Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unc.unc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!unc!palistra From: palistra@unc.UUCP (James C. Palistrant) Newsgroups: net.jobs Subject: Re: Urinalysis...Lie Detectors...all the new rage? Message-ID: <1099@unc.unc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 11-Mar-86 21:23:15 EST Article-I.D.: unc.1099 Posted: Tue Mar 11 21:23:15 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 14-Mar-86 04:26:38 EST References: <1336@pucc-i> <172@lll-lcc.UUcp> <2547@pixar.pixar> Reply-To: palistra@unc.UUCP (James C. Palistrant) Organization: CS Dept, U. of N. Carolina, Chapel Hill Lines: 66 Summary: In article <2547@pixar.pixar> good@pixar (Craig Craig, Bo-Baig, Banana-Fana Fo-Faig, Me-My-Mo-Maig, Craig.) writes: >In article <172@lll-lcc.UUcp>, bandy@lll-lcc.UUcp (Andrew Scott Beals) writes: >> >> What business does your employer have telling you what to do and >> what not to do in your off-hours? I can see a big case for firing >> someone if they show up drunk or stoned for work, but after hours? > > Let's say I'm an employer. I want smart people to work for me. I >want honest people to work for me. I want responsible people to work for me. >I don't want people who are in a self-destruct mode. That means I don't want >people with drug habits. The time of day they do the drugs is quite irrelevant > I'm not telling you not to do drugs, I'm just telling you that if you >do you can't work for me. I see nothing unfair about that. > > --Craig > ...ucbvax!pixar!good Hmm. I certainly hope Craig doesn't smoke (tobacco, that is). Or chew it. Or drink any form of alcohol. Or drink coffee in the morning (or any time of day; the time of day is irrelevant). He better not do ANY kind of drugs, be they legal and common or illegal and uncommon, or else he is saying that as an employer he would not want someone like him to work for him. He seems to be saying that if he were an employer, he would want only smart, responsible, honest people that are not in self-destruct mode to work for him, and then implies that people with drug habits to not meet this criteria. I have the following points I wish to make: 1.) Assuming he most likely means "illegal drugs" when he mentions drugs, I think he is making an unfair and untrue generalization when he implies that people that do drugs are not smart, responsible and honest (as opposed to "law-abiding") and are self-destructive. Although this is true in some cases, some people can and do imbibe in illegal drugs in a responsible manner and in a way that does not impact their mental capacity or performance on the job. 2.) If certain drugs are made legal, does that mean that people that use those drugs are suddenly made smarter, more responsible, more honest and in general less self-destructive ? Or if a certain drug (say, tobacco) is made illegal, would he fire all the smokers that worked for him ? A basic problem with taking a law and making moral judgements with it is that the legality of an act and its morality cannot be linked, since legality can be judged in a court of law and morality cannot (at least in my opinion). 3.) He seems to be making a moral judgement rather than a professional one throughout his posting. If instead he were to base his argument on how the improper use of drugs (of whatever kind) can lead to poor job performance, decreased mental capacity, etc. etc. I might be more inclined to support him. I feel that what I do on my time is my own business. If my job performance suffers because of it, then I expect to pay the consequences. I would not want any employer of mine testing me for drug usage, not because I use drugs (I do not, at least the illegal kind :-) ), but because I am a professional, act like a professional and expect to be treated as a professional. -- Jim Palistrant The opinions expressed above are my own. palistra@unc But I like to share. Computer Science Department University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina (919)-890-5297