Heck Tate wrote:So the default position should be that everything about the employee's private life is the employer's concern and it's my job to argue for exceptions to that blanket rule?

I see it as a set of conflicting rights. The employee's right to privacy and the employers right to property. Which one is controlling in each instance is different. Some times the EE's rights are controlling and some times the ER's rights are controlling. When it comes to a employment in the private sector, the right of the employer may take precedence, particularly in questions in regards to productivity.

I also think we may be arguing different thing. My argument has been more about a pre-employment drug testing and not necessarily random testing once employed. Are you against all testing for any job other then those given or do you find testing as a precondition of employment acceptable? In other words, I'll hire you but you first have to pass a drug screening?

I have been asking about random drug testing throughout employment, in addition to pre-employment.

Regarding the "scoring of points" That was one of Danivons personal attacks he has been prone to doing to all my posts when we disagree. Nobody was scoring points, he had an issue we disagreed with and went on the personal attack side of things ...again.
and I had no idea, Heck Tate is Slappy???

In your point about adding teachers, you help point out that slippery slope by adding teachers and you make a fine point in adding them. You also failed to mention the whole do as I say not as I do angle, teachers are supposed to be role models to students. I am honestly not trying to "score points" I am simply pointing out this is not as simple as someone posting "safety" as the defining line is all. An attempt to show the line gets fuzzier and fuzzier with each person who looks at it and adds their input.

Archduke Russell John wrote:I see it as a set of conflicting rights. The employee's right to privacy and the employers right to property. Which one is controlling in each instance is different. Some times the EE's rights are controlling and some times the ER's rights are controlling.

So you see no default position under which people's private lives are presumed to be private? You don't think it's reasonable to start from that basis and proceed to look for serious and pressing public policy grounds upon which to chip away at that presumption in favour of an employer's (or the general public's) interest in gathering some, narrowly prescribed, personal information from employees?

When it comes to a employment in the private sector, the right of the employer may take precedence, particularly in questions in regards to productivity.

I've worked in both the public and the private sector, and I've never seen a labour issue that can't be tied to productivity.

I also think we may be arguing different thing. My argument has been more about a pre-employment drug testing and not necessarily random testing once employed. Are you against all testing for any job other then those given or do you find testing as a precondition of employment acceptable? In other words, I'll hire you but you first have to pass a drug screening?

I would likely place the same privacy protections on job applicants as I would on people who are ongoing employees. If the job involves health and safety, I think there's a sound public policy basis for invading the applicant's privacy beyond the norm. For instance, I had to submit to police background checks in order to apply for my teaching position. Other than that, I'm not convinced that the employer should have the right to refuse employment on the grounds that an applicant doesn't wish to share medical information just to get in the front door. Information about drug use can be misused, just as information about religious or political beliefs can be misused. I don't like the idea that a job applicant at book store will be turned away simply because he likes to smoke a bowl, speak in tongues or listen to Rush Limbaugh (or all three!) on his days off.

GMTom wrote:and I had no idea, Heck Tate is Slappy???

The same.

I am simply pointing out this is not as simple as someone posting "safety" as the defining line is all. An attempt to show the line gets fuzzier and fuzzier with each person who looks at it and adds their input.

It's definitely not simple, but that doesn't make health and safety an invalid basis upon which to distinguish exceptions to a general presumption of privacy. Even if some people consider teachers to be a marginal case at best (and I would strongly disagree with that view), that doesn't mean there isn't still a stark difference between marginal cases and relatively clear cut cases like the book store employee I mention above. Sure, there may be off-the-wall hypotheticals involving a book store clerk and his box-cutter going nuts on PCP in the travel and tourism section, but I think most reasonable people can come together on which jobs present the more significant daily concerns about employees being less than clearheaded.

haha, bad example, the best bookstore employees would likely include stoners!?
and on a serious note, maybe it is possibly partly true? Seeing how that talent pool might include such recreational drug users, would this employer want to test for drugs? It's their option but may be foolish to do so. They would risk losing a good (yet slightly buzzed?) employee and spend a good deal of money on testing a low paid, lower level type employee, the market would work just as well in determining what they will likely do, nobody is suggesting mandatory testing, only the employers option to do such testing.

What about refusing employment on religious grounds then? Suppose the book store owner buys into stereotypes about Muslims or Mormons, and he demands that reference letters include evidence about religious affiliations? Is that ok?

Bad example. Different religions are not illegal.

Different topic but I'll bite
First, this is about testing and an employees rights to be tested or not.

The law does not allow such letters and it is very illegal and rightfully so.
HOWEVER, I am not sure how this works (no legal scholar) but what if the bookstore was a Christian bookstore selling bibles and crosses and Christian inspirational material? I know of more than a few nearby to me. I would argue these people have a right to use religion as a condition of employment. If a Muslim woman applied for the job dressed as any other person, and religious affiliation questions being illegal, the bookstore assumed that woman was Christian?
She shows up the next day for work in her burka. That would hurt business no doubt and as such i think they have a right to fire her based on religion. It's a slippery slope no doubt, but I think we have to have exceptions for almost every rule. But in general, the example you gave is and should be very illegal (a very odd "line" that is just as difficult to draw as the other line being tough to draw!)

Tom, I really don't think the line I drew is fuzzy at all. I'm quite clear on only allowing positions where a slight impairment of the faculties may result in serious injury. Not all of the people in this thread have agreed with the line I took of course, but there's nothing wrong with a spectrum of opinion. As it happens, and taking on board his clarification, I still don't agree with Slappy's suggestion that teachers should be tested. But I do agree with you that all employees of the police are fair game even if they're not directly on the beat. I think that both positions are perfectly consistent with the principles that I set out earlier.

bbauska wrote:Bad example. Different religions are not illegal.

Why is legality a key factor? What business is it of the bookstore owner's if his employee breaks the law, so long it happens outside of the workplace and has no impact on the job done?

Heck Tate wrote:

bbauska wrote:Bad example. Different religions are not illegal.

Why is legality a key factor? What business is it of the bookstore owner's if his employee breaks the law, so long it happens outside of the workplace and has no impact on the job done?

So your point is that an employer has to have a criminal on staff, just because he/she does not break the law while on working hours? Do you really consider that freedom for the employer?

Sass, Your line may be clear in your head but let's say you were the President and this is your pet project. You give Congress your ideas of what you want. In order to pass, this idea of yours needs to clear both houses. Their will no doubt be plenty of discussion on this, no? Some will without a doubt add teachers to this list, others will add airport security personnel, one group will add daycare workers, and so on and so on all based on your guideline set forth. It's not so crystal clear any more is it?

And HT, if legality were a non-issue, why is it an issue with your teachers example? Why is an issue with the police? These groups are expected to follow the law while you give a pass to bookstore employees? is this sort of message what you want to make a law? Some groups are expected to not take drugs but hey, we know it's not that bad????

Actually it needn't be that complicated at all Tom. The law that I drafted would not specify which jobs were and weren't permitted to be subject to drug testing, it would simply state that an employee has a right to personal privacy which cannot be breached by his employer except in circumstances where the employer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of a judge that there's a clear risk to public safety.

But anyway, your contention is not that somebody in Congress might water down my legislation, what you said was that my line is fuzzily drawn. I don't agree. In any case it's purely hypothetical since I'm not a legislator. You asked me where I'd choose to draw the line and I told you, I don't give a damn what some senator from Nebraska might think about it.

Heck Tate wrote:So you see no default position under which people's private lives are presumed to be private? You don't think it's reasonable to start from that basis and proceed to look for serious and pressing public policy grounds upon which to chip away at that presumption in favour of an employer's (or the general public's) interest in gathering some, narrowly prescribed, personal information from employees?

Well, the individual's right to privacy is always the superior position when pertaining to the government. However, I never assume any individual person's rights are superior to another individual person's rights as a default position.

Heck Tate wrote:I would likely place the same privacy protections on job applicants as I would on people who are ongoing employees. {snip} I don't like the idea that a job applicant at book store will be turned away simply because he likes to smoke a bowl, speak in tongues or listen to Rush Limbaugh (or all three!) on his days off.

And I think this is were we differ. I would be opposed to random drug tests w/o reasonable cause once some one is employed. However, I believe an ER can decide that he does not like people who use drugs and should not be required to hire them.