Urine tests for welfare recipients

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Well as has been stated previously, if you don't like the conditions, then don't work for the man. It's pretty simple really.

Here's an example. There's this guy down the street who'll pay me $600/week and all I have to do is dig ditches all day. That's all I have to do. The only problem is, I don't think I'd like to dig ditches every day, so I don't think I'll take that job.

There's this other guy who says he'll pay me $600/week to sit on my arse and do nothing. Sounds like a good idea. The only thing is, I can't drink or get high while I'm doing it. Hmmm...but I like drinking and getting high and the guy who's making me dig ditches doesn't care how high I am as long as I dig ditches. That sounds like a better deal to me.

There's this other guy who'll pay me $800/week to dig ditches, but I also have to submit to a urine sample once a week. That's a lot of money. Maybe it's worth not getting high and drinking every day...

It's a matter of priorities.

There are laws against any conditions....

Your examples are pretty mild. Intentionally? Yes.....

I am in the middle of seeing unfair and possibly illegal work practices as we speak. People have already quit making the jobs of people working here even more difficult, they can quit, but not litigate or have their day in court. Or even have anyone to file a complaint with. Because the boss can get away with it and does.....exploitation of workers is what I'm talking about.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Cicero

...exploitation of workers is what I'm talking about.

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.

[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.

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.

The situation becomes more complex when I have to rely on the masses alongside myself to demand fair treatment, to get it. And people don't care for the idea or want it. (judging from some of the opinions here) It disturbs me when I think of what people had to do to get fair wages and any sense of human rights at the workplace or any compensation when injured.

A lot of you have kids here. I wonder what opinion you would have if you saw your child working under any conditions their boss wants.
heh- This includes harassment folks.....I guess we are back at square one when people revert to the old ways of thinking.

[lookout123]

I don't view asking someone who wants a job working for me (with my files, with my clients, affecting my reputation) to take a piss test or an aptitude test or anything other kind of test, as discriminatory.

Your actions decide whether you will pass a piss test, not your genes or your skin color.

Denying a job due to race, color, creed, sex, or sexual preference is descriminatory. Expecting prospective employees to pass a urine test is not. Honestly, if you aren't smart enough to clean up to the degree necessary to pass a urine test, you're too damn stupid to work at my company anyway.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Cicero

There are laws against any conditions....

Your examples are pretty mild. Intentionally? Yes.....

Right, so if a condition of being a teacher is that you have a certain qualification and you don't happen to have that qualification, you should still be able to have the job even though you're not qualified? The point is, if an employer tells you prior to commencement of employment that you have to do a, b, & c in order to keep your job and you accept those conditions, then your only recourse is to resign if, after a period of time, you decide you don't like the conditions.

I am in the middle of seeing unfair and possibly illegal work practices as we speak. People have already quit making the jobs of people working here even more difficult, they can quit, but not litigate or have their day in court. Or even have anyone to file a complaint with. Because the boss can get away with it and does.....exploitation of workers is what I'm talking about.

If people quit and there's not enough people to do the job and you don't like it, it's not your fault, but you don't get to sue the boss because you don't like it. You get to go find yourself another job that suits you better.

I don't get the whole idea behind blaming the boss for other people's decisions. It's probably pissing him off too you know.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

If people quit and there's not enough people to do the job and you don't like it, it's not your fault, but you don't get to sue the boss because you don't like it.

That's not the illegal part.....drrrr.:p

I profoundly dislike things all the time that aren't illegal (oh I wish). That's not what I'm talking about. But hey, thank you for signing up, but I just said that there are illegal things going (verifiable)on and I have full rights not to like those things too. Hey they're illegal and I don't like them....as opposed to the legal things I like and the illegal things I like. And of course the legal things I don't like.

Bosses still should not be allowed to make people work under any conditions which is why we have lots of laws in place now.
Siiiiimple.

You didn't say reasonable conditions. You said "any conditions". Which is completely different.