If a "bad-guy" wants to harm a company and knows that a particular employee uses illegal drugs, that employee is open to being blackmailed.
If a bad-guy wants to harm a company and knows that a particular employee cheated on his girlfriend that employee is also open to being blackmailed. Does that mean my employer now has the right to demand a list of everybody that I've slept with?
Did you bother to read my post? My personal car is what I wrote.
Plain and simple no one is forcing you to take a job where you don't like the rules.
Really? So working is optional? If I stop somebody will feed me, clothe me and put a roof over my head? And the heads of my children? That's the same twisted logic that argues that driving is a "privilege" and defends implied consent laws on that basis.
The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with conditions of employment. It enumerates what the government can or cannot do. A private employer can refuse to hire you because they don't like your shoes, or any other arbitrary reason. If pissing in a cup is a reason they choose, that is fully up to them.
No, it doesn't have anything to do with them. But the spirit still applies. In the United States of America I should not be held to account by my employer for something that I choose to do that has no impact on him whatsoever. Furthermore, one could argue that the bill of rights does apply, because it was originally the Government that got the whole ball rolling by requiring drug tests of certain occupations (truck drivers come to mind).
Especially compared with all of the actual Constitutional protections which really _are_ being eroded.
The attitude of "I choose not to worry about it" is why those protections are being eroded. Make a legitimate case for why my employer has the right to require a drug test and I'll listen. "They can do it and if you don't like it then don't work there" isn't a defense of this policy.
If you don't want to piss in a cup to get a job, feel free not to. Just realize that that decision (a) raises doubts about either your drug use or your judgement, and (b) makes you less marketable.
I don't think presumption of guilt is what the bill of rights was all about....
You do know that it is against the law to take drugs, even on your own time, right?
Actually, if you want to split hairs, it's against the law to possess drugs, not to consume them. And in many states it's not even illegal per-say any longer to possess pot. Furthermore, what happens if I go to an area where it is perfectly legal to smoke pot? I've broken no laws yet I'll test positive for the next few weeks (months for a hair test) and lose my job? What kind of bullshit is that?
Take all of that and factor in the minor little detail that most drug tests don't prove that you are stoned. They prove that you used drugs at some point during the past. If I take a hit off the bong with my friends on Saturday am I really a threat to my employer on Monday?
Lastly, it being "against the law" doesn't fly as an excuse to allow my employer to butt into my personal life. Speeding is against the law. Can my employer install a GPS device in my vehicle and monitor how fast I drive? Downloading copyrighted music is probably against the law. Can they demand that I turn over my browsing history before they hire me?
Presumption of guilt is not what this country is supposed to be about.
It's not really a double standard. Booze is not illegal, a spliff is.
Speeding is illegal too. Is it ok for my company to install a GPS device in my personal vehicle and monitor how fast I'm driving when I'm not on company time?
It's not like a genetic profile that could be used for other stuff, it's just fingerprints...
"It's just [fill in the blank]" is how it starts. Did anybody seriously think that the SSN would become the universal identifier for Americans that it now is? Ever hear of functionality creep?
Are you telling me that's a bad thing?
It's a bad thing that in order to have a livelihood that people are forced to turn over biometrics that will sit (indefinitely) in a database somewhere.
I am quite comfortable with an institution retaining fingerprints of anyone who handles "my" money.
"Your" money isn't directly at risk. Ever hear of the FDIC or NCUA?
Sorry if you don't like it, but some jobs necessitate this level of scrunity, as others have mentioned.
There are ways to check to see if somebody has a criminal past without retaining their fingerprints indefinitely.
With all due respect to your "freedom is dead" stance
It is dead. Moving past this issue why are drug tests allowed? Why is it any of my employers (or potential employer) business if I use drugs or not on my own time? Did you know that most drug tests don't even test for the presence of the drug? They check for the metabolites of the drug. So you aren't even stoned if you test positive.
then I think that a fingerprint check is totally justified.
And what happens to them after the 'check' is over? They doubtless sit on file somewhere.
The Gov't can't force you to turn over fingerprints or DNA without probable cause but your employer can force you to do it to get a job and then let it sit in a Gov't database for the rest of your life? And people meekly surrender to this!
Actually I don't think that Hubbard set up Scientology to make money; I heard that it was a bet (with Frank Herbert, IIRC) as to which one of them could found a world religion first. Frank didn't take it seriously but Hubbard did.
Well, that's a lot better;) I can respect them now;)
I hate to make digs at the Roman Catholic Church, but once upon a time, it was against Church rules for laymen to read the Bible. Only the Priests could do so.
Fair enough, but as I said in another post of mine, I don't think that past excesses or abuses by modern religions justify the practices of Scientology. We should oppose their actions regardless of what other religions have done in the past.
Obviously you've never been shunned from the only family you've ever known. Guilt and loneliness are just as painful as any physical threat.
Guilt and loneliness don't directly kill you or cause you harm or financial ruin.
And still, what about catholicism during the spanish inquisition? Apostasy was punishable by death, does that make it a cult? If so, it was the most mainstream and most powerful cult ever.
I don't buy "all the other religions used to do it too" as being a defense of Scientology.
Actually the theory that I find easiest to accept is the Black Sea deluge theory. Think about the culture and technology of the times. If that actually happened it would be very easy to assume that the world was being flooded. Then the story was passed down from generation to generation and was eventually assimilated by the Jews in their holy book.
Name me a plausible theory that can find historical reference for Xenu.
So you would claim that the Amish or even Mormons are a cult since they shun people who leave? Catholicism was a cult in the 1500s, but it's not anymore?
'Shun' != threat. Do the Mormons or Amish practice "Fair Game"? Didn't think so.
And other religions aren't pyramid schemes and cults?
I have no lost love for organized religion but name me another one that charges you money to learn the church doctrine. And I'm not talking about a collection plate. Name another religion that was started by a guy that came out and said "Starting my own religion would be a good way to make money".
If the Catholic Church operated like Scientology they would have a copyrighted version of the bible and charge you money to read it.
I'm sure that like US states for the past 142 years, we'll see fit to take it out on nations outside the federation.
Where ya gonna go? Russia? Good luck with that one -- Western/Central European invasions of Russia haven't done so well historically. Africa? More trouble then it's worth.
And it's not really a good analogy to make linking the EU 'Federation' with the United States. We have a shared culture and history. You have a collection of different languages, different cultures, different priorities and different pressures. Would the EU survive real pressure from an outside source? If an outside aggressive power started offering non-aggression pacts to individual EU members trying to divide the EU what would happen? What would happen if an outside power waged economic warfare on individual member states and not on others?
I suspect that it would be a lot easier to splinter the EU then it would be to splinter the United States. You aren't going to convince New York or Texas to walk away from the United States. I suspect that you could convince the UK, Poland or others to walk away from the EU.
A student wrote an editorial asking Jesus to smite GWB, and the SS searched him.
And it sounds like he could have ended the interaction with two answers:
"I want a lawyer" (ends the questioning), "No, you may not search my house" (forces them to get a warrant at least).
They can threaten to "press charges" all they want if he does this again but unless he broke any laws (not likely or they would have charged him this go-around) what charges are they going to press exactly?
Yeah, cuz think of how much it would hurt the children to see tits.... can't have that, they'll never recover. Course they can go watch TV and see Jack Bauer torture somebody. But that's ok because violence isn't as damaging as tits.
Slashdot Mirror
If a "bad-guy" wants to harm a company and knows that a particular employee uses illegal drugs, that employee is open to being blackmailed.
If a bad-guy wants to harm a company and knows that a particular employee cheated on his girlfriend that employee is also open to being blackmailed. Does that mean my employer now has the right to demand a list of everybody that I've slept with?
Like it or not Illicit drug use is a major crime
Major crime huh? My last speeding ticket had a bigger penalty then a first time pot possession arrest in my state.
It depends is it your car or a company car
Did you bother to read my post? My personal car is what I wrote.
Plain and simple no one is forcing you to take a job where you don't like the rules.
Really? So working is optional? If I stop somebody will feed me, clothe me and put a roof over my head? And the heads of my children? That's the same twisted logic that argues that driving is a "privilege" and defends implied consent laws on that basis.
The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with conditions of employment. It enumerates what the government can or cannot do. A private employer can refuse to hire you because they don't like your shoes, or any other arbitrary reason. If pissing in a cup is a reason they choose, that is fully up to them.
No, it doesn't have anything to do with them. But the spirit still applies. In the United States of America I should not be held to account by my employer for something that I choose to do that has no impact on him whatsoever. Furthermore, one could argue that the bill of rights does apply, because it was originally the Government that got the whole ball rolling by requiring drug tests of certain occupations (truck drivers come to mind).
Especially compared with all of the actual Constitutional protections which really _are_ being eroded.
The attitude of "I choose not to worry about it" is why those protections are being eroded. Make a legitimate case for why my employer has the right to require a drug test and I'll listen. "They can do it and if you don't like it then don't work there" isn't a defense of this policy.
If you don't want to piss in a cup to get a job, feel free not to. Just realize that that decision (a) raises doubts about either your drug use or your judgement, and (b) makes you less marketable.
I don't think presumption of guilt is what the bill of rights was all about....
You do know that it is against the law to take drugs, even on your own time, right?
Actually, if you want to split hairs, it's against the law to possess drugs, not to consume them. And in many states it's not even illegal per-say any longer to possess pot. Furthermore, what happens if I go to an area where it is perfectly legal to smoke pot? I've broken no laws yet I'll test positive for the next few weeks (months for a hair test) and lose my job? What kind of bullshit is that?
Take all of that and factor in the minor little detail that most drug tests don't prove that you are stoned. They prove that you used drugs at some point during the past. If I take a hit off the bong with my friends on Saturday am I really a threat to my employer on Monday?
Lastly, it being "against the law" doesn't fly as an excuse to allow my employer to butt into my personal life. Speeding is against the law. Can my employer install a GPS device in my vehicle and monitor how fast I drive? Downloading copyrighted music is probably against the law. Can they demand that I turn over my browsing history before they hire me?
Presumption of guilt is not what this country is supposed to be about.
It's not really a double standard. Booze is not illegal, a spliff is.
Speeding is illegal too. Is it ok for my company to install a GPS device in my personal vehicle and monitor how fast I'm driving when I'm not on company time?
or it is close enough... and you get taken in for questioning or worse.
Thank you! The "if you have nothing to hide...." crowd seems to gloss over this fact.
First, if you don't have the job yet, they're not your employer
Split many hairs do you? Potential employer. Is that better?
Second, I don't think you have a very clear idea of what force is
Sure I do. "Do this or kiss your livelihood goodbye and work at McDonalds" Seems like force to me.
Third, if you don't like the requirements of the job, go work for a dot-com
Who probably does something else equally as offensive to the concept of freedom? Like drug testing?
Nobody is forcing you to work for a bank.
Just your stomach and the roof over your head that require cash to maintain.
It's not like a genetic profile that could be used for other stuff, it's just fingerprints...
"It's just [fill in the blank]" is how it starts. Did anybody seriously think that the SSN would become the universal identifier for Americans that it now is? Ever hear of functionality creep?
Are you telling me that's a bad thing?
It's a bad thing that in order to have a livelihood that people are forced to turn over biometrics that will sit (indefinitely) in a database somewhere.
I am quite comfortable with an institution retaining fingerprints of anyone who handles "my" money.
"Your" money isn't directly at risk. Ever hear of the FDIC or NCUA?
Sorry if you don't like it, but some jobs necessitate this level of scrunity, as others have mentioned.
There are ways to check to see if somebody has a criminal past without retaining their fingerprints indefinitely.
With all due respect to your "freedom is dead" stance
It is dead. Moving past this issue why are drug tests allowed? Why is it any of my employers (or potential employer) business if I use drugs or not on my own time? Did you know that most drug tests don't even test for the presence of the drug? They check for the metabolites of the drug. So you aren't even stoned if you test positive.
then I think that a fingerprint check is totally justified.
And what happens to them after the 'check' is over? They doubtless sit on file somewhere.
The Gov't can't force you to turn over fingerprints or DNA without probable cause but your employer can force you to do it to get a job and then let it sit in a Gov't database for the rest of your life? And people meekly surrender to this!
Freedom is dead.
Actually I don't think that Hubbard set up Scientology to make money; I heard that it was a bet (with Frank Herbert, IIRC) as to which one of them could found a world religion first. Frank didn't take it seriously but Hubbard did.
Well, that's a lot better ;) I can respect them now ;)
I'm not trying to defend Scientology. I'm just trying to get a clear distinction between cults and religion. As far as I can tell there's not one.
I think the GP had it right. If you choose to leave the religion and you face any negative repercussions (beyond the supernatural) then it's a cult.
I hate to make digs at the Roman Catholic Church, but once upon a time, it was against Church rules for laymen to read the Bible. Only the Priests could do so.
Fair enough, but as I said in another post of mine, I don't think that past excesses or abuses by modern religions justify the practices of Scientology. We should oppose their actions regardless of what other religions have done in the past.
Obviously you've never been shunned from the only family you've ever known. Guilt and loneliness are just as painful as any physical threat.
Guilt and loneliness don't directly kill you or cause you harm or financial ruin.
And still, what about catholicism during the spanish inquisition? Apostasy was punishable by death, does that make it a cult? If so, it was the most mainstream and most powerful cult ever.
I don't buy "all the other religions used to do it too" as being a defense of Scientology.
or a flood that covered the entire earth.
Actually the theory that I find easiest to accept is the Black Sea deluge theory. Think about the culture and technology of the times. If that actually happened it would be very easy to assume that the world was being flooded. Then the story was passed down from generation to generation and was eventually assimilated by the Jews in their holy book.
Name me a plausible theory that can find historical reference for Xenu.
So you would claim that the Amish or even Mormons are a cult since they shun people who leave? Catholicism was a cult in the 1500s, but it's not anymore?
'Shun' != threat. Do the Mormons or Amish practice "Fair Game"? Didn't think so.
I hope that's short enough for fair use
You forgot something:
There, fixed it for you ;)
And other religions aren't pyramid schemes and cults?
I have no lost love for organized religion but name me another one that charges you money to learn the church doctrine. And I'm not talking about a collection plate. Name another religion that was started by a guy that came out and said "Starting my own religion would be a good way to make money".
If the Catholic Church operated like Scientology they would have a copyrighted version of the bible and charge you money to read it.
A wise man once said "The pen is mightier than the sword".
Until your enemy realizes that you have something he wants and all you have to defend it is a pen.....
Care to venture a guess who was Frances' largest trade partner in 1940?
Or Japan's in 1941?
I'm sure that like US states for the past 142 years, we'll see fit to take it out on nations outside the federation.
Where ya gonna go? Russia? Good luck with that one -- Western/Central European invasions of Russia haven't done so well historically. Africa? More trouble then it's worth.
And it's not really a good analogy to make linking the EU 'Federation' with the United States. We have a shared culture and history. You have a collection of different languages, different cultures, different priorities and different pressures. Would the EU survive real pressure from an outside source? If an outside aggressive power started offering non-aggression pacts to individual EU members trying to divide the EU what would happen? What would happen if an outside power waged economic warfare on individual member states and not on others?
I suspect that it would be a lot easier to splinter the EU then it would be to splinter the United States. You aren't going to convince New York or Texas to walk away from the United States. I suspect that you could convince the UK, Poland or others to walk away from the EU.
A student wrote an editorial asking Jesus to smite GWB, and the SS searched him.
And it sounds like he could have ended the interaction with two answers:
"I want a lawyer" (ends the questioning), "No, you may not search my house" (forces them to get a warrant at least).
They can threaten to "press charges" all they want if he does this again but unless he broke any laws (not likely or they would have charged him this go-around) what charges are they going to press exactly?
it's not like she was nude and smoking a bong.
Yeah, cuz think of how much it would hurt the children to see tits.... can't have that, they'll never recover. Course they can go watch TV and see Jack Bauer torture somebody. But that's ok because violence isn't as damaging as tits.