To: microgood
I assume you are OK with an employer being able to not hire or fire an employee for any reason, including drug use, as a matter of this being a free country. I can't see that the pure libertarian argument can force an employer to do otherwise.
In the public sector, the employer would be the electorate, deciding who gets government employment, help, etc. and who doesn't.
34 posted on
10/23/2006 6:34:08 PM PDT by
SampleMan
(Do not dispute the peacefulness of Islam, so as not to send Muslims into violent outrage.)
To: SampleMan
I assume you are OK with an employer being able to not hire or fire an employee for any reason, including drug use, as a matter of this being a free country.
For the most part. I believe employment is a kind of contract which binds both sides in certain ways. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to employers but at the same time, they should not be able to fire you one year before retirement to screw you out of your benefits either. There has to be good faith on both sides.
Actually I just read an article about a month ago where many employers are ending their drug testing programs because they have not been beneficial or cost effective and so now the drug testing companies are lobbying public schools trying to make up the shortfall (it was posted here a FR a month or so ago).
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson