Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!amsaa.arpa!hofmann
From: hofmann@amsaa.arpa
Newsgroups: mod.politics
Subject: Re:  Drug tests
Message-ID: <12242818854.3.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 11:32:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: RED.12242818854.3.MCGREW
Posted: Mon Sep 29 11:32:33 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 20:47:24 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: Hofmann@amsaa.arpa
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 83
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


Keith Lynch writes:
>  Suppose your employer told you he suspected you of stealing company
>property and storing it at home, and told you that your one chance 
>for continued employment is to allow him to immediately thoroughly 
>search your apartment?  You might object to working for someone who 
>doesn't trust you, and quit on the spot.  Or you might value the job
>sufficiently that you are willing to allow the search to prove to 
>your employer's satisfaction that you are no thief.  It is entirely 
>up to you.

If the employer REALLY suspects me, he should bring his evidence to
the Police and have them obtain a search warrent.  You mean you
advocate people losing their job by waivering their constitutional
rights?  Ever hear of "search warrents"?  An Employer can't tell you
that you one chance of continued employment is to allow him to search
your apartment!  That's against the law and would be EASIBLY
contestable in court.  Alot of people, though, might not have the
resources to fight such an infringement.

>  But under the laws you advocate, it would be ILLEGAL for him to
>suggest such a search.  He would have no recourse but to fire you.
>You might beg him to search your apartment to prove your innocence,
>but since such a search would be construed as a condition to 
>continued employment, he would have to refuse, and fire you.

First of all: I think you led me into saying I advocate some laws.
Come to think of it, the laws already exist - I'll just advocate
enforcement.

As for your point: It IS ILLEGAL!!!  What kind of cloud are you ON?
Sure, you can let him search your dwelling if you want - but if you
say "no" and he fires you, there is legal recourse.  If, however, he
has enough evidence to bring it to the police and get THEM to obtain a
search warrant, then he should do so.

If any "laws" will need to be made - it will be "laws" to support your
"hands off" business/ let them trod on people all they want views.

Now that we've agreed on this. (I assume you do have some sort of
labor law reference handy) - we have only to say that my bodily fluids
are JUST as (even more so?) private as my dwelling.  Perhaps, a search
warrant should be issued before any drug testing.

The drug tests are a unconstitutional invasion of privacy.  They also
presume people to be guilty until proven innocent.  The potential for
abuse is extremely high.  The number of false positive tests that
could result are high.  The humiliation of peeing in front of your
boss is tremendous.  What's wrong with pre-job drug testing being
illegal?  I mean, I don't even see any new legislation that needs to
be made!  Just enforce existing laws and principles.

>  You seem to feel that employers employ people
>as a favor to them, and suffer no consequences when employees chose 
>to leave.  You seem to think that employers can impose the most 
>draconian rules on their employees and the employees will consent, 
>and that any who leave will be unable to find work elsewhere and 
>will be quickly replaced with other, more subservient, employees.
>Obviously, you don't understand corporate culture, or even the 
>rudiments of economics.

This type of view is all well and good when you are a computer
professional much in demand but what about the average blue-collar
worker?  Leaving a steady job for alot of them means relocation and
upheaval of a life which they can barely afford right now.  Don't
Libertarians know about the common man or are they so busy catering to
yuppies?

>  Or are you assuming that EVERY employer would require such tests?
>That is only possible if the government required them to require 
>them.  I think I have made it clear that I totally oppose anything 
>like that.

Yes, I think that this will become inevitable.  And allowing drug
tests at all prior to employment except in a safety or
secret-sensitive job will pave the way for whole-scale testing.  You
think have Renquist as head of the Supreme Court will stop this from
occuring?

                                                              ...Keith

Jim
-------