bbauska wrote:The problem with "reasonable suspicion" opens the door for discrimination. A random drug testing policy or better yet, a full testing program for all employees avoids such messiness.

I take your point about the risk of discrimination, but I think it's far from obvious that a blanket policy of intrusive testing is the lesser of those two evils. The fact is that employers do have to react to their employees' behaviour on a case-by-case basis all the time, and any of these incidents can open up the employer to charges of discrimination.

Do you think the employer has the right to set standards for employment, as long as they are used equally on all employees?

Not an unlimited right, no. I go back to my questions to Tom. Should the employer have the right to demand that his staff provide access to their spouses for interviews concerning potential marital troubles? Should female employees be required to provide medical notes confirming their use of birth control, so that employers can worry less about maternity leaves, etc? Hell, why not allow the employer to place a webcam in the homes of all his employees if he seeks to set this as a standard of employment? No more worries about stolen sick days or ball point pens and post-its from the supply room finding their way to the secretary's home office. I'm not saying it's a slippery slope; I'm just asking why any line you might wish to draw is any better than mine.

But you already agreed SOME professions are ok to test
...because THEIR impaired performance somehow means more.
That's where I have a problem, some are ok to test, some get off.

And who said anything about other issues, it was you yourself who agreed some should be tested for drug use.

bbauska wrote:Does Sassenach and Faxmonkey believe in performance based employment in the case of teachers, the NEA and other unions? Certainly the NEA does not.

Why would i oppose permformance based employee evaluation ? All i'm saying is that i don't think employers should have the right to invade an employees privacy without a specific and individual cause.

GMTom wrote:OK, our liberal thinking pals tell us drugs affecting ones job can be ignored.
...Based on the premise that testing for them is a supposed intrusion.

Nope. I said you can't just blanket test, because you feel like it.

GMTom wrote:They tell us if the drug use is noticed, then it might matter since their performance is affected but we are left with no way of proving such use.

So if an employee is underperforming it has to be drugs ? It can't be his marriage that is in trouble, sickness or what have you. ? You deal with it on a individual basis, you don't blanket test your employees for drug use.

GMTom wrote:And Brad points out, teachers unions are to be protected, so drug use doesn't matter nor does performance matter. So Liberals seem to think anything goes? Jobs for life regardless of drug use, performance, anything else I'm missing?

Yeah that's what we've said here all along, sigh ...

Heck Tate wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote:Your whole premise is that as long as employees are not coming to work impaired is shouldn't matter what they do in their private life because that is no effect on performance when not stoned/drunk.

However, you immediately contradict this by listing a group that should be subject to mandatory drug testing.

Since when is an exception a contradiction?

Because your are claiming no basis for the exception. You flat out subscribe to the position Sass has made, that private drug use has absolutely no effect on job performance and is therefore no business of the employer. If this is the case, why is an exception needed?

Further, we can use your slippery slope argument on your exceptions as well. After all marital problems can cause problems, especially in law enforcment, as can psychological issues. Therefore, shouldn't your list of exceptions be required to do mandatory marital counseling and mental health therapy?

GMTom wrote:But you already agreed SOME professions are ok to test
...because THEIR impaired performance somehow means more.

Not "somehow". What I said was:

it's none of the employer's business unless the job involves health or safety

If that distinction means nothing to you, then we're just talking past each other. Moving on.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Heck Tate wrote:Since when is an exception a contradiction?

Because your are claiming no basis for the exception.

Health and safety is no basis for an exception in your view?

Further, we can use your slippery slope argument on your exceptions as well. After all marital problems can cause problems, especially in law enforcment, as can psychological issues. Therefore, shouldn't your list of exceptions be required to do mandatory marital counseling and mental health therapy?

Those aren't my exceptions. Those were a list of cases about which I was asking Tom. I explicitly stated above that I wasn't saying it was a slippery slope. I was asking why one line was any more or less reasonable than the reasonable suspicion one I was proposing. If it's wrong to draw my line, then what line would Tom propose? That was my question.

Aren't citizens of the US constitutionally protected from search and seizure without just cause?
Doesn't mandatoary drug testing fall into this area? (You are after all seizing the urine or blood...)
Just wondering.

rickyp wrote:Aren't citizens of the US constitutionally protected from search and seizure without just cause?
Doesn't mandatoary drug testing fall into this area? (You are after all seizing the urine or blood...)
Just wondering.

We are protected from search and seizured without just cause by the government.

First off, the government is not doing the testing to random citizens but rather an employer is doing testing to random employees. The employee agrees to this, he can certainly not take the test and in so refusing possibly lose his job. The test is also not without just cause, drugs do affect ones performance and again, the employee knows his job is based on such tests from the start, he need not accept such a job.

If I took a job that told me I had to take random psych testing, so be it that would be my problem and since agreed upon is no intrusion.

and this whole issue with only where health and safety is concerned, it simply tells me you agree drugs are a problem and you are willing to accept that problem ...unless it has something to do with health and safety, but that line has been ignored hasn't it? Heavy machine operators? OK, how about someone running a large punch press? A pilot should be tested but what about the stewardess? What about an airport security person? His missing a weapon would be a safety issue? Luggage handlers? If they failed to lock the airplane luggage door correctly, that entire flight is in danger. My buyer example, I may have to drive somewhere for work (not very often) and I am operating a car on a busy highway. We had a fire here at work last week, someone was careless with solder thinner and it ignited, that could have burned the plant down, working with flammable materials is a safety issue? This goes down the line and where do you draw the line????

tom

The test is also not without just cause

It seems to me the test is "just because"...

What if employers start to insist on Fitness tests? What if they start to insist on non-smoking employees. (I think some do...)
Why in no time society could be driven to good health.
But what fun would we have?

Archduke, is the government guaranteeing the right of the employer to "search and seizure" if they uphold the right to test?

Heck Tate wrote:Health and safety is no basis for an exception in your view?

No the problem is that if private at home drug use does not effect work, then why should there be an exception. You would not allow drug testing to see if a person uses drugs are home because private at home drug use does not effect a person's work. However, you would allow a police officer to be randomly tested to see if he uses drugs at home. The question is why? If at home drug use doesn't effeffect a person's work, then why should a police officer be randomly tested for at-home drug use?

Heck Tate wrote:Those aren't my exceptions. Those were a list of cases about which I was asking Tom. I explicitly stated above that I wasn't saying it was a slippery slope. I was asking why one line was any more or less reasonable than the reasonable suspicion one I was proposing. If it's wrong to draw my line, then what line would Tom propose? That was my question.

Ah, I understand. Well, the easy answer is that drug use is illegal while marital problems and mental health issues are not.

rickyp wrote:Archduke, is the government guaranteeing the right of the employer to "search and seizure" if they uphold the right to test?

I wouldn't think so. An employee has the right to refuse to take the test. In which case, the employer will terminate the employment.

rickyp wrote:Aren't citizens of the US constitutionally protected from search and seizure without just cause?
Doesn't mandatoary drug testing fall into this area? (You are after all seizing the urine or blood...)
Just wondering.

The drug testing is not mandatory. The employee can choose not to. Same as current standards in the US Military.

Maybe employees could claim sexual harassment for employers wanting containers of pee.