone, even people who have dangerous items, but are not terrorists.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 11:57 AM   #55
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

Of course you wouldn't. You viewed the comparison in the extreme.
You presented an extreme example of personal liberty vs common good.

So it was no more useful to your problem-solving argument than saying a sledghammer will kill the mosquito on the wall that's annoying you. Sure, it kills the mosquito, but it also leaves a gaping hole in the wall.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 01:45 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


You presented an extreme example of personal liberty vs common good.

So it was no more useful to your problem-solving argument than saying a sledghammer will kill the mosquito on the wall that's annoying you. Sure, it kills the mosquito, but it also leaves a gaping hole in the wall.
Airport security is extreme?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 01:49 PM   #57
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

Airport security is extreme?
The lack of airport security could have (and has had) extreme consequences.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 01:55 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:33 PM
The lack of drug testing could have (and has had) extreme consequences.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 01:57 PM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Calluna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 3,542
Local Time: 06:33 PM
Remember guys, we're talking about adult cigarette smoking here not heroin.
__________________
Calluna is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 02:04 PM   #60
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 01:33 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
The lack of drug testing could have (and has had) extreme consequences.
That's why drug testing makes sense in limited cases. You're not making a case for the across-the-board policy.

What extreme consequences are we dealing with when talking about a desk clerk?

Btw, I also challenge the comparison of the intrusion and incovenience of the search of one's luggage to the invasive nature and indignity of provding a urine sample. Hardly similar.
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy 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 08:33 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