Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!RED.RUTGERS.EDU!MCGREW From: MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles) Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: ["Keith F. Lynch" : Dignity] Message-ID: <12238211674.24.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Thu, 11-Sep-86 21:44:33 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12238211674.24.MCGREW Posted: Thu Sep 11 21:44:33 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Sep-86 08:41:02 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 75 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu --------------- Return-Path: <@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 86 15:48:04 EDT From: "Keith F. Lynch" Subject: Dignity To: hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA From: James B Hofmann >From: "Keith F. Lynch" Kieth writes: >... > ...Keith However, Kieth, there is a question here of individual dignity. Quite so. For instance it is undiginified to have one's name misspelled, especially right next to lines where I had spelled it. In order to do urine tests fairly, someone must witness one peeing into the cup. Not necessarily. So long the employer is sure that nobody else is in the bathroom, nor is someone else's urine sample stored there where the employee can claim it for his own, he need not be watched. Where do you draw the line and where do personal beliefs fit in here? That is between each individual employee and his employer. If enough people refuse to take the tests, the tests will be discarded. Note that an employee is free to demand such tests from his employer as a condition of his (the employee's) continued employment. The situation is really quite symmetrical. Either party can put any condition on the continuation of the relationship. Nobody is required to take a job which requires drug testing. What about game show contestants on TV? Or people on the old show "Candid Camera". Don't you think that behavior is undignified? But I see no problem with it so long as individuals agree that the compensation they are getting is worth the indignity. What if in some religions it is against the law to witness someone in the act of defecation or urinating? So? In some religions one is not allowed to drink wine. If such a person applies for a job as wine taster, and refuses to taste any wine on religious grounds, is it discrimation to not hire this person? If a person has religious objections to working on Saturday, is it discrimination to not hire him for a weekend job? If a person has religious objections to shaving his beard, is it discrimination not to hire him to star in a shaving commercial? If a person is a pacifist, is it discrimation for the Army to refuse to let him enlist? Employment is (or should be) a symmetrical uncoerced arrangement. If and only if the employee and the employer agree on what the employee is to do for the employer and vice versa, will people be free, and will the free market system work at its best. If government puts impediments on employers, fewer people will be hired, and they will be paid less. This is the main cause of the current unemployment rate. ...Keith [ On urine tests, its easy to fake it. Just bring in a container of a drug-free urine sample into the bathroom, hide the container they give you, and turn in the drug-free one. In a humorous case involving the US Army, many soldiers turned in urine sample containers with gasoline in them - after all, its drug free - until someone caught on. Soldiers regularly paid for 'drug-free' urine to pass the drug tests. If you want to stop that, you'll have to watch your subject urinate, and take the container from him/her; unless you want to strip-search the subject... - CWM] -------