Have a tax free Harley!

[dartanion]

Who do you have to thank for all this?

It started under Reagan, and the "Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988" was pushed heavily under Bush Sr. What you do on your time is now your employers business.

[Tubetwang]

Well...

I guess freedom is no longer free...

[dartanion]

Well...

I guess freedom is no longer free...

It's down right unconstitutional (see Amendment IV).

[drhulsey]

Would if I could but the bureaucracy has instituted mandatory drug tests in my trade...

I can't do it either, but I sure understand why some people do.

[dartanion]

Would if I could but the bureaucracy has instituted mandatory drug tests in my trade...

I can't do it either, but I sure understand why some people do.

The assumption here is that applying for and being considered for a job is probable cause enough for your prospective employer to search your bodily fluids for the residual evidence of drug use.

What the Act is designed to accomplish is to provide a legal recourse for employers (read businesses) to refuse or terminate employment to an individual based on results or refusal of a drug screening test. This is a very prejudicial piece of legislation as there are numerous other transgressions that are far more serious than drug use that no objective test can detect (spousal/child/elder abuse, petty theft, criminal theft, embezzlement, assault, sexual assault, sexual harassment, etc.). But since you can't test for these things by having someone agree to pee in a cup, you can't deny them employment.

In simple terms, here's a good scenario:

Joe is a hard working, married man with 3 children. Supports his local schools by volunteering as a tutor and coach of the boys track team. He's been with the same company for 20 years and has been a top performer. Joe's company was recently bought out and the new parent company is requiring all converted employees to submit to drug screens to keep their jobs. Joe loses his job because he refuses to take the drug test or fails the test because he smoked a joint at a concert last weekend. Either way he's screwed.

Joe's coworker Bob has also been with the same company 20 years, is married and has 3 children. However, Bob is an average worker with poor attendance and a generally bad attitude, beats his wife and kids, has been stealing cable for years, cheats on his taxes as well as his wife, steals money from the church offering tray, and has a hobby of torturing neighborhood stray animals all while abusing prescription pain killers. Bob is fortunate enough to be promoted into Joe's old job as he passed his drug screen with flying colors. Since his pain killers are prescription, they are disregarded and Bob gets the fat job.

[skyboltone]

Let's say Joe is a hard working Airline pilot, nuclear plant operator, oil pipeline operations tech, police officer, surgeon, or drives an 80,000 lb truck down the interstate at 70 mph?

One can refuse the test actually. Go do something else.

I will grant that a hangover test should be administered on Monday mornings too. Condition of employment. No different than basic skill evaluation or educational achievement. What if Joe is a brilliant self taught mathematician but has no degree? Guess what, he doesn't get the job teaching calculus.

If I own a business, will the government force me to hire somebody who's skills and reliability I don't trust? Are any regulatory standards allowed in the workplace, or for that matter anywhere at all? How about background checks that uncover a history of child sexual abuse by an individual applying for a job in an elementary school? An abrogation of his fourth amendment rights?

This is not a discussion about freedom so much as a discussion about drugs of choice. I say legalize pot, but I'm sorry, I don't want to work a hot panel with a meth head.

[Tubetwang]

Legalise pot?????

You'll have Nancy on your way...

[dartanion]

Yes, regulations do need to be in place, however the DFW Act allows business to over step their bounds and legally discriminate against someone who may have residue of an illegal substance in their urine. It gives them the right to refuse to employ that person. The individual has the right to refuse the test too, but they won't get the job in most cases. I support criminal back ground checks, but I wouldn't completely disregard someone for consideration in a job simply because they have been arrested before. It all depends. The problem here is that businesses are given the advantage over the individual. I remember a day when you were hired for a job with an interview and a hand shake. Then it was alcohol screening soon followed by drug screening. Now we've got to submit to credit checks. What's next? Blood? Hair? Toe nails? DNA samples? Bank statements? Credit card statements? Legal filings? Pat downs entering the office? Searches of possessions before leaving work? Cameras in your homes? Surveillance of all your activities?

The question is, how much information should your employer know about you and still have the individual's rights under the constitution protected?

I own a business, and I struggle with these issues. I prefer the old fashion way. If I trust someone enough to hire them and they do their job well, I have no issues with that employee. What they do on their own time is their business. I don't care or want to know what that might be.

[Tubetwang]

Yes, regulations do need to be in place, however the DFW Act allows business to over step their bounds and legally discriminate against someone who may have residue of an illegal substance in their urine. It gives them the right to refuse to employ that person. The individual has the right to refuse the test too, but they won't get the job in most cases. I support criminal back ground checks, but I wouldn't completely disregard someone for consideration in a job simply because they have been arrested before. It all depends. The problem here is that businesses are given the advantage over the individual. I remember a day when you were hired for a job with an interview and a hand shake. Then it was alcohol screening soon followed by drug screening. Now we've got to submit to credit checks. What's next? Blood? Hair? Toe nails? DNA samples? Bank statements? Credit card statements? Legal filings? Pat downs entering the office? Searches of possessions before leaving work? Cameras in your homes? Surveillance of all your activities?

The question is, how much information should your employer know about you and still have the individual's rights under the constitution protected?

I own a business, and I struggle with these issues. I prefer the old fashion way. If I trust someone enough to hire them and they do their job well, I have no issues with that employee. What they do on their own time is their business. I don't care or want to know what that might be.

I agree a 100%

Well said!

[Zippy]

What they do on their own time is their business. I don't care or want to know what that might be.

To heck with drug use, I still worry about the person driving a car while talking on a cell phone.

Back (closer) to the topic: Motorcycles.

I've had too many close encounters with cars/trucks changing lanes without looking for me on my motorcycle. If I'm in my truck, they tend to be a lil' more careful but if I'm on my bike, they seem not to care a whit.

And don't tell me I'm not sufficiently visible - I'm the guy with my headlights on, wearing a full-length Hi-viz yellow Aerostich riding suit.

[dartanion]

What they do on their own time is their business. I don't care or want to know what that might be.

To heck with drug use, I still worry about the person driving a car while talking on a cell phone.

Back (closer) to the topic: Motorcycles.

I've had too many close encounters with cars/trucks changing lanes without looking for me on my motorcycle. If I'm in my truck, they tend to be a lil' more careful but if I'm on my bike, they seem not to care a whit.

And don't tell me I'm not sufficiently visible - I'm the guy with my headlights on, wearing a full-length Hi-viz yellow Aerostich riding suit.

Here is CA, cell phone use without a headset while driving is illegal, but it appears everyone ignores the law. Even police officers (they are some of the worst offenders).

I just about bought a Harley a few years back to ease commute pressure and save on fuel. After considering how friggin' bad bay area drivers are, I decided not to get the bike. Heck, yesterday I had a full-sized PU truck changes lanes right on top of me without signaling and without any recognition that I was even there after blasting the horn at him. Riders beware!!! There's Californians on them roads!!

[dano-rator]

The city of Philadelphia has passed a law, not in effect yet, that bans cell phone use while driving, but also includes bicycle riders and rollerbladers! Seriously, you need a hands free device while rollerblading?

The state of Penna doesn't like it because they're working on a law that makes cell phone use behind the wheel a secondary offense, ie. you can't be stopped for it unless you are speeding, swerving, or otherwise breaking the rules of the road. This makes more sense to me.

On the Harley issue, they've always tried to use the federal government to promote buisness. Back in the seventies they had the government impose a tariff on imported motorcycles, over 750cc i believe, to try to curb the growing asian big bike market.

I like to buy American when I can, but in my eyes HD's been making the same motorcycle for a hundred years (single crank pin). The Japanese bikes, and I'm not talking crotch rockets here, are light years ahead in terms of technology, performance and safety. And they don't make your hands and butt numb! But, I guess you don't ride a Harley for the technology, you ride it for the chicks. Sorry if that's offensive to anyone as an american, it's just my opinion.

Dan

[M Fowler]

My friend is a Minnesota Highway Patrol Officer and he says he has a hard time with the steering wheel for all the use of his cell phone, radio and computer all while he is driving. His wife says he is scarey to ride with due all the things he has to do while driving?

And they want to pass laws, come on arrest the officers first.

Just like California motorcycle cops refused to use the quiet mufflers on their motorcycles because the drivers did not hear them and had many more accidents with quiet mufflers so they went back to after market loud pipes but continue to arrest the bikers for noise laws?

Crazy laws

[Structo]

Yep, too many laws!

Yes, of course the laws don't apply to the cops.

I'm not sure it passed here but they were talking about a cell phone while driving ban here.

When asked the powers that be said no, police would not be bound by the law or any other emergency related employee.

The thing is, they have had a law on the books forever here that is called, driving while impaired or interference or something like that.
That can mean drunk, stoned or even eating while driving or having a dog on your lap while driving.

It's up to a policeman's call whether or not you get a ticket for it.

There is talk about making driving while on a cell phone a secondary offense, meaning they can't pull you over for it but if it is secondary to speeding or other offense then they can write you up for the cell phone.