...since when did dear ol' dads insurance co$t preclude my constituional right to " life, liberty & the persuit of happiness?...or my "supposed" presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
Piss'n me on the presumption of possible guilt is....
VERY heavy handed for someone that calls him or herself an american. JMO.
What I do with my time away from work is MY business, as long as it has no effect on my attendance, or ability to perform the tasks that have been assigned to me, there should be no right to search my piss for "possible" guilt. What right are YOU willing to give up for the betterment of dads business?
If I'm caught doing something illegal by the LAW, then I deserve to be punished & scrutinized, but to be searched under the presumption of guilt?...seriously?
"So if I see someone doing a crime, I should do nothing about it unless the law catches them??"
x
YEAH...THAT'S EXACTLY what was meant when I went all indignant over ILLEGAL searches of my piss under the presumption (without ANY evidence) of guilt...
How could you possibly comprehend my statement to mean "stand by & do nothing?...seriously...
It's not daddys job, NOR the job of the company he works for, to police my piss under the PRESUMPTION OF GUILT, & without probable cause.
I can see it in my mind...
"dod: think we should test this one for drugs?"
"other subordinate employ: Well YEAH...he filled out an ap right?...there's your probable cause...
You'd HAVE to be on drugs to wanna work here...
You are awfully fond of quoting some of those who framed the constitution, yet have no problem looking the other way when it's something wrong (re-read the constitution again, especially the part about search & seizure) being done in the name of corp profits.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
OK, the insurance co$t argument...
If in fact it were true:
Bow down to your corporate overlords peon...
A far more likely scenario is:
With paid time away from work, combined with the actual co$t of the lab work, x however many employees they are testing...
I have tremendous doubt if that argument holds much water.
Oops, I think I wasn't clear on this part. He has no choice but to test them. If he doesn't, his insurance rates go way up, and then he loses money. As a company that is trying to not outsource to the China, every penny counts. The VPs took huge paycuts in order to minimize layoffs. (We are talking about VPs that only make 100k a year, not 1.5mil a year) This a company that takes care of its people, if they are willing to contribute to the company. The idea being that if you have an incentive to see your company succeed, ie-stock shares, bonuses and so on, you will try harder.
He would rather not piss test except at hiring, of if they have an accident or whatnot. But with his insurance being a significant cost in the mix, he has to. He provides coverage to his full time employees, so thinking about how much health care costs, you can see why he would do this.