Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Thu, 20 Jun 1996 09:17:45 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Well, at least if they are going to use the impaired argument, then
they test for alcohol, its a much more common source of workplace
impairment than coke or smoke. Also, if they are going to use the
economic argument (lost days increased disability pay) then test for
tobacco, since cigarettes contribute to everything from increased
incidence of colds and bronchitis to increased likelihood of heart
attacks.
If they are simply checking to see if an employee is a potential
no-goodnik, then they had best check other equally vague indicators of
that sort of behaviour. Child out of wedlock? Divorced? Single
parent? Use seatbelts? Jaywalk?
Look, a company needs good people at least as badly as good people
need a place to work. If they are simple enough to eliminate a
potential employee because of some previous minor infraction, then
putting aside the moral and legal issues, its their own economic loss.
Eric Siegel
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|