Company fires all employees who smoke!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
Asher bases his criteria on choice... yet some would say religion is a choice, so I guess he feels you can discriminate against anybody with a religious belief...

I'm sure you can.

Good luck getting the Catholic church to hire a Muslim. How much do you want to bet they discriminate.

[Agathon]

I think that smoking is less harmful than listening to Britney.

[Sava]

to the people that think this is all right:

Would you support a company's "right" to randomly search your home?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Sava
to the people that think this is all right:

Would you support a company's "right" to randomly search your home?

essentually I do. Because most employers in my city require drug tests.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sava
to the people that think this is all right:

Would you support a company's "right" to randomly search your home?

No, but that's not the issue.

I do think it's a company's right to ask for a drug test, which is what these people were fired for.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Asher
No, but that's not the issue.

Sure it is. What's the difference between one invasion of privacy and another? What if a company deems video gaming to be hazardous to your health? Don't they then have a right to search your home for video games?

I do think it's a company's right to ask for a drug test, which is what these people were fired for.

And I disagree. What people do in the privacy of their own homes, or outside of work, is nobody's business. Unless of course, their work is affected by drug use. In that case, they would be fired for slacking off on the job or not working properly.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sava
Sure it is. What's the difference between one invasion of privacy and another? What if a company deems video gaming to be hazardous to your health? Don't they then have a right to search your home for video games?

Then it becomes trespassing.

And I disagree. What people do in the privacy of their own homes, or outside of work, is nobody's business. Unless of course, their work is affected by drug use.

If this was true, all insurance companies would have a flat rate for everyone. That's not how insurance works.

What you do to dramatically increase your health risks is the business of the organization insuring you, and is hence the business of the person paying that insurance to protect you.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Asher
Then it becomes trespassing.

So it's okay to search your body (drug tests), but not your home? Isn't the former a greater invasion of privacy?

If this was true, all insurance companies would have a flat rate for everyone. That's not how insurance works.

I'm talking about work performance, not insurance costs.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sava
So it's okay to search your body (drug tests), but not your home? Isn't the former a greater invasion of privacy?

What happens in the home is none of their business, unless they're paying your house insurance as well. If they were paying your house insurance, I'd think it would be okay for them to make sure you're not running a grow-op in your house, too.

Houses with grow-ops have a higher risk of fire.

I'm talking about work performance, not insurance costs.

It doesn't matter, your purpose at the job is to add value to the company. If you cost way more than other members of the company to do the same work, why should they be forbidden from firing your ass?

[Japher]

You aren't required to take a drug test... but if you want the job, and they want to test, than you better take the test.

You're the one asking for the job. How does it violate a freedom? You have every right not to take the test, and they have every right not to hire you...

[rah]

As condition of hire, I agree that you have to go along with whatever is stipulated if you want the job. But once you're an employee, changing the rules, I don't agree with. Many companies have changed rules to target groups of people they wanted to get rid of. (I've seen it at three different companies where I worked)
It's just wrong. They don't tell you what they're actually doing and sugar coat it with good sounding business rationals. But having been in upper management I've been privy to what they were really trying to do.

For all we know, that's what they were doing here.
Condition of hire, YES, I have no problem.
After hire, NO, I just don't trust them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher
You aren't required to take a drug test... but if you want the job, and they want to test, than you better take the test.

You're the one asking for the job. How does it violate a freedom? You have every right not to take the test, and they have every right not to hire you...

You can also be fired for not taking a test. So, in any meaningful sense of the word, employees often do "have" to take a drug test.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher
It doesn't matter, your purpose at the job is to add value to the company. If you cost way more than other members of the company to do the same work, why should they be forbidden from firing your ass?

Since gays as a group also have a higher health risk, then you are agreeing that like smokers... companies have the right to fire them too just because they fall into a higher risk category... We are talking about COST, not choice... so your whole lame choice rationalization doesn't hold true...

[Japher]

employees often do "have" to take a drug test.

they don't "have" to be employed

When you start a job there is generally some sort of contract or agreement. Like, I will actually show up, I will do my job, I will take drug tests...

If you don't show up you will be fired.

Don't sign the contract if you aren't willing to do what they ask...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher
they don't "have" to be employed

Which renders the term "have" fairly meaningless, as I said. You don't "have" to obey traffic laws, but you'll be responsible for the consequences should you not do so. To quote Samuel Jackson in Die Hard 3, "I don't have to do nothing but stay black and die!"

When you start a job there is generally some sort of contract or agreement. Like, I will actually show up, I will do my job, I will take drug tests...

There are some cases where even a previous agreement to take drug tests isn't necessary to require an employee to take such a test. Specifically, worker's compensation issues. If an accident occurs on the job, we can require a worker to take a drug test within 24 hours of the accident to prove that the worker wasn't in any way incapacitated by alcohol or illegal substances. If they refuse to take the test, they can be terminated immediately.