Urine tests for welfare recipients

[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

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.

[Aliantha]

What any conditions are you talking about? You're not making any sense.

[monster]

Ali, do employers and employees sign contracts in Aus?

[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.

[Cicero]

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

[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!