Re: DRUG TESTING, ETC.

[bocelts@scsn.net (R. Bentz Kirby)]

Well Jim, while I generally agree with your post here, I do take exception
to the killing the lawyers part.  I am not sure about any other lawyers on
the list, but I don't care to be shot just because I happen to be an
attorney.  :-)

Otherwise, I thought this was a good post.

Jim Meninno wrote:

> I guess this was directed at me, so I'll answer.
>
> Obviously I am out of touch with current American corporate hiring
> practices.  I lived in England from '91 to '97 and, I'm happy to say, I
> must have been out of the country when they added the brainwash juice to
> the water supply.
>
> We're not talking about coming to work drunk or stoned here.  You don't
> need testing to fire someone for being unfit to do their job.  We're
> talking about checking into people's private lives just to see if they
> happen to be breaking the law.
>
> We're not talking about saving you from your workmate's assault rifle,
> either.  If so, we'd do regular mandatory screenings for depression and
> fire anyone who failed.  Of course maybe that's happening too, and I
> missed it.
>
> If this is a liability issue, as someone has suggested, it is just
> another example of the affects of rampant litigation in the US.  Take
> all the lawyers out and shoot 'em.  (except Jim McMaster.  Sorry, if
> you're not a lawyer, you sound like one).
> <snip>



--
Peace,

Bentz Kirby
http://www.scsn.net/users/sclaw