Starchild:
This is true, but there's a deeper issue involved. Often
corporations will willingly impose policies like this---ones that are
pleasing to the government---as attempts to curry favour with those
in power. For example, PepsiCo was one of the first coporations to
impose drug testing and did a lot of photo-ops and PR stunts during
the 80s with various drug warriors. At the same time, they were
lobbying Congress to limit all derivatives of the Coca plant (the
extract of which is used in their main competitor's product).
More recently, we saw it happen with the FISA bill. The telecom
cartels voluntarily spied on their own captive consumers on the
Bushmen's behalf, in exchange for favorable regulatory concessions.
Glenn,
While I agree with you, Chris, and Mike that employers should
be
legally able to make drug-testing a condition of employment if
they
want to, I also think such testing is nothing for us as
libertarians
to celebrate. It may not be a rights violation, but it is still
paternalistic, and when practiced in the context of government
waging
an immoral and destructive "War on Drugs," could expose employees
who
test positive to wrongful government discrimination or
prosecution.
And as with Kellogg's termination of Michael Phelps' contract for
smoking cannabis, it also contributes to the sick social climate
that
fuels Drug Prohibition by stigmatizing drug use and sending a
false
message that use of banned substances on your own time is
incompatible with many types of work. Unless someone is getting
high
while on call for a sensitive job where being high would interfere
with their ability to perform the work (e.g. a hospital surgeon),
I
can't think of any circumstances where attempting to regulate what
employees do in their off time seems reasonable. And even testing
under circumstances where it makes sense that you wouldn't want an
employee being under the influence is probably a bad idea in terms
of
personnel relations, since your employees will probably be happier
and more productive if you accord them the respect of trusting
them
in such matters unless there's an obvious problem. As William
Safire
said, just because you have the right to do something doesn't make
doing it right, and I think this applies to most if not all drug
testing.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
> Chris,
>
> Your response to Eric was even keeled and factual.
>
> As you said below, Eric has a right to flip burgers at a place
that
> won't test him for drugs, as well as the right to pursue a more
> lucrative knowledge based opportunity at a private employer that
> does require (lawfully) drug and alcohol testing.
>
> I find Eric's approach to Libertarianism a curious one.
>
> All police are pigs, and all private employers have no rights
> whatsoever to have a clean, sober, safe workplace..............
>
> I say to you Eric
>
> Whatever
>
> Gman
>
>
>
> ERIC wrote:
> > I actually have a business and have had employees. Contrary to
what
> > the pundits on talk radio tell you, employees do not forfeit
their
> > rights by being employed.
>
> The employer-employee relationship is (or should be) a private
one. If
> a company makes testing a condition of employment, a prospective
> employee can accept or reject that condition along with the job.
No