Re: dad campaigns to stop school drug testing

R. Steve Walz wrote:

> greccogirl wrote:
>  
>
> > R. Steve Walz wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > ColoradoSkiBum wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > >
> > > > "R. Steve Walz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > : ColoradoSkiBum wrote:
> > > > : >
> > > > : > : Private enterprise isn't bound by what the US government considers
> > > > : > : legal or illegal.  They could, if they choose, fire all employees who
> > > > : > : drink coffee or smoke.
> > > > : >
> > > > : > That's not strictly true--private enterprise is indeed bound by what the
> > > > US
> > > > : > government considers legal or illegal.  They certainly could fire all
> > > > : > employees who drink coffee or smoke, since coffee drinkers and smokers
> > > > are
> > > > : > not protected classes.  They could also fire all homosexuals since they
> > > > are
> > > > : > not a protected class, or all college students since they too are not
> > > > : > protected.  They could *not* fire all women (or refuse to hire women);
> > > > could
> > > > : > not fire all blacks; could not fire all people over 55; could not fire
> > > > all
> > > > : > people in wheelchairs; and most certainly could not fire anybody who
> > > > filed a
> > > > : > workman's comp claim (although I'm sure many companies have tried).
> > > > Anybody
> > > > : > who's "protected" by federal laws cannot be excused from their job
> > > > simply
> > > > : > for being that way.
> > > > : > --
> > > > : > ColoradoSkiBum
> > > > : -------------------
> > > > : Then we need a better government, one that prevents that.
> > > > : Steve
> > > >
> > > > One that prevents *what*???
> > > > --
> > > > ColoradoSkiBum
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >        
> > > ----------------------------
> > > Prevents anyone from being fired unfairly, of course, such as for
> > > drugs or homosexuality or other unreasonable intolerances. Better,
> > > just take all wealth from the private assholes, and administer all
> > > industry as a public trust, barring drivers from taking drugs,
> > > but not barring others, and reassigning drivers to other tasks
> > > if they can't pass testing.
> > > Steve
> > >
> > >      
> > The entire thing, of course, boils down to dollars and cents.
> > LIABILITY.
> >    
> -------------------
> If there are no duties that endanger anyone normally for any worker
> smoking pot, then there is no liability.
>
> There are always jobs with some amount of risk involved 
>  
>
> > If  you hired someone you drug tested and  you knew took
> > drugs and that person then hurt someone on the job, the liablity would
> > ne enormous, not only from the person who as hurt but the person who DID
> > it.
> >    
> -------------------
> The easy way around that is NOT TO TEST ANYONE! Then you simply absorb
> the costs as CODB/workman's comp. There are countless jobs that are no
> more dangerous on pot than on last nights alcoholic binge, or DayQuil.
> If we simply prove statistically that there is no greater endangerment
> from pot at most jobs than anything else, then they won't be able to
> get away with that, and all it takes is a worker's revolt that is the
> LEAST BIT problematic to business, business shit-cans ANYTHING that
> shits on the smallest profit-margin!
Never happen.  Lawyers make too much money on liability lawsuits.

>  
>
> > They could sue and say you knew they took drugs and you let them,
> > say, operate machinery anyway.
> >    
> ------------------
> Most jobs don't rely on any dangerous equipment. And Dayquil and any
> number of other things are just as problematic.
>
>
>  
>
> > That is what companies care about, they
> > don't really give a shit if you take drugs or not.
> >    
> ------------------
> Precisely.
> Steve
>