Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Either you're on the side of freedom, personal choice and America, or you're on the side of oppressive government and corporate control, slavery and Communists.

Which side are you on?

so your saying the company has no freedom? or personal choice? is that what you are saying? sounds very unamerican to me, since said company is not stopping the drug user from doing drugs, nor are they preventing them from working, if someone entered your house, and you did not know them would you let them stay? or kick them out? since it is their freedom to enter your house.

your argument is utter fail.

I'm saying the company has no right to your personal time. You are saying the company can control your private life. You are COBRA. I'm GI Joe.

the company is not telling them what they can do on their own time (the law might, but not the company) if you don't like the companies rules then get a job somewhere else its as simple as that, just like if you don't like a company that doesn't give you a company car or expense account go somewhere else, the company is not controlling you, you are, the company is only controlling what happens on their property and business within the law. I repeat you never answered my question, if a stranger breaks into your house and decides to live there will you kick them out?

 Ustrello wrote:
Corporations are good people and would never ever take advantage of telling what their employees can do, where they can shop and live.

once upon a time they did and the military still does to an extent.

Of course the point was that the bill introduced drug testing for the wealthy in order to get government assistance in the form of tax breaks...

 skyth wrote:
Of course the point was that the bill introduced drug testing for the wealthy in order to get government assistance in the form of tax breaks...

pretty much the same tax breaks available to any tax payer. so it would be discriminating against those who made more money? so you work hard and make something of yourself you get discriminated against? but then again such a law would also effect some members of congress and the senate and even Hillary and Trump and Obama? yeah don't see that law passing anytime soon.

 skyth wrote:
Of course the point was that the bill introduced drug testing for the wealthy in order to get government assistance in the form of tax breaks...

That woosh of air is the sound of that point flying over peoples heads. Have an exalt.

Asterios wrote:


the company is not telling them what they can do on their own time

Yeah, they are. This is self evident.

the company is not controlling you, you are, the company is only controlling what happens on their property and business

No, they're not. this is self evident.

if a stranger breaks into your house and decides to live there will you kick them out?

I ignored this because it is nonsense. Breaking and entering a private residence is not analogous with dictating what your employees may do on their own time.

lonestarr777 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Of course the point was that the bill introduced drug testing for the wealthy in order to get government assistance in the form of tax breaks...

That woosh of air is the sound of that point flying over peoples heads. Have an exalt.

problem is if the law was made for anyone paying taxes and taking write offs, that would be a different matter altogether, but by saying only certain people then its discrimination.

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:


the company is not telling them what they can do on their own time

Yeah, they are. This is self evident.

the company is not controlling you, you are, the company is only controlling what happens on their property and business

No, they're not. this is self evident.

if a stranger breaks into your house and decides to live there will you kick them out?

I ignored this because it is nonsense. Breaking and entering a private residence is not analogous with dictating what your employees may do on their own time.

but the trespasser is only exercising their freedom to go where they want, ever hear the of the song signs? that is your stance? but wait, when it invades your residence then its not a freedom?

if they are not employed at the company how can the company tell them what to do? and you already said you do have the right to say who can come on your property, so its ok for you to do that, but not for companies to do that?

Asterios wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Of course the point was that the bill introduced drug testing for the wealthy in order to get government assistance in the form of tax breaks...

pretty much the same tax breaks available to any tax payer. so it would be discriminating against those who made more money? so you work hard and make something of yourself you get discriminated against? but then again such a law would also effect some members of congress and the senate and even Hillary and Trump and Obama? yeah don't see that law passing anytime soon.

As welfare payments are available to any citizen that meets the criteria. Both are government benefits to them. Mr. Soros, please pee into this cup.

 Frazzled wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Of course the point was that the bill introduced drug testing for the wealthy in order to get government assistance in the form of tax breaks...

pretty much the same tax breaks available to any tax payer. so it would be discriminating against those who made more money? so you work hard and make something of yourself you get discriminated against? but then again such a law would also effect some members of congress and the senate and even Hillary and Trump and Obama? yeah don't see that law passing anytime soon.

As welfare payments are available to any citizen that meets the criteria. Both are government benefits to them. Mr. Soros, please pee into this cup.

yeah but it is not all tax payers who are taking tax breaks, its like saying only certain welfare recipients only have to take drugs tests, its either all or nothing, but like I said don't see the law passing anyway.

Fair point. it could easily be tied to the type of tax break.

Asterios wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Policing your employee's private lives violates their liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those evil America hating corporate bastards.

no they are not policing anyone, they are saying if you want a job with them, you have to be drug free, or do you want to take away their rights to run their own company? you want to be a dictator and tell them how they have to run their company? it is their right, hell even the Government and police agencies and such have the same laws of drug testing, so get off your hobby horse and wake up, this is not about taking away "drug" users rights since doing drugs is illegal, it is about companies exercising their rights. or would you want a surgeon who just got done doing a line of crack before coming into work to operate on you? or even a surgeon who is drunk?

If the person is not using drugs when at work, or impaired by their drug use whilst at work, then what business is it of the company whether they use drugs at home?

and yet if the employee is tested and they test positive then the drugs are still in their system, lets face it the government even says employers have the right, especially since the government practices such testing.

Uh, I know a lot of people who work for the government. I am always amazed when they tell me there is no random drug testing.

If you are high at home, your boss should not be able to fire you for that. If you are high at work, your boss should be able to fire you for that. As soon as your boss is able to dictate what you do on your own private time, it becomes an issue.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If you are high at home, your boss should not be able to fire you for that. If you are high at work, your boss should be able to fire you for that. As soon as your boss is able to dictate what you do on your own private time, it becomes an issue.

So one minute after quitting time, I should be able to hop on social media and spew racist bs and proclaim how much I hate my boss and my job while making up egregious lies about them?

That would be slander, or maybe libel. It's prohibited by existing law and doesn't need to be covered by special contractual conditions.

I think we should split the difference and make drugs mandatory.

The only way to deal with idiot customers and bosses in retail jobs

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That would be slander, or maybe libel. It's prohibited by existing law and doesn't need to be covered by special contractual conditions.

Oh Jesus Christ.

Do we get into a discussion about the differences between libel tourism capitals like the UK and sane places like the United States, where the threshold for libel/slander - especially from private citizens - is considerably higher than you're used to, and why this wouldn't qualify?

Or should we overlook that and get back to the meat of the point, which was that of course a company can fire you for what you do during your private time?

Ignore what would doubtlessly be slander or libel in the UK and stick with the racism (remembering that we don't put people in jail for that over here), and ask yourself the question again.

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That would be slander, or maybe libel. It's prohibited by existing law and doesn't need to be covered by special contractual conditions.

Oh Jesus Christ.

Do we get into a discussion about the differences between libel tourism capitals like the UK and sane places like the United States, where the threshold for libel/slander - especially from private citizens - is considerably higher than you're used to, and why this wouldn't qualify?

If you are lying about someone in a way as to damage their reputation, then how is that not libel or slander?

For example, what lies are being said about the boss? Specifics, please, as that can have a very big impact on how it is handled.

Seaward wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If you are high at home, your boss should not be able to fire you for that. If you are high at work, your boss should be able to fire you for that. As soon as your boss is able to dictate what you do on your own private time, it becomes an issue.

So one minute after quitting time, I should be able to hop on social media and spew racist bs and proclaim how much I hate my boss and my job while making up egregious lies about them?

No, because at that point you are involving your job and work place. However when people take drugs on their private time, they do not exclaim it on the internet that "I DO THESE DRUGS IN THE NAME OF WALMART!"

Ridiculous argument is ridiculous. You are on here in threads talking about how people should not infringe upon your rights to firearms, why should people be able to infringe upon your rights to privacy?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
No, because at that point you are involving your job and work place. However when people take drugs on their private time, they do not exclaim it on the internet that "I DO THESE DRUGS IN THE NAME OF WALMART!"

Same question, leave out the abuse of job/boss.

A second after I get off work, I hop on Twitter and start voicing the most vile, racist stuff imaginable. You don't think my company should be able to fire me?

You are on here in threads talking about how people should not infringe upon your rights to firearms, why should people be able to infringe upon your rights to privacy?

Because this isn't a right to privacy issue.

Seaward wrote:


Ignore what would doubtlessly be slander or libel in the UK and stick with the racism (remembering that we don't put people in jail for that over here), and ask yourself the question again.

Also, you do put people in jail for defamation, 17 of your states have criminal defamation laws, some of which allow for incarceration.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Seaward wrote:


Ignore what would doubtlessly be slander or libel in the UK and stick with the racism (remembering that we don't put people in jail for that over here), and ask yourself the question again.

Also, you do put people in jail for defamation, 17 of your states have criminal defamation laws which allow for incarceration.

Hmm.

stick with the racism (remembering that we don't put people in jail for that over here)

Easier?

Seaward wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
No, because at that point you are involving your job and work place. However when people take drugs on their private time, they do not exclaim it on the internet that "I DO THESE DRUGS IN THE NAME OF WALMART!"

Same question, leave out the abuse of job/boss.

A second after I get off work, I hop on Twitter and start voicing the most vile, racist stuff imaginable. You don't think my company should be able to fire me?

You are on here in threads talking about how people should not infringe upon your rights to firearms, why should people be able to infringe upon your rights to privacy?

Because this isn't a right to privacy issue.

As long as you are not in a position to be a public figure of your company and it is not in a contract you have signed with your company to act like a decent human being, you should not be fired for what you say on your private time.

How is this not a privacy issue? If I am privately taking drugs at home and doing so as a responsible person, why does my boss get to take a urine/hair sample from me?

Asterios wrote:


but the trespasser is only exercising their freedom to go where they want, ever hear the of the song signs?

Spoiler:

that is your stance? but wait, when it invades your residence then its not a freedom?

if they are not employed at the company how can the company tell them what to do? and you already said you do have the right to say who can come on your property, so its ok for you to do that, but not for companies to do that?

Have you ever met an incoherent argument you're not willing to make?

if they are not employed at the company how can the company tell them what to do?

They can't. Who said they could? Nobody, that's who.

The problem is some people (like yourself) who claim to freedom-loving Americans, are actually freedom-hating Communists, who believe that a corporation should be allowed decide what their employees get up to on their own time.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

As long as you are not in a position to be a public figure of your company and it is not in a contract you have signed with your company to act like a decent human being, you should not be fired for what you say on your private time.

If you're being racist enough and enough people care, you'll be in a position to be a "public figure of your company" right quick, whether you're the CEO or a fry cook. These are the days of Twitter campaigns to get people fired before we forget about them entirely.

How is this not a privacy issue?

Well, it's not government infringement, for one.

If I am privately taking drugs at home and doing so as a responsible person, why does my boss get to take a urine/hair sample from me?

Because he wants to, because you work for him, and because drug testing employees is not illegal.

 feeder wrote:

Asterios wrote:


but the trespasser is only exercising their freedom to go where they want, ever hear the of the song signs?

Spoiler:

that is your stance? but wait, when it invades your residence then its not a freedom?

if they are not employed at the company how can the company tell them what to do? and you already said you do have the right to say who can come on your property, so its ok for you to do that, but not for companies to do that?

Have you ever met an incoherent argument you're not willing to make?

if they are not employed at the company how can the company tell them what to do?

They can't. Who said they could? Nobody, that's who.

The problem is some people (like yourself) who claim to freedom-loving Americans, are actually freedom-hating Communists, who believe that a corporation should be allowed decide what their employees get up to on their own time.

and yet there you go assuming again, if a prospective employee fails a drug test, they are not hired, if they fail a drug test at work they are fired, and yet you are the one who is a hypocrit, you say a company cannot keep someone out of their business while saying you can keep someone out of your house? even though they want to hang out in your house on their own time, so which is it? companies have the same choices you do or they don't? do they have the same "freedoms" you do or not? if a company doesn't want a drug user on their premises that is their right.

 feeder wrote:

The problem is some people (like yourself) who claim to freedom-loving Americans, are actually freedom-hating Communists, who believe that a corporation should be allowed decide what their employees get up to on their own time.

Oh really?

So you saying Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich shouldn't have lost his job?

EDIT: that's actually a bad example as Eich stepped down on his own...

I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.

 feeder wrote:
I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.

You act like this is a huge thing...

I've only see it as a pre-employment test...

... or if it could compromise your function at your job:
Like in my case, I handle narcotics in regular fashion... (divergence is a big deal)

Or, if I operative heavy equipment (safety of yourself and others).

So, you're making a Mountain out of an anthill here.

 feeder wrote:
I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.

and companies have the right to hire and fire who they want as long as they do not discriminate based on sex, race, disability and religion.

but you would rather dictate what a company can and cannot do depriving them of their liberties and pursuit of happiness, neither of which is guaranteed by the Constitutional Amendments.

that is like saying serial killers should be allowed to kill since that is their right in the pursuit of happiness.

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.

You act like this is a huge thing...

I've only see it as a pre-employment test...

... or if it could compromise your function at your job:
Like in my case, I handle narcotics in regular fashion... (divergence is a big deal)

Or, if I operative heavy equipment (safety of yourself and others).

So, you're making a Mountain out of an anthill here.

certain fields also do annual drug testing too like medical and such and dealing with heavy machinery and law enforcement.

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.

and companies have the right to hire and fire who they want as long as they do not discriminate based on sex, race, disability and religion.

but you would rather dictate what a company can and cannot do depriving them of their liberties and pursuit of happiness, neither of which is guaranteed by the Constitutional Amendments.

that is like saying serial killers should be allowed to kill since that is their right in the pursuit of happiness.

But that infringes on others rights to pursue happiness, no?

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 feeder wrote:
I'm saying that allowing a corporation to dictate what someone does on their own private time is contrary to the principals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, two of the three things that make America great.

and companies have the right to hire and fire who they want as long as they do not discriminate based on sex, race, disability and religion.

but you would rather dictate what a company can and cannot do depriving them of their liberties and pursuit of happiness, neither of which is guaranteed by the Constitutional Amendments.

that is like saying serial killers should be allowed to kill since that is their right in the pursuit of happiness.

But that infringes on others rights to pursue happiness, no?

and like I said it is not protected by the Constitutional Amendments, if it was killers would be allowed to kill, rapists would be allowed to rape and so on and so on. as it goes drug testing has been taken to court and the companies won since working is not a right and working for a specific company is definitely not a right.