Another one for the books!

[Samm]

Now compulsary education is a privledge in america ? Funny I thought it was a constitutional right . Thankfully texace the schoolboard isn't above the law If you choose to join the cardholders off campus for lunch there is nothing they can legally do . Also consider yourself lucky to have a thinking man in your corner, your father .

[Samm]

Oh and for the record I'm not one quoted in Mathman's sig .

[Samm]

Originally posted by texace
[B This I was mentioning is that I should not HAVE to take one just to get this one privlidge. Yeah, I know I have to earn privlidges...

[/B]

Leaving a public premises isn't a privledge, like I said I do it all the time . In fact if someone tried to stop me from doing it they'd be braking the law .

[koala]

I've fought the fight on piss tests for 20 years, fought hard, gave up good paying jobs(while 'drug-free') because I wouldn't have my rights trampled, and I lost.

Wouldn't have your rights trampled??  Nice dramatics, that one.  I'm guessing that nobody has ever put a gun to your head and forced you to take a drug test, yet you feel you have a right to force an employer to hire you even if you don't want to take their drug test.

Last I checked this was a free country, for both employees and employers.  But hey, keep whining about how the man is bringing you down.  It's so original after all

[Hangtime]

The test doesn't lie and it doesn't go into some black helicopter big brother database

Horsepucky on both counts, eagler.

Tex, follow the courage of your convictions. No matter WHAT you decide to do, you'll have to live with the consequences.

If it was me, I'd tell 'em to stuff it.. but my opinion does not count. Only yours does.

Whatever you decide to do.. thanks in advance for displaying the presence of mind to think about what you are doing, and it's impact on your life, and the statement your compliance/non compliance makes on the system that is more and more becoming an invasive intrusive monkey on all our backs.

Good luck!

[-sudz-]

texace:

- snag a sample of a PRO card from a buddy or lift it off one of the wussy, roll-over-me, conformist students.
- scan it into the computer
- photoshop it and tailor it to your identity
- take it down to Kinko's for lamination
- make copies for sale to anyone who wants it

Sometimes you have to show idiots why a policy decision is a bad one when they don't listen to logic or follow an ethical, or realistic, standard in forming them.

-sudz

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by koala

Wouldn't have your rights trampled??  Nice dramatics, that one.  I'm guessing that nobody has ever put a gun to your head and forced you to take a drug test, yet you feel you have a right to force an employer to hire you even if you don't want to take their drug test.

What if the employer want to take a blood test to see if you had AIDS?

[koala]

What if the employer want to take a blood test to see if you had AIDS?

If AIDS has a demonstrable affect on work performance, then I see no problem with that.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by koala

If AIDS has a demonstrable affect on work performance, then I see no problem with that.

Does having a joint on the weekend have a demostrable affect on work performance?

[koala]

Does having a joint on the weekend have a demostrable affect on work performance?

I don't know, does it?

In my younger days I got a job at a video arcade where I was basically running the shift, handling the money, etc.  A requirement for the job was to take a lie detector test where some of the questions revolved around whether I had ever stolen anything, of what amount, etc.

Did that test measure my work performance?  Not sure.  Did I have a right to refuse to take it?  Absolutely.  Did the employer have the right to refuse to hire me based on the results of the test or if I had refused to take it?  Absolutely.

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by koala

-Did the employer have the right to refuse to hire me based on the results of the test or if I had refused to take it?  Absolutely.

Not in California.

California Labor Code §432.2

(a) No employer shall demand or require any applicant for employment or prospective employment or any employee to submit to or take a polygraph, lie detector or similar test or examination as a condition of employment or continued employment. The prohibition of this section does not apply to the federal government or any agency thereof or the state government or any agency or local subdivision thereof, including, but not limited to, counties, cities and counties, cities, districts, authorities, and agencies.

[koala]

(a) No employer shall demand or require any applicant for employment or prospective employment or any employee to submit to or take a polygraph, lie detector or similar test or examination as a condition of employment or continued employment. The prohibition of this section does not apply to the federal government or any agency thereof or the state government or any agency or local subdivision thereof, including, but not limited to, counties, cities and counties, cities, districts, authorities, and agencies.

Typical double standard.  Apparently it's okay for the government to require a test, but not a private business.  What a wacky state.

[AKSWulfe]

Koala- A joint over the weekend will screw you up for monday morning work about as bad as getting boozed up until your face down in the toilet on both Friday and Saturday nights. EDIT: Let me re-phrase that... Several (6-10) joints would be the equivelent of getting boozed up until you're face down in the toilet on both friday and saturday night. You'll be ready to roll come monday morning.

In other words- not in the slightest bit.

The government requires drug testing, but private companies are free to do as they please.

Why should polygraphs be any different?

One more thing to think about- drug testing, in any sense, does not include alcohol.

So, if drug testing is for either a) the efficiency of workers or b) the safety of workers... it's a moot point, as it accomplishes neither.

Basically, it's just to find out who's doing illicit drugs and make sure they can't work to support their habit.
-SW

[Elfenwolf]

Of sheeesh, so here we go- the ultimate reason that those who oppose drug tests is because- (Ta Da-) They're the one who do drugs. And- gee- it REALLY won't affect my job performance, mister, because I only do drugs on weekends and anyway I'm willing to take a voluntary AIDS test although I oppose your right to use a polygraph to tell rather I ripped off the LAST guy who hired me to run a cash register. If, on the other hand, you hire me as a dentist in your pratice I must inform my patients if I am HIV positive (according to public concensus) even though you, as an employeer, don't have the right to ask me if I am HIV positive nor ask me to take a test as a condition of employment. See where the paradox is?

[koala]

The government requires drug testing, but private companies are free to do as they please.

Why should polygraphs be any different?

Huh?  Did you even read the law that I quoted?  In Kalifornia businesses are not "free to do as they please", but are prohibited from administering a polygraph test.  The government, on the other hand, is free to do as it pleases.

Basically, it's just to find out who's doing illicit drugs and make sure they can't work to support their habit.

So why would your average business go through all the trouble of paying for a drug test?  Because of some morality kick?  Because they're on some anti-drug crusade?  Try again.