What about Private Sector Prohibition of Drugs?

even if the employer is upfront about it and puts it in the voluntary labor contract you sign?

I'm not advocating any employer do anything. although I can see why certain employers would not want their employees doing drugs.

I agree.

you own your body you have the freedom to injest whatever you want.

I don't think companies should enforce drug laws. (I also don't think there should be drug laws)

I don't think it should be taxed if it were legal. the government doesn't need any more revenue.

absolutely.

I agree. we should have personal liberty. that liberty includes not hiring people if they do drugs because we choose not to, and it doesn't matter why.

 

An employer should have the right to hire only employees he feels meets a certain moral fiber if they wish to do so.

Some companies only want people who will behave in a certain way, and they should have the right to discriminate based on that. I know in my organization if an employee made the paper for say, causing a fatal drunk driving accident that could inflict reputational harm on the organization, he would probably lose his job regardless of if he was on the clock or not.

By virtue of employment you are a representative of your company image and reputation and that gives you certain responsibilities.

 

I think any private company should be able to use whatever criteria it wishes in determine who to hire. see Defending the Undefendable for an in depth view.

 

I do not personally believe that a company should be allowed to fire someone simply because they do not like their personal life. I think the use of a LEGAL drug(Alchol, tabacco ect...), should have to negatively affect an employee's work before a company has the right to fire them over it. But I respect your opinion and understand why feel that way. I just feel differently.

 

What about firing people? Do you feel a company should be able to fire someone simply because they smoke or drink, if their use of the drugs does not effect their work? Be advised that I am not talking about illegal drugs. I mean should it be allowed over any legal ones

 

I'm on the business side on this one. As long as it's not racism and other more extreme stuff I say they can make their own rules.

 

If it does not violate their employment contract, yes.

 

Obviously you've never worked for a large organization so let me explain to you that there is something called "Corporate Culture", and by that I mean that the organization strives to achieve a certain level of common bond between all the employees of the organization for the good of both the organization and the employees there. My company has the highest standards and demands only the best people with the best attitudes and behaviors. The hiring process is extensive and exacting, with 3 separate interviews including one with the company President to ensure that only the best candidates are hired.

Why is such a thing bad? You are treating employment as some kind of entitlement you have a right too, rather than a voluntary agreement from both sides.

 

The constitution limits the power of government not private citizens. Additionally, employment is a voluntary agreement between two parties. One's privacy cannot be violated by 'mandatory' drug testing because the drug testing is not truly mandatory. The employee can quit.

 

They should have the right to fire whoever they want for whatever reason they want. Just like an employee has the right to quit for whatever reason they want.

 

I disagree....I feel that a company should not be allowed to fire someone juse because they don't like how they run their personal life, as long as their personal life does not effect their work.

But then again, any company who actualy practiced this would most likely lose alot of money. Not only would they end up cutting their availble work force by over half, they would also be forced to pay alot more. There are not many companies that are stupid enough to fire and not hire smokers and drinkers.

 

So you feel that you or some panel of bureaucrats are a better judge of what effects work than the company? The inherit arrogance of statism is disgusting.

 

Of course they should have the right to request drug screening. No one is forcing people to seek employment at the facility, and in order to qualify- requirements must be met. Marijuana is illegal anyways..

 

Yet, if you do not like your boss's personal life, you can walk off the job. Why should that be the case?

 

Our society does require people to seek employment at some facility, though. Maybe not any specific one ... but then again, maybe. Negotiations are, you must admit, somewhat unbalanced. Or else the employees would be testing their employers for drugs, too, wouldn't they?

 

If negotiations are unbalanced, that's because the pool of labor (albeit not qualified labor) exceeds the demand. If unemployment was much lower and employees were competing for bodies, employees would have more bargaining power.

The solution is prosperity, not top down directing the markets.

Oh, and employees are perfectly free to demand drug tests of their employers and to refuse to work for those that abuse drugs.

 

Employment is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship, that's why we call them our bosses. If employment was Democratic that would mean the workers have control of production (i.e. socialism)

 

And if you actually read what you quoted, you'll see that the second paragraph was talking about government. The first sentence of it specifically said so. The explicit and implied body that every protection mentioned was from the government.

The difference is significant. A government has the ability to force you to do anything it decides. You have no recourse and no method of avoiding it. This is why the founders wrote so many protections in the constitution: to protect citizens from a tyrannical government.

No employer has that kind of authority. No employer can actually force anyone to do anything. Workers can refuse and quit to avoid whatever they choose.

 

Not everyone works or tries to work. Not everyone who works works for someone else. Some people work for themselves. Some people live with someone else who earns money.

Our society doesn't force people to get jobs from others, that is just the easiest and most common way people choose to earn a living.

 

Employment is neither a democracy or a dictatorship. It is a free exchange.

You work for the employer and the employer pays you money. If you don't like the work, you can resign. If the employer doesn't like the way you work, he can fire you.

If it was a dictatorship, the employer could force you to do any duty he wanted and you would have no recourse at all.

Every exchange is unbalanced. In every case one person wants the transaction more than the other. Right now the market leans in favor of the employers. There have been plenty of times in the last few decades where the market leaned the other direction and employers were competing for good employees. Even though the exchange is unbalanced, it is not a dictatorship.

 

Would you agree that an employer should be allowed to require that people that sign a contract to abstain from sex, abstain from eating Pork, be heterosexual, and so on , in order to gain employment ?

 

I disagree.

Taking away a persons ability to work on the basis of race, gender, personal beliefs, or personal preferences outside of work is not kosher in my books.

The argument ... "the person can just go get another job" does not cut it because if every company did this the person could not get a job without giving up their rights.

There is no point in having such rights if in order to survive (and one needs a job to survive) one has to give up those rights.

Suggesting that Corporations have unilimted power is suggesting a form of Oligarchy where Corporations would be the ruling class.

Imagine a world where everything is structured to create the perfect employee. Instead of the state limiting rights and freedoms the corporations are allowed to do it.

Because everyone needs a job compliance is not voluntary. Coersion is definately involved and no entity should be allowed to use coersion to take the rights of citizens away.

On the other hand .. giving unions the right to hold industries hostage is wrong as well.

 

If you own a corporation it is your property. you can do with it what you wish. do I advocate not hiring people based on factors unrelated to job performance? of course not. would it be a good idea for a corporation to do this? of course not. it would make them less competetive, and ultimately drive them out of business if they pursued such policies in any meaningful way.

unfortunately, no person has the right to work for any specific corporation. if that were a right, then that would mean that property owners would not really own their property. just as I don't have the right to walk in to your house, no individual has the right to walk in to a corporation and demand a job.

you say you must give up rights in order to get a job. well, of course you do not. when you get a job you must give up the right to use your time at work the way you wish. you must do what your employer tells you to do- as long as it was in the employment contract, because you signed a voluntary contract. but because the employment contract is a voluntary contract, doing what your employer tells you do with your time IS the way you choose to spend your time. if you work for a construction company, and the company says you can't smoke weed at work or outside of work because that company has determined that employees who smoke weed are less productive, or more dangerous on the job site, then you can't smoke weed. if the company had this same policy but did not have any evidence it negatively impacted job performance, then that company would be at a disadvantage with all other construction companies.

in the end, if a business makes hiring decisions based on criteria unrelated to job performance then that company will be selecting from a smaller pool of workers, and therefore the price they will have to pay for those workers will be higher. it is a bad business decision, but it is there decision to make because they own the property.

unless you throw out the concept of property rights, which you're free to argue for, businesses should be free to use whatever criteria they choose in hiring employees. and frankly, in the free market there will generally be very little descrimination based on factors unrelated to job performance.

 

But we've got so much history that demonstrates otherwise, don't we? So much exploitation and manipulation. And the sexual harassment. And so on. In an ideal world, sure, workers can refuse and quit. In the real, practical world, where people have responsibilities, that's not the case.

The idea that people can just walk away from their jobs whenever they want seems to be in total denial of the reality of adulthood.

 

If we had a free market economy that might be the case, but we do not.

Second .. it is not "Voluntary" if there is coersion behind it.

If you know that you and your family will starve to death by not signing a contract, it is not really voluntary.

If I tell you .. you are going to be put underwater for 30 minutes but in order for me to give you this SCUBA gear you have to sign a contract .. It is really not Voluntary.

Agreed but this has nothing to do with the issue. Zero.

The corporation is not forced to hire anyone but they do have an obligation to obey the law, which includes upholding the constitutional rights of the citizens.

What if the company has not shown this, but just claims it ? There is little evidence to show that even regular users are less productive nevermind a danger.

Pot affects others differently and some folks smoke more than others. What if the person has a puff over the weekend .. are they impared for work the next week ?

Just like alcohol if one drinks from the time they get off work till the time they start they will show up impared.

If someone comes to work imared they should be fired.

Conducting a business is different than private property ownership.

There is no free market.