Comment everyone loses rights due to a few greedy people (Score 1) 120
In situations where rights can be bought or sold they become worthless to the original owner of the right.
The specific issue I would like to talk about is drug testing of employees or potential employees to determine decisions of hiring or firing.(or less extreme more $ or less $) This also applies to banks accepting or rejecting and setting of fees and rates in a discriminatory manner.
The characters are
the drug testing employer
the non drug testing employer
the nondoped valueable employee
the nondoped worthless employee
the doped valueable employee
the doped worthless employee
First off we must agree that all people have the right not to be drug tested. This would be saying that they expect that other people could not just walk up to them and stick them with a needle for no reason.
Employers enter the picture. They are seeking to hire valuable employees and not hire worthless employees.(or less extreme pay >$) They can get a better idea if an employee is valuable by hiring those who agree to take and pass a drug test because there exists a correlation between drug use and valuable employees.
Drug testing employers offer the test to determine hiring.
The nondoped valueable employee only stands to gain from this as can distinguish himself from the dopesmokers who will not be hired and also from the nonvalueable employees. He does give up his right not to be stuck with a needle. He also tends to prefer employers who test for drugs as he now has another inherent advantage.
The nondoped worthless employee loves this policy. Not only does it get him past the druggies, but it also, in the employers eyes, puts him in the category of valuable because of the correlation between dope and worthless employees. He tends to prefer employers who test for drugs as he has the inherent advantage of passing and the additional advantage of becoming "valuable" because of it. He does give up his right to not be stuck with a needle however.
The doped valuable employee really get screwed over. Not only does he flunk the test because he is classified as worthless, but now the employer will freely distribute that information about him. He also has given up his right not to be drug tested.
The doped wothless employee also loses out. He flunks the test, and is considered worthless, which is true, unfavorable information is distributed about him, but he has also lost his right not to be drug tested.
The nontesting employer really loses out. The nondoped valueable employees have all went to work for the testing employer, so his hiring pool is the doped group. He has heard bad things about how this group is doped from the first employer. Since he is not doing the drug tests he will tend to hire worthless employees because of the higher correlation with drugs. We can expect the nontesting employer to start testing thus becoming a testing employer, and nontesting employers cease to exist.
When nontesting employers do not exist there is no way to avoid the drug test other than being unemployed. Everyone needs to eat, and will have to be at least minimally employed. Therefore they will all take the tests and perhaps even quit the drug habit. Even if noone ever did drugs, everyone will still have effectively lost their right to not be stuck with a needle.
The only defence of employees against this loss of rights is collective actions. But the nondoped ones will tend to defect. Therefore government action is necessary in order to stop this loss of employees rights to their empl
dax
jteastma@mtu.edu
The specific issue I would like to talk about is drug testing of employees or potential employees to determine decisions of hiring or firing.(or less extreme more $ or less $) This also applies to banks accepting or rejecting and setting of fees and rates in a discriminatory manner.
The characters are
the drug testing employer
the non drug testing employer
the nondoped valueable employee
the nondoped worthless employee
the doped valueable employee
the doped worthless employee
First off we must agree that all people have the right not to be drug tested. This would be saying that they expect that other people could not just walk up to them and stick them with a needle for no reason.
Employers enter the picture. They are seeking to hire valuable employees and not hire worthless employees.(or less extreme pay >$) They can get a better idea if an employee is valuable by hiring those who agree to take and pass a drug test because there exists a correlation between drug use and valuable employees.
Drug testing employers offer the test to determine hiring.
The nondoped valueable employee only stands to gain from this as can distinguish himself from the dopesmokers who will not be hired and also from the nonvalueable employees. He does give up his right not to be stuck with a needle. He also tends to prefer employers who test for drugs as he now has another inherent advantage.
The nondoped worthless employee loves this policy. Not only does it get him past the druggies, but it also, in the employers eyes, puts him in the category of valuable because of the correlation between dope and worthless employees. He tends to prefer employers who test for drugs as he has the inherent advantage of passing and the additional advantage of becoming "valuable" because of it. He does give up his right to not be stuck with a needle however.
The doped valuable employee really get screwed over. Not only does he flunk the test because he is classified as worthless, but now the employer will freely distribute that information about him. He also has given up his right not to be drug tested.
The doped wothless employee also loses out. He flunks the test, and is considered worthless, which is true, unfavorable information is distributed about him, but he has also lost his right not to be drug tested.
The nontesting employer really loses out. The nondoped valueable employees have all went to work for the testing employer, so his hiring pool is the doped group. He has heard bad things about how this group is doped from the first employer. Since he is not doing the drug tests he will tend to hire worthless employees because of the higher correlation with drugs. We can expect the nontesting employer to start testing thus becoming a testing employer, and nontesting employers cease to exist.
When nontesting employers do not exist there is no way to avoid the drug test other than being unemployed. Everyone needs to eat, and will have to be at least minimally employed. Therefore they will all take the tests and perhaps even quit the drug habit. Even if noone ever did drugs, everyone will still have effectively lost their right to not be stuck with a needle.
The only defence of employees against this loss of rights is collective actions. But the nondoped ones will tend to defect. Therefore government action is necessary in order to stop this loss of employees rights to their empl
dax
jteastma@mtu.edu
