We don't like government in our private lives so why our boss?

[James D Hill]

We are a company that is required to maintain certain standards of our employees by our customers, and we'll continue to do so. If I were you, I'd refrain from references that might question a poster's intelligence....

As long as those standards are met who cares what intoxicant they use or how many chicks they screw? What is done in the privacy of ones own home is none of the boss's business. Oh by the way I said you where smarter that that. That is why I can't believe you have such a BS redneck attitude towards this issue. If the government can't do it then why you boss. Their is no excuse other that legalized discrimination.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

As long as those standards are met who cares what intoxicant they use or how many chicks they screw? What is done in the privacy of ones own home is none of the boss's business. Oh by the way I said you where smarter that that. That is why I can't believe you have such a BS redneck attitude towards this issue. If the government can't do it then why you boss. Their is no excuse other that legalized discrimination.

Government sets standards for their contractors everyday. Do you think it doesn't?

 

[James D Hill]

Government sets standards for their contractors everyday. Do you think it doesn't?

As long as the person does the job right who cares what they do in their own time. If they come to work high,drunk or sleep deprived then fire them or send them home. The drug testing companies make hundreds of millions of dollors every year and they spread propaganda to justify their existance and I would like to think you would be smart enought to relaize that fact. I know you are AP. Yes their are regulatios that are out of your hands but all I am saying is it is BS in the first degree.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

As long as the person does the job right who cares what they do in their own time. If they come to work high,drunk or sleep deprived then fire them or send them home. The drug testing companies make hundreds of millions of dollors every year and they spread propaganda to justify their existance and I would like to think you would be smart enought to relaize that fact. I know you are AP. Yes their are regulatios that are out of your hands but all I am saying is it is BS in the first degree.

It's not BS, it gives insight into character and whether or not a person might be compromised easily...

 

[James D Hill]

It's not BS, it gives insight into character and whether or not a person might be compromised easily...

Just becase one does drugs or has wild sex has nothing to do with character or morality and who cares about that moralistic crap in the first place. Bill Clinton was a great president and smoked pot and screwed around. Grant led our nation to victory in the civil war drinking like a fish as did Sherman. Screw that false morality BS as long as the job gets done and the personal life is kept away from work AP. Judging morality is not your job. "Judge not or you will be judged".

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Just becase one does drugs or has wild sex has nothing to do with character or morality and who cares about that moralistic crap in the first place. Bill Clinton was a great president and smoked pot and screwed around. Grant led our nation to victory in the civil war drinking like a fish as did Sherman. Screw that false morality BS as long as the job gets done and the personal life is kept away from work AP. Judging morality is not your job. "Judge not or you will be judged".

I don't care how much sex you engage in privately, but if you test positive for illegal substances, we won't hire you because you would not be able to meet the requirements of our customers...

 

[SMTA]

Just becase one does drugs or has wild sex has nothing to do with character or morality and who cares about that moralistic crap in the first place. Bill Clinton was a great president and smoked pot and screwed around. Grant led our nation to victory in the civil war drinking like a fish as did Sherman. Screw that false morality BS as long as the job gets done and the personal life is kept away from work AP. Judging morality is not your job. "Judge not or you will be judged".

Wong again! You lose. Sorry about your luck.


Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly - John 7:24


If your brother sins, rebuke him - Luke 17:3


"Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right? - Luke 12:54~57


As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge." - Romans 3:4


What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you" - Corinthians 5:9~13

 

[Mycroft]

Just becase one does drugs or has wild sex has nothing to do with character or morality and who cares about that moralistic crap in the first place. Bill Clinton was a great president and smoked pot and screwed around. Grant led our nation to victory in the civil war drinking like a fish as did Sherman. Screw that false morality BS as long as the job gets done and the personal life is kept away from work AP. Judging morality is not your job. "Judge not or you will be judged".

LOL!!!

Now see? You just blew your whole argument when you said this!

 

[Kal'Stang]

When you have house or car payments you just can't quit a job my friend. You are stuck there and even if you leave there it is no sure thing you can get the same pay. Your boss has you by the nad's and he/her should not be able to screw you over just because they do not like your sexual lifestyle of what intoxicant you like. Job performance is all a boss should be worried about. The rest is none of their business.

It is not the boss screwing you over. It is your choices that are screwing you over. If you can't follow the rules of the buisness then you obviously have a problem with authority. If you have a problem with authority then you have a problem with your boss. If you have a problem with your boss then it WILL affect how you work.

Pick one answer to this question: Who are you going to work harder for:
A: The boss you like?
B: The boss you hate?

And don't even attempt to say that you would work just as hard for either one because we both know that would be BS.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

With all due respect that is a stupid argument. You just can't change jobs like your cloths. You become dependant on the pay you are getting. Drug testing does not prove you are high on the job or not and what you do in your own time is none of your employers business any more than what kind of scotch he drinks. Job performance is all that should count to an employer not morality umless that immorality hurts job performance.

The agreement to submit to drug tests comes in the pre-employment phase. That is your opportunity to make your choice.

Pot use isn't moral or immoral.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It seems that allowing grown ups to make a wide variety of contracts among themselves is a good thing--even when such a contract involves divulging personal data from one party to another.

I see no reason for the govt to prohibit such activity among consenting adults--not even when one ( or more ) of the parties to the agreement is a hypocrite.

But I am open to hearing about why the govt should stick its nose into the business of consenting adults. So feel free.

 

[tech30528]

How does taking a pic of your wang effect your job performance? Bill Clinton did an outstanding job and his sex scandal was a private matter that the hypocrotes like Newt tried to blow out of proportion. Who cares what drug ones uses or how many chicks a guy has sex with as long as he/she comes to work and does their job. That is all a boss should be concerned with. After all with all the corruption in American business who are they to judge morality?

It's not about morality. It's about personal judgment. If all you are doing is making the fries it may not be that important. But there are jobs that are more critical. I'll give you an example: On Ford Explorers with 4.0L V6 5 out of the six spark plugs are relatively easy to get, but that last one will take as long to change as the other 5. On several occasions I've changed them and found that the last one was original and the others had been changed in the past. A less scrupulous mechanic might not go after that last one, and consider it "good enough". Not in my shop, and if no one is watching the customer may not notice, but the customer paid for the whole job, not most of it. I've heard it said that integrity is doing the right thing even when no one else is looking. At the end of the day every job leaving my shop has my name on it. I won't abide a "good enough" attitude. The guy I mentioned (the 53 year old guy who was looking for work) is not someone I would trust when no one is looking.

 

[tech30528]

Another example: I used to work with a guy named Jesse. He was a very talented mechanic and did great work, but he had a bit of a meth habit. He was clean at work, but payday was Friday and he missed a lot of Mondays. When I hire someone I need them to show up on time and be ready to work.

On the positive side after not seeing Jesse for about two years I ran in to him. He looked great. He had kicked his habit, had cleaned up and put on about 30 pounds (he had been skinny as a rail). I'm very glad he managed to straighten up his life, particularly for his little boy who was with him that day. Today I would hire Jesse but he's not working in this field anymore.

 

[ChezC3]

It's not BS, it gives insight into character and whether or not a person might be compromised easily...

The employer employee paradigm is already too skewed to the favor of the employer in the first place, the use of drugs I can understand for safety reasons and that they are illegal as certain drugs become legal a testing method of a different kind should be used, much like what they are using for cases of DUI. Credit Checks and any other financial background data should in no way be used to determine employment. It is prejudicial. It doesn't necessarily show the character of a person because like a guy I know -- his wife jacked his credit up and he's going through a chap 13 to solve it and is divorced. So he not only has to explain to his potential employer a lot of personal info if he even gets the chance which is none of the employers business, he also has to reveal things about his personal life, which again, is none of the employers business.

Going under someone's employ does not give that person a license to know the entire life story of that person. It is a breach of privacy.

 

[Mycroft]

The employer employee paradigm is already too skewed to the favor of the employer in the first place, the use of drugs I can understand for safety reasons and that they are illegal as certain drugs become legal a testing method of a different kind should be used, much like what they are using for cases of DUI. Credit Checks and any other financial background data should in no way be used to determine employment. It is prejudicial. It doesn't necessarily show the character of a person because like a guy I know -- his wife jacked his credit up and he's going through a chap 13 to solve it and is divorced. So he not only has to explain to his potential employer a lot of personal info if he even gets the chance which is none of the employers business, he also has to reveal things about his personal life, which again, is none of the employers business.

Going under someone's employ does not give that person a license to know the entire life story of that person. It is a breach of privacy.

It is not a breach of privacy. The prospective employee is perfectly capable of refusing to give the information, thereby keeping their privacy intact.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Both liberals and conservatives are outraged at government wiretapping. It violates our privacy and civil liberties I agree so why do we put up with it from our boss? When your boss drug test you, Does a background check or a credit check that is your personal business and not your boss's. Why is that so hard for some of you to accept? If you are a criminal or a sex offender then I would support it in some cases but drug testing does not prove you are high or not and having bad credit does not mean you are a bad person. In the bad economy over the last 7 years lots of good people have bad credit and lots of good people do drugs. Lets get our boss out of our private lives just like the government.

1. Drug test to see if you pose a danger to the operation of the business. Employer's have a right to expect your full focus on work when at work. Drugs and alcohol have a tendency to both interrupt work flow and lead to safety violations.

2. Background checks are necessary in areas where major finances are concerned, where supervision of children is concerned, or whre the job requires dealing with criminal matters (like police or other law enforcement). A bank should know if you have money crimes, a school if you exhibit sexual perversions; and of course law enforcement speaks for itself. NOTE: IMO only these three types of jobs should be allowed to require background checks. Few, if any, others need to know if someone used to be a criminal.

3. Credit checks are helpful in determining if a potential employee can be trusted with goods or funds. A person demonstrating poor credit decisions could be a person who would embezzel funds or steal product items to supplement their income.

Any questions?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Both liberals and conservatives are outraged at government wiretapping. It violates our privacy and civil liberties I agree so why do we put up with it from our boss? When your boss drug test you, Does a background check or a credit check that is your personal business and not your boss's. Why is that so hard for some of you to accept? If you are a criminal or a sex offender then I would support it in some cases but drug testing does not prove you are high or not and having bad credit does not mean you are a bad person. In the bad economy over the last 7 years lots of good people have bad credit and lots of good people do drugs. Lets get our boss out of our private lives just like the government.

It seems to me that people responsible for an organization should have their right to pick and choose, who they want, by their criteria.

Why do you want to be all authoritarian about limiting their freedom of association?

 

[ChezC3]

It is not a breach of privacy. The prospective employee is perfectly capable of refusing to give the information, thereby keeping their privacy intact.

Two things come to mind with your response here;

1. Where does it end?

and

2. You are an advocate of slavery. You believe that because you are willing to pay someone that you are entitled to they, themselves.

Most people don't have the resources to go into business for themselves therefore in order to live they must sell their labor for a wage. Proof of the applicant's ability to perform the duties required by the employer for employment is the only information that the employer needs. By providing this proof of capability the applicant also shows his reliability by what his work history shows. Anything else is an usurpation on the part of the employer against the applicant's right to privacy. I don't even find a criminal record pertinent as time served is supposed to have fulfilled one's obligation to society. I find the prejudicial measures taken there to be one of many faults in our system which ruins the lives forever of individuals who may just have had a moment of indiscretion. You will always have a criminal when you won't let him forget he was one.

 

[Mr X]

If a job applicant does not like the fact that I run background checks and do drug tests,that is their right. They don't have to apply for a job at my establishments and I'm not required to hire that person.
As a matter of fact,I have 2 file cabinet drawers filled with job applicants who don't have a problem with it.

Maybe they do have a problem, but feel they have to do things they don't agree with for the chance to get a job.
The idea that people can just choose not to take a job if they don't like certain conditions is not the reality in the vast majority of cases.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Maybe they do have a problem, but feel they have to do things they don't agree with for the chance to get a job.
The idea that people can just choose not to take a job if they don't like certain conditions is not the reality in the vast majority of cases.

Where would you draw the line?

Would you agree someone who deals with money should have a criminal and credit check, or not?

Would you agree that any job that requires ethics should be able to check on ethical behavior, or not?

Where would you draw the line?

 

[Captain Adverse]

It is not a breach of privacy. The prospective employee is perfectly capable of refusing to give the information, thereby keeping their privacy intact.

Really? Hmm, isn't that like saying a starving persons doesn't have to eat a roach...he has the choice of starving? lol

I've pointed out in post #41 some of the valid reasons for asking for personal information, but someone saying it is NOT an invasion of privacy is being disingenuous. You know very well you are invading a persons privacy so perhaps having a valid reason for doing so beyond simply having a business is helpful.

 

[Mycroft]

Two things come to mind with your response here;

1. Where does it end?

and

2. You are an advocate of slavery. You believe that because you are willing to pay someone that you are entitled to they, themselves.

Most people don't have the resources to go into business for themselves therefore in order to live they must sell their labor for a wage. Proof of the applicant's ability to perform the duties required by the employer for employment is the only information that the employer needs. By providing this proof of capability the applicant also shows his reliability by what his work history shows. Anything else is an usurpation on the part of the employer against the applicant's right to privacy. I don't even find a criminal record pertinent as time served is supposed to have fulfilled one's obligation to society. I find the prejudicial measures taken there to be one of many faults in our system which ruins the lives forever of individuals who may just have had a moment of indiscretion. You will always have a criminal when you won't let him forget he was one.

1. Where does what end? If you are asking about what the limit to the questions that might be asked...the answer is, the limit is reached when the employer is unable to find someone willing to answer their questions.

2. LOL!! I do not advocate slavery. If one person is willing to agree to work for another person, you cannot call that arrangement slavery. Sorry, dude...your hyperbole doesn't apply here.

Now...the rest of your post is irrelevant rhetoric.

It doesn't matter what "most" people are able to do. Heck, most people are not able to sink a jump shot against the best basketball players in the world. So what?

Proof of an applicant's ability to perform duties required by the employer may require satisfaction of any qualities the employer deems necessary. Your opinion about "what an employer needs to require" are irrelevant. On the other hand, you are perfectly capable of going into competition with that particular employer, require less qualification be met and see if you can provide a better product or service. That is your choice, just as it is the other employer's choice to have higher qualifications to be met.

 

[ChezC3]

1. Where does what end? If you are asking about what the limit to the questions that might be asked...the answer is, the limit is reached when the employer is unable to find someone willing to answer their questions.

Ahh, the same race to the bottom mentality....got it! :thumbs:

2. LOL!! I do not advocate slavery. If one person is willing to agree to work for another person, you cannot call that arrangement slavery. Sorry, dude...your hyperbole doesn't apply here.

Sure you do, dude, you've just doubled down on it...

Now...the rest of your post is irrelevant rhetoric.

It doesn't matter what "most" people are able to do. Heck, most people are not able to sink a jump shot against the best basketball players in the world. So what?

Proof of an applicant's ability to perform duties required by the employer may require satisfaction of any qualities the employer deems necessary. Your opinion about "what an employer needs to require" are irrelevant. On the other hand, you are perfectly capable of going into competition with that particular employer, require less qualification be met and see if you can provide a better product or service. That is your choice, just as it is the other employer's choice to have higher qualifications to be met.

My entire post was relavent. All you've done is ignore a simple truth to pass along your justification of slavery.

It's the same problem that Capitalism has always had. Too few capitalists, not too many...

 

[Mycroft]

Really? Hmm, isn't that like saying a starving persons doesn't have to eat a roach...he has the choice of starving? lol

Yes...it is exactly like that. Or, you could say it's like saying to a child he can't have his desert if he doesn't eat his peas. Dude...you are smart. You must know that life is nothing but a series of choices. LOL!!

I've pointed out in post #41 some of the valid reasons for asking for personal information, but someone saying it is NOT an invasion of privacy is being disingenuous. You know very well you are invading a persons privacy so perhaps having a valid reason for doing so beyond simply having a business is helpful.

I DON'T know that I am invading a person's privacy when I establish a condition for that person to be allowed to work for me. Only THAT PERSON can decide what is invading his privacy.

If I, as the employer, decide that I need certain information before I will accept someone as my employee, then that is all the validity I need.

Your opinion about the validity of my decisions...unless you are a prospective employee...is irrelevant. In other words, if you are a prospective employee, then you decide whether you will meet my requirements to work for me. If you are not a prospective employee, then you don't have a dog in the fight and your opinion is irrelevant.

 

[Mycroft]

Ahh, the same race to the bottom mentality....got it! :thumbs:


Sure you do, dude, you've just doubled down on it...



My entire post was relavent. All you've done is ignore a simple truth to pass along your justification of slavery.

It's the same problem that Capitalism has always had. Too few capitalists, not too many...

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of slavery before you go on throwing that word around. Heck...I'm expecting you to start tossing around "racist" next.

LOL!!