Democrats file HR 420 to legalize pot

Once again you are deliberately avoiding the topic and making a false argument.

Denying employers the right to invade the privacy of their employees outside office hours and off the business property does not deny employers the freedom to choose who to employ or not.

This is non sequitur fallacy.

 

Not sure why this post is addressed to me given I never said anything of the sort. You must have misread my post.

 

At-Will Employment already exists, and I posted what it means. I support it.

 

Yes, it denies them the freedom to weed out drunks and drug users. If employees have concerns about it, they can seek employment elsewhere, and reject At-Will jobs.

 

I was responding to this:

So would you agree that an owner of a company has a right to freely associate with employees who do not use drugs, while choosing to not associate with those who do? You are free to not associate with an employer who tests for drugs, but if it's part of the job, you agreed to it when you said yes to the job offer.

 

Once again you engage in logical fallacy - moving the goalposts in this case. First you claim that employers are denied the freedom to fire who they like .. now you are saying they are being denied the freedom to invade privacy so they can weed out drunks .. as if these two are the same. They are not.

Since you can not seem to grasp the nature of your logical fallacy - I will move on.

You previously claimed that employers should be able to fire for any reason. Should a manager be able to fire an employee because that employee refused to have sex with that manager ?

 

This is nonsensical gibberish. An employer does not get to arbitrarily invade the privacy of his/her employees in order to make a determination of whether or not they wish to associate with that employee. This is absurd nonsense on a high level.

You are free not to associate with an employer who wants to film you naked (install cameras in your bedroom to ensure that you are not fornicating), such that in taking the job (knowing that this would be the case) you agreed to it when you said yes to the job offer.

This is beyond idiocy. There are limits to what an employer can force employees to do - in order to be hired - and good thing too.

Respect for privacy rights is the law of the land and employers should be expected to respect those laws.

What part of "'rights end where the nose of another begins" are you having trouble understanding ? You do not have the general right to invade a persons privacy because you happen to be their employer and do not want to associate with people who do X, Y, Z outside of work on their own time and on their own property.

 

So you do favor the ability of companies to discriminate on race, sexual orientation, age, and health. Other better people may disagree.

 

They are the same.

How would you know your employees are not snorting cocaine on the job?

You, and you liberal gestapo would make sure drug tests would be illegal, so there would be no way of knowing. You'd just have to keep paying them and watch them turn the workplace into a circus.

Drug testing is always voluntary. Do it, and pass, and you get to keep your job. Refuse it, or fail it and lose your job.

What part of 'any reason' are you having such hard time with? There is no requirement for just cause. In this example you could try to sue for sexual harassment, and hope the company would throw some money at you.

 

If you would bother reading what I posted about At-Will Employment, you would know better.

 

Who said anything about snorting cocaine on the Job. Making up falsehoods and attributing them to me is not an argument to much.

We are not talking about what employees do while on the Job. We are talking about employee activities outside the workplace. I have never argued that employers do not have the right to monitor employee activity while on the Job. You have been arguing that an employer should be able to monitor an employees activity on their own time, on their own property.

When you have something other than nonsensical gibberish which has nothing to do with what is being discussed to contribute - do let me know.

 

I did. Since you argue drug testing should be against the law, how would you know if your employees are snorting cocaine on the job (or smoking pot)? The answer is simple: you would not know, unless you test them.

BS. We have been talking about drug tests at the work place all along. You argue they are an invasion of privacy, and I am saying the employees have the right to know their employees are drug users.

You are pushing the idea that employees should not be tested for anything, because they might test positive for pot. Well, that would be a good argument against legalization.

 

I once worked in a factory that had a no drug policy. We tested factory employees as a condition of hiring. They were also informed that should a supervisor suspect something, they could be subject to a tox screen. The other way they would get tested is if they got hurt on the job.

Nothing wrong with that. I'm not completely sure what your issue is.

 

There are many ways to know if an employee is using drugs on the Job that do not include drug testing.

The fact remains that you have been arguing all along that an employer should be able to fire and employee for using drugs on their own time outside of work hours.

1) I have not argued that all drug testing should be against the law so your claim is yet another misrepresentation of my position.
2) I have argued that drug testing for the purposes of finding out whether or not an employee engages in the use of drugs while off the job should be illegal.

So to clarify - "fruit of the poisoned tree" is and should be illegal. One can give examples of where Drug testing on the job is justified (airline pilots, school bus drivers and so on). There is no legitimate justification for drug testing for someone working in a cubicle.

In cases where drug testing is justified - it should be illegal for the company doing the testing to release any data relating to off the job use of drugs to the employer as this would be an invasion of privacy.

 

Because Barack Obama is nothing but a power hungry politician who never cared for anyone but himself. Look at how the poor have done since 2008. And look how the 1% have amassed unbelievable wealth over the last 10 years. Remember Obama was against gay marriage until the courts began to change things.

Obama licked his finger and held it up to the wind.

Republicans = Democrats

 

1) what does a "no drug policy" mean ? That the employees were not allowed to drink alcohol on their own time ?
2) after getting hurt on the job an employee should undergo a drug test
3) there is a difference between being intoxicated while at work, and being intoxicated while not at work. I am referring to the latter.
4) If a drug test is administered - this should be done by a third party and no results that are related to drug use on non company time should be released as this is a violation of privacy.

 

The issue is that there exists no test, yet, to determine if someone is currently high. Once that test becomes available (I'm sure it's being worked on as so many people have interest,) the entire conversation becomes a moot point. Until then, we have what we have. Not much to be done.

 

If there is no test that can determine if someone is currently high - there is no legitimate justification for doing the test. Drug testing - on the basis of determining if someone has done drugs on their own time - is an invasion of privacy.

If one is an extreme lefty - or an extreme righty (both who hate and have no respect for essential liberty) - Utilitarian or fallacious Utilitarian justification for law is used as an end run around essential liberty.

Utilitarian justification of law aka (Harm Reduction) looks only at "what will increase happiness of the collective". This justification for law completely ignores individual liberty.

The problems with this justification for law are numerous. 1) who gets to decide ? one man's poison is another mans pleasure 2) fallacious Utilitarianism - arguments which are not even good Utilitarian arguments 3) it allows for an end run around individual liberty = allows an end run around one of the safeguards that protect "we the people" from totalitarianism by limiting Gov't power.

This justification for law violates the 2 main principles on which this nation was founded.

1) individual liberty is "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't
2) that authority comes from "we the people-consent of the governed" rather than "divine right/God" as was the case in days gone buy.

I understand that through 12 years of school we manage not to teach the founding principles - unfortunately - such that this may be the first time you are hearing this stuff.

The Plague of Utilitarianism has been ravaging the nation for a long time .. so much so that many good minded people now think these arguments are legitimate.

For example: "If it saves one life" / "Harm Reduction" as justification for law.

One of the reasons these arguments are so insidious is because they sound good on the surface "who does not want to save one life" ?

Right ? Do you not want to save a life ? Of course you do !

This however is not the question. The question is if this is good justification for law. If you agree "Yes Yes - this is completely valid justification for law" OK .. you are welcome to your opinion.

All I say is be careful what you wish for. If "if it saves one life" is indeed valid justification for law .. should we not ban skiing tomorrow ? Would this not save one life - reduce harm ? How about boating - that is really dangerous - one could drown. Driving a car ? forget it .. banned.

In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

In a free society one has the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm to oneself. Rights end where the nose of another begins.

If you want totalitarianism OK .. again it is a free country. If you are not in favor of limitations to Gov't power ..OK - Utilitarianism - and fallacious Utilitarianism is the way to achieve this as it removes one of the main safeguards against totalitarianism and gives Gov't a whole lot of power.

 

Actually I did read your rather disjointed bibble babble. Just trying to get you to think more clearly. Isn't working though. One minute you serm to be advocating for employees to be able to hire and fire anyone they want and the next minute you are talking about anti discrimination laws and then advocating lying to get around them.

 

It isn't just over the past years that the rich have been getting richer while the test stay in place or lose ground. And do remember that the real reason is the Republican tax cuts for the rich. Trump just did it again with the absolutly overwhelming benefit of the individual tax cuts and the corporate rate cuts going to the rich while at the same time the Republicans cut healthcare for the poor.

 

You agree to the invasion of privacy when you take the job. Don't like it? Work for a company that has no such policy.

 

Oh hell, break the treaty. Who gives a sh!!

 

About frigging time, the frigging idiots.

 

Rethink it. The conservatives want more power, and in the name of God. They are Capitalism's, Liberty's, and the Pursuit of Happiness' worse enemy. They give it lip service and then stab it in the back every chance they get.

 

This above is simplistic nonsense and obtuse gibberish. You are not even trying to put your thinking cap on.

It is a violation of essential liberty to allow an employer to condition employment on violating the essential liberty of that employee.