Urine tests for welfare recipients

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

An employer has the right to put whatever conditions he wants on the people he employs.

No...What are you talking about? Whatever conditions implies...whatever conditions.

I'm probably not making any sense..but that's beside the point.
An employer does not have the right to put workers under any conditions he/she wants.

[monster]

Ali, do employers and employees sign contracts in Aus?

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Cicero

No...What are you talking about? Whatever conditions implies...whatever conditions.

I'm probably not making any sense..but that's beside the point.
An employer does not have the right to put workers under any conditions he/she wants.

I'm talking about the sort of conditions that come with any job. For example, if you want to work in a strip club, one of the conditions is that you have to be happy to get your gear off. All jobs have different requirements. I don't see the issue really.

Not making sense is not beside the point because there's no point talking if you're the only one that understands you.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by monster

Ali, do employers and employees sign contracts in Aus?

Some do and some don't, but it's all about to change anyway.

Regardless of that though, even if people sign contracts they know what they're agreeing to in the first place. I'm not suggesting any different for anyone else either. Conditions should be discussed prior to the commencement of employment (as I mentioned previously).

Trying to put conditions on someone after employment is different.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Cicero

More possible in some ways yes. Nothing changes until a union happens or there is a lawsuit. If you don't see anything changing then you probably aren't trying.

I am not trying because I fully support the use of a pee test by employers to test for drugs, esp if the business or job is one where on the job drug use could endanger yourself or others. I have listed a number of examples earlier in the thread.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I am not trying because I fully support the use of a pee test by employers to test for drugs, esp if the business or job is one where on the job drug use could endanger yourself or others. I have listed a number of examples earlier in the thread.

Oh...

When you said nothing changes with Congress I thought it was a complaint.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Congress has made that situation more possible over the last 20 years. Each administration has favored different industries and provided protections which have eaten away at the rights of the workers. I don't see much changing in the near future.

See, I saw this as a complaint about Congress. But if you are all for protections eating away the rights of workers, well ok. I usually see that as a negative but clearly that's just me. Sorry for double-posting in here...I would just like to try and attempt to make sense.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Cicero

Oh...

When you said nothing changes with Congress I thought it was a complaint.

Oh, it is. Congress does nothing that does not 1) support their attempt to maintain power 2) does not support only their piece of the pie at home who re-elects them, or 3) does not benefit them personallly. None of that does not mean that I don't support drug testing in the work place.

[Cicero]

No one said it did...right?
I am saying that all those double negatives are getting hard to read.

[icileparadise]

As being a Professional Driver I have just yesterday been through a medical examination by a Swiss Medical specialist and I have never had so many bodily proddings and soundbeats in my life. He put me through ten thoracic stethescope soundings front and back like I have never had in my life. Plus urine and blood checks, eyesight, hearing and balance and reflexes height weight etc.... And this is for all proffessional drivers from trains to trucks. I think it's sound practice. I passed with excellent colours if you want to know. How many people drive *dui* I'll let you guess.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Cicero

No one said it did...right?
I am saying that all those double negatives are getting hard to read.

Ok, let me shorten my position.

1) I support drug testing in certain specific jobs. Other jobs, no. Some need it, some demand it, others require it. If you don’t accept it tough shit, quit.

2) I understand that large corps have gained power through Congressional acts supported by lobbyists as the thrust of power drives their motivation to hold on to power.

3) Our Republic is not perfect but it is damm better than anything I have experienced in my short life.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

3) Our Republic is not perfect but it is damm better than anything I have experienced in my short life.

Then you aren't doing it right.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Cicero

Then you aren't doing it right.

Bad Girl!