No sir, it is not even in the same ballpark, hell it ain't even the same sport. THey are 2 totally different lines of questioning so please stop trying that angle, it does not work.Macbeth wrote:
It's in the same vein of "an employer has the right to ask you anything since it's their business".lowing wrote:
I am not talking about YOUR health care insurance . I am talking about the companies OSHA requirements, and work compensation, death and disability, insurance etc.. By the way, no one asks any of the questions on an application that you posted, and for you to suggest those questions are the same thing as asking about YOU is some what desperate.Macbeth wrote:
Has your wife ever cheated on you lowing? Daughter had her first period yet? How many times a week do you have sex with your wife? Positions? Have you ever had sex with another man? Ever Thought about it? etc.
These things do affect healthcare cost and and also play a part in how reliable of an employee you would be. It wouldn't bother you if your employer one day started asking these questions?
Were you suggesting they are the same things?
And an individual employee's health care cost has an effect on the overall employers health care cost.
Also those are questions are about YOU.
I don't have a problem with that, but I know that they'll find a way around it. And more importantly, that someone innocent will suffer because of it. I just don't believe its a battle you can win.lowing wrote:
If the system is abused it is by people that use welfare as a life style and would rather spend whatever money they do have on drugs instead of helping the taxpayer help themselves. You really have a problem putting such people in check?ghettoperson wrote:
Just read the thread? There's a million different situations that allow the system to potentially be abused. When I first read the title I thought it wasn't a bad idea, but then I read a few peoples ideas and thought about it myself, and you quickly realise that drug testing does not improve the situation, and in a lot of cases might make it worse.lowing wrote:
and what situation is that? What exactly is the "gray area" as you see it, that you could find an argument to payout welfare to people that are on drugs? Or an employee not having a right to a drug free work force if he wants one?
They are in the same exact area. If you think an employer may ask you anything they can ask you all of those really personal questions.
And yes whether or not your wife is dicking your best friend or if you like getting in the ass from men on the weekend has a bearing on your productivity, health cost, etc.
And yes whether or not your wife is dicking your best friend or if you like getting in the ass from men on the weekend has a bearing on your productivity, health cost, etc.
Not sure how a person can find away around drug screening now, since it is done in real time in a totally controlled environment.ghettoperson wrote:
I don't have a problem with that, but I know that they'll find a way around it. And more importantly, that someone innocent will suffer because of it. I just don't believe its a battle you can win.lowing wrote:
If the system is abused it is by people that use welfare as a life style and would rather spend whatever money they do have on drugs instead of helping the taxpayer help themselves. You really have a problem putting such people in check?ghettoperson wrote:
Just read the thread? There's a million different situations that allow the system to potentially be abused. When I first read the title I thought it wasn't a bad idea, but then I read a few peoples ideas and thought about it myself, and you quickly realise that drug testing does not improve the situation, and in a lot of cases might make it worse.
You've never had to take a drug test have you?lowing wrote:
Not sure how a person can find away around drug screening now, since it is done in real time in a totally controlled environment.ghettoperson wrote:
I don't have a problem with that, but I know that they'll find a way around it. And more importantly, that someone innocent will suffer because of it. I just don't believe its a battle you can win.lowing wrote:
If the system is abused it is by people that use welfare as a life style and would rather spend whatever money they do have on drugs instead of helping the taxpayer help themselves. You really have a problem putting such people in check?
I didn't say an employer can ask you anything, I said they have a right to ask about YOU, and YOUR history. and yes, wether or not they are hiring a drug abuser is well within their right to know. Sorry. If you disagree well we will just have to agree to disagree because to argue a employer has no right to know if their employee is taking illegal drugs then there is no convincing you, that you are wrong, and as the person who thinks an employer has the right to test for such things, there is no convincing me I am wrong.Macbeth wrote:
They are in the same exact area. If you think an employer may ask you anything they can ask you all of those really personal questions.
And yes whether or not your wife is dicking your best friend or if you like getting in the ass from men on the weekend has a bearing on your productivity, health cost, etc.
Actually I get tested all the time. If you think there is no control over drug testing then it is you that has not taken one lately.Macbeth wrote:
You've never had to take a drug test have you?lowing wrote:
Not sure how a person can find away around drug screening now, since it is done in real time in a totally controlled environment.ghettoperson wrote:
I don't have a problem with that, but I know that they'll find a way around it. And more importantly, that someone innocent will suffer because of it. I just don't believe its a battle you can win.
and if there is any questionable results, it is in the favor of the employee, ALWAYS.
Last edited by lowing (2011-07-04 16:31:05)
I have more than once. What's your point?Macbeth wrote:
You've never had to take a drug test have you?lowing wrote:
Not sure how a person can find away around drug screening now, since it is done in real time in a totally controlled environment.ghettoperson wrote:
I don't have a problem with that, but I know that they'll find a way around it. And more importantly, that someone innocent will suffer because of it. I just don't believe its a battle you can win.
Have you?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
That's not impossible to get around a drug test.Kmar wrote:
I have more than once. What's your point?Macbeth wrote:
You've never had to take a drug test have you?lowing wrote:
Not sure how a person can find away around drug screening now, since it is done in real time in a totally controlled environment.
Have you?
I know it seems like I'm against the drug testing of welfare recipients but I'm not. I'm actually in favor of testing them.
Nothing is impossible. But it is very difficult.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I can understand testing at the start of taking up new employment, and ongoing testing for fields of employment where safety is a high priority, like the aviation industry, police force, armed forces, etc.lowing wrote:
And like wise, it is not YOUR business who employers choose to hire to operate their business. I guess you missed the part that if you do not want to be tested, do not accept the position.Jaekus wrote:
I can't recall a time where I had a pill on a Saturday night has affected my performance on Monday morning.
What I do in personal time is my business, not my employer's. If it does not affect my work, why should it be any business to them?
As far as that goes, once I have the job it is no business of the employer unless it affects my quality of work.
I don't get tested, other than a yearly police check, which is mandatory for my position working in disability services. Glad we don't have draconian laws here.
fixedMacbeth wrote:
That's not impossible to get around a drug test.Kmar wrote:
I have more than once. What's your point?Macbeth wrote:
You've never had to take a drug test have you?
Have you?
I know it seems like I'm against the drug testing of welfare recipients but I'm not. I'm actually just against lowing.
He only says this when you make a valid point and he has no leg to stand on. I've seen it before.lowing wrote:
No sir, it is not even in the same ballpark, hell it ain't even the same sport. THey are 2 totally different lines of questioning so please stop trying that angle, it does not work.Macbeth wrote:
It's in the same vein of "an employer has the right to ask you anything since it's their business".lowing wrote:
I am not talking about YOUR health care insurance . I am talking about the companies OSHA requirements, and work compensation, death and disability, insurance etc.. By the way, no one asks any of the questions on an application that you posted, and for you to suggest those questions are the same thing as asking about YOU is some what desperate.
Were you suggesting they are the same things?
And an individual employee's health care cost has an effect on the overall employers health care cost.
Also those are questions are about YOU.
No lowing, i never said anything of the sort. They can hire me, or not, as they like. I don't have a right to any job, nor did i insinuate as much. I simply said that employers have taken their invasions of privacy way too far and for too long. It needs to be reined in and reversed.lowing wrote:
Well you didn't really address what I posted so I will ask again. Are you arguing that YOU should have a greater right and say in where you work than the employer does in who might want to hire you? Is that what you are saying? You are arguing that an employer has NO RIGHT to know if their work force is doing drugs and has no right to a drug free work force?Jay wrote:
A resume, job experience, physical fitness and references should be sufficient. I'm there to perform a job, not marry the bosses wife.
Last edited by Jay (2011-07-04 16:41:06)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Nah I just find it annoying when people put out a position than just fairly arbitrarily make a bunch of exceptions and crap. I wish people would just bite the bullet sometimes admit their views aren't perfect and have consequences.lowing wrote:
fixedMacbeth wrote:
That's not impossible to get around a drug test.Kmar wrote:
I have more than once. What's your point?
Have you?
I know it seems like I'm against the drug testing of welfare recipients but I'm not. I'm actually just against lowing.
grammar.
Last edited by Macbeth (2011-07-04 16:44:37)
you really are as dumb as a fence post. They are precisely the sort of invasion that companies already do, and you condone. I bet if someone refused to hire gun owners based on the chance they might go postal you'd be crying about your rights.lowing wrote:
No sir, it is not even in the same ballpark, hell it ain't even the same sport. THey are 2 totally different lines of questioning so please stop trying that angle, it does not work.Macbeth wrote:
It's in the same vein of "an employer has the right to ask you anything since it's their business".lowing wrote:
I am not talking about YOUR health care insurance . I am talking about the companies OSHA requirements, and work compensation, death and disability, insurance etc.. By the way, no one asks any of the questions on an application that you posted, and for you to suggest those questions are the same thing as asking about YOU is some what desperate.
Were you suggesting they are the same things?
And an individual employee's health care cost has an effect on the overall employers health care cost.
Also those are questions are about YOU.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Really? "PRECISELY" the sort of questioning? I will bet my house that you have NEVER filled out an application for a job or interviewed for a job where your potential employer asked about your daughters period or if you have been faithful to your wife.Jay wrote:
you really are as dumb as a fence post. They are precisely the sort of invasion that companies already do, and you condone. I bet if someone refused to hire gun owners based on the chance they might go postal you'd be crying about your rights.lowing wrote:
No sir, it is not even in the same ballpark, hell it ain't even the same sport. THey are 2 totally different lines of questioning so please stop trying that angle, it does not work.Macbeth wrote:
It's in the same vein of "an employer has the right to ask you anything since it's their business".
And an individual employee's health care cost has an effect on the overall employers health care cost.
Also those are questions are about YOU.
I never said my POVs were perfect, they are however, my POV's none the less.Macbeth wrote:
Nah I just find it annoying when people put out a position than just fairly arbitrarily make a bunch of exceptions and crap. I wish people would just bite the bullet sometimes admit their views aren't perfect and have consequences.lowing wrote:
fixedMacbeth wrote:
That's not impossible to get around a drug test.
I know it seems like I'm against the drug testing of welfare recipients but I'm not. I'm actually just against lowing.
grammar.
Agree to disagree, a company inquiring as to wether or not they are hiring a drug abuser is not out of bounds. Sorry.Jay wrote:
No lowing, i never said anything of the sort. They can hire me, or not, as they like. I don't have a right to any job, nor did i insinuate as much. I simply said that employers have taken their invasions of privacy way too far and for too long. It needs to be reined in and reversed.lowing wrote:
Well you didn't really address what I posted so I will ask again. Are you arguing that YOU should have a greater right and say in where you work than the employer does in who might want to hire you? Is that what you are saying? You are arguing that an employer has NO RIGHT to know if their work force is doing drugs and has no right to a drug free work force?Jay wrote:
A resume, job experience, physical fitness and references should be sufficient. I'm there to perform a job, not marry the bosses wife.
Can I get your house if I can find a news story about someone asking someone else some of those personal questions for a job?lowing wrote:
I will bet my house that you have NEVER filled out an application for a job or interviewed for a job where your potential employer asked about your daughters period or if you have been faithful to your wife.
Is your house paid off?
How is it any different than rifling through my credit history, my urine, my facebook profile, calling up my friends and neighbors, checking to see if i have a criminal record, looking through my medical history etc. You're ok with all that, but asking about your daughters period is off limits (but i sure can guess her cup size through facebook!).lowing wrote:
Really? "PRECISELY" the sort of questioning? I will bet my house that you have NEVER filled out an application for a job or interviewed for a job where your potential employer asked about your daughters period or if you have been faithful to your wife.Jay wrote:
you really are as dumb as a fence post. They are precisely the sort of invasion that companies already do, and you condone. I bet if someone refused to hire gun owners based on the chance they might go postal you'd be crying about your rights.lowing wrote:
No sir, it is not even in the same ballpark, hell it ain't even the same sport. THey are 2 totally different lines of questioning so please stop trying that angle, it does not work.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Wel lI don't recall McDonalds drug testing the fry cook, but if they wanted to it would be well within their right. If you have a problem with drug testing, you could always quit THEIR job.Jaekus wrote:
I can understand testing at the start of taking up new employment, and ongoing testing for fields of employment where safety is a high priority, like the aviation industry, police force, armed forces, etc.lowing wrote:
And like wise, it is not YOUR business who employers choose to hire to operate their business. I guess you missed the part that if you do not want to be tested, do not accept the position.Jaekus wrote:
I can't recall a time where I had a pill on a Saturday night has affected my performance on Monday morning.
What I do in personal time is my business, not my employer's. If it does not affect my work, why should it be any business to them?
As far as that goes, once I have the job it is no business of the employer unless it affects my quality of work.
I don't get tested, other than a yearly police check, which is mandatory for my position working in disability services. Glad we don't have draconian laws here.
Do you know anything about drug testing? Have you read up on it?lowing wrote:
Wel lI don't recall McDonalds drug testing the fry cook, but if they wanted to it would be well within their right. If you have a problem with drug testing, you could always quit THEIR job.Jaekus wrote:
I can understand testing at the start of taking up new employment, and ongoing testing for fields of employment where safety is a high priority, like the aviation industry, police force, armed forces, etc.lowing wrote:
And like wise, it is not YOUR business who employers choose to hire to operate their business. I guess you missed the part that if you do not want to be tested, do not accept the position.
As far as that goes, once I have the job it is no business of the employer unless it affects my quality of work.
I don't get tested, other than a yearly police check, which is mandatory for my position working in disability services. Glad we don't have draconian laws here.
Because your daughter's periods are not relevant to you being a good potential employee. Your credit is an indicator as to how well you manage, your urine determines if you are on drugs, your criminal background goes toward your character and your reliability, your face book is not private if you do not make it private.Jay wrote:
How is it any different than rifling through my credit history, my urine, my facebook profile, calling up my friends and neighbors, checking to see if i have a criminal record, looking through my medical history etc. You're ok with all that, but asking about your daughters period is off limits (but i sure can guess her cup size through facebook!).lowing wrote:
Really? "PRECISELY" the sort of questioning? I will bet my house that you have NEVER filled out an application for a job or interviewed for a job where your potential employer asked about your daughters period or if you have been faithful to your wife.Jay wrote:
you really are as dumb as a fence post. They are precisely the sort of invasion that companies already do, and you condone. I bet if someone refused to hire gun owners based on the chance they might go postal you'd be crying about your rights.
Now, you did say the questions were PRECISELY the type of questions asked. Were you going to tell me that you were asked PRECISELY about your daughters period or yours or your wife's fidelity?
They are not the types of questions they ask, because they simply do not ask questions of that types..It is ridiculous to try to argue that it is.
Your credit rating is of no concern to your employee unless you are engaged with some sort of loan or line of credit with them.