Re: dad campaigns to stop school drug testing

Simple.  Liability for the company, dollars and cents.

Andy Katz wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 22:35:42 GMT, greccogirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>  
>
> > I hate to tell you this Andy but drug testing by employers is common. 
> > My son has NEVER applied for a job he was not tested.  Consequently, he 
> > didn't get most of them since he does drugs.  He is a forklift operator 
> > and if you don't think employers would be concerned he could be 
> > operating machinery under the influence of pot, think again.  There ARE 
> > liability issues.  For instance in one job he thought he could fool the 
> > test and it came back "diluted".  He was already on the job and his 
> > immediately supervisor wanted to keep him and argued it but the legal 
> > department said "no".  Too much liability.  
> >    
>
> I'm not as opposed to testing for jobs where safety is a direct issue.
> I do oppose widespread testing for no particular reason.
>
> Remember, drug testing was sold to employers as a way of decreasing
> absenteeism, reducing healthplan utilization. In short, saving money.
> As time passes, studies suggest that like DARE, widespread drug
> testing isn't doing what its supposed to. 
>
> So why continue it. 
>
> Why invade people's privacy for no reason?
>
> Andy Katz
> ____________________________________
> I sentence you to kiss my ass!
>
>                    The Simpsons
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Bastard Nation
> http://www.bastards.org
>