Who thinks this way?

[theMAJORITY]

lets say you go to a interview for a new job, and the potential employeer says you have to sign this piece of paper so they can search your body for controlled substances---with out probable cause. you sign the paper, or you won't get the job, but your not worried, because "you have nothing to hide".

It is the thought process of "Don't worry if you have nothing to hide" that scares me.

Do these people understand that our constitution was not developed for people that had something to hide? That is true--It was developed (later, with our bill of rights) to protect a people from a government--and now businesses.

You may have nothing to hide, and that is cool---but don't give away your childrens liberitities because you don't mind giving up your individual rights that people died for you to have.

IMO, a business has no right to ask an employee to give up our rights to privacy or free speach (or any constitutional right)---just to work for them so they have a shot of wealth. They ought to be happy enough to have a demend that requires employees to work for them. They should be happy somebody comes to work on time and puts in a honest 8 hours of work so the employee can pay their bills and have a crappy shot of a retirement. leave their rights alone, unless they are intoxicated at work. They are making you wealthy employeers. And you are making your employees owned.

There is one other way a citizen can lose some of their constitutional rights. that is when you are under arrest, and you become a "ward of the state"--you lose your rights.

Now we have employeers taking away our rights. Is there a parallel between working for such an employeer, and being a prisioner as a ward of the state?

 

[Diuretic]

Wrong instrument. The constitution controls government, not businesses (which are treated in law as individuals). You want this stamped out then get your state legislature to prohibit it.

Further, even if you're arrested you don't lose your constitutional rights. You might waive your right to silence and answer questions but your rights aren't extinguished.

 

[Battleborne]

lets say you go to a interview for a new job, and the potential employeer says you have to sign this piece of paper so they can search your body for controlled substances---with out probable cause. you sign the paper, or you won't get the job, but your not worried, because "you have nothing to hide".

It is the thought process of "Don't worry if you have nothing to hide" that scares me.

Do these people understand that our constitution was not developed for people that had something to hide? That is true--It was developed (later, with our bill of rights) to protect a people from a government--and now businesses.

You may have nothing to hide, and that is cool---but don't give away your childrens liberitities because you don't mind giving up your individual rights that people died for you to have.

IMO, a business has no right to ask an employee to give up our rights to privacy or free speach (or any constitutional right)---just to work for them so they have a shot of wealth. They ought to be happy enough to have a demend that requires employees to work for them. They should be happy somebody comes to work on time and puts in a honest 8 hours of work so the employee can pay their bills and have a crappy shot of a retirement. leave their rights alone, unless they are intoxicated at work. They are making you wealthy employeers. And you are making your employees owned.

There is one other way a citizen can lose some of their constitutional rights. that is when you are under arrest, and you become a "ward of the state"--you lose your rights.
Now we have employeers taking away our rights. Is there a parallel between working for such an employeer, and being a prisioner as a ward of the state?

Nope you lose your freedom but not your rights...to wit:'You have the right to remain silent....' Miranda et al

 

[theMAJORITY]

Wrong instrument. The constitution controls government, not businesses (which are treated in law as individuals). You want this stamped out then get your state legislature to prohibit it.

Further, even if you're arrested you don't lose your constitutional rights. You might waive your right to silence and answer questions but your rights aren't extinguished.

Not today. with communication, and the sharing of personal information between business and industries, business has become a big problem when it comes to individual privacy.


You don't lose any rights as a ward of the state? Come on, you just got picked up for driving under the influence, and they jam their finger up your butt. They lock you up so you can't roam in society. You can't wear your own clothes or converse with family (unless they joined yo8 in jail) unless it is visiting hours. If you really want to fee liike you ahve no rights---try solitary confienment. If you did not lose your right to freedom and persuite of happyness by being locked up---I don't know what to say to you. What exactly do you think being a "ward of the state" means-----besides employment with most employeers today---lol

Business and industries that have your personal information is a big issue now. And the issue is starting to show up in the courts.

Here is a article about pregnant women who are searched with out probably cause. It does not go over the right we lose s a prisioner, but it touches it lightly. I am still looking for something mroe descriptive.

http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/lowincome/12511res20001101.html

 

[Battleborne]

Not today. with communication, and the sharing of personal information between business and industries, business has become a big problem when it comes to individual privacy.


You don't lose any rights as a ward of the state? Come on, you just got picked up for driving under the influence, and they jam their finger up your butt. They lock you up so you can't roam in society. You can't wear your own clothes or converse with family (unless they joined yo8 in jail) unless it is visiting hours. If you really want to fee liike you ahve no rights---try solitary confienment. If you did not lose your right to freedom and persuite of happyness by being locked up---I don't know what to say to you. What exactly do you think being a "ward of the state" means-----besides employment with most employeers today---lol

Business and industries that have your personal information is a big issue now. And the issue is starting to show up in the courts.

say what...where do you live? I have never seen or heard of a arresting officer doing this...well except for the weirdos in NYC that did it to a arrestee.If I remember correctly they used a broom handle though...that was bad...really sick!

 

[theMAJORITY]

say what...where do you live? I have never seen or heard of a arresting officer doing this...well except for the weirdos in NYC that did it to a arrestee.If I remember correctly they used a broom handle though...that was bad...really sick!

Sounds sick. They can check you for drugs when your under arrest or weapons I am sure. A anal search is really common. They don't do it on the street, they do it at the station during processing. It was done to me while I was being processed for a bench warrent for a traffic offence ticket I ignored that I recieved in the mail after a fender bender. I was at the police station to get a purchase permit two years later for a hand gun (which I got). I went to jail--and got the finger search. West Michigan is very anal. lol


OK, I can not find anything written in a article on exactly what right you lose when your arrested, but you do lose your right to privacy, and your right to bear arms for sure. I may have confused constitutional rights with civil rights of liberity and freedom. Cause, you can't go to the grocery store for food either (just an example).

But, I would think not being able to bear arms (like any fellon is not suppose to), and the loss of right to privacy are straight out of the Bill of rights.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/equal.htm

You are asked to give up a right to privacy when you get hired in, or have random drug testing with employeers. It is legal, because you sign the waiver to get the job--other wise, you would not sign it. Now my question is, what gives anybody the right to even ask you to give up a right (like no search without probable cause or a warrent) of the constitution or bill of rights to work for them? Since most employeers do this, you would most likely face hardship as a jobless worker if you decide your rights are too important to give up.

The case-----------
You are now placed in a position of either enduring a hard ship as a out of work larborer, or giving up a constitutional right or two so you can be employeed. We are now forced to decide what is more important to us, a pay check to feed yourself clothe yourself and shelter yourself (and may be have some fun with life), or the loss of some rights. Why should a collective majority mass of employeers be able to put an American citizen through that choice?

There are still a few employeers out ther that don't do that (but still don't want you working intoxicated of course), but we are effectively taking aboput 80% of the employeers, and telling 70% of the population to give up their rights----or starve.


That is a good case man. I think this country boy can win that one.

 

[Battleborne]

?????????????

Sounds sick. They can check you for drugs when your under arrest or weapons I am sure. A anal search is really common. They don't do it on the street, they do it at the station during processing. It was done to me while I was being processed for a bench warrent for a traffic offence ticket I ignored that I recieved in the mail after a fender bender. I was at the police station to get a purchase permit two years later for a hand gun (which I got). I went to jail--and got the finger search. West Michigan is very anal. lol


OK, I can not find anything written in a article on exactly what right you lose when your arrested, but you do lose your right to privacy, and your right to bear arms for sure. I may have confused constitutional rights with civil rights of liberity and freedom. Cause, you can't go to the grocery store for food either (just an example).

But, I would think not being able to bear arms (like any fellon is not suppose to), and the loss of right to privacy are straight out of the Bill of rights.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/equal.htm

sorry to hear that...however I have done many strip searches...and was never taught to stick my finger anywhere...we just ordered the arrestee to bend over and spread...if something looked suspicious they went to see the MD...who either removed it or took x-rays...if in fact a officer put his finger where it did not belong..I would say you have a good law suit!

 

[theMAJORITY]

sorry to hear that...however I have done many strip searches...and was never taught to stick my finger anywhere...we just ordered the arrestee to bend over and spread...if something looked suspicious they went to see the MD...who either removed it or took x-rays...if in fact a officer put his finger where it did not belong..I would say you have a good law suit!

Ohh man---that was several years back. may be your right, and they just fingered the rim--lol. I do remember latex gloves and the cheak spread---but I can't remember if I got screwed. hehe

I would think somebody could shove something up there, and not look suspicious---so may be some fingers have to be in there to see if anything is suspicious. Can't you guys get a special warrent or something? I meen jeech---the person is being incarcerated, and I didn't think a anal search is out of line if your arrested. People cram stuff up there all the time when the lights come on---we know that. Is a anal search really unlawfull when being proccessed directly after being brought in under arrest? I really did not think it would be.

But, I would hope the practice would seem out of line to all Americans if a employeer asked you to do it so you can work for them. Ahhhh---we will all bend over again---we need the money for bills. What a choice for the working American to have to make.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm out of my depth here but wouldn't the Fourth Amendment be used to ensure that state laws concerning intrusive searches were legitimate?

 

[Battleborne]

Yes it does...........

I'm out of my depth here but wouldn't the Fourth Amendment be used to ensure that state laws concerning intrusive searches were legitimate?

Intrusive searches must be followed by 'Found Suspicion' and are done by qualified MD's when the search is done...they are referred for further inspection...the officer has no right nor is he/she taught to stick a finger where it does not belong!

If you are referring to strip searches when a person is booked this is also covered under the Fourth amendment...no suspect is ever strip searched in the field...only pat downs are allowed...the only exception would be on entering the country from another country..then the person is taken to a back room and strip searched by a officer of the same gender...!

 

[Beefy]

Businesses have every right to make your employment conditional on their terms, just as you have the right not to sell them your labor on your terms. They are buying your labor, and if they say they're not going to buy any labor from someone unless certain conditions are met, I have no problem with that. They are not the government.

If cops were to do so, its a different story. But in the free market, the buyer and seller of goods or services have every right to do so on their own terms.

 

[Diuretic]

Intrusive searches must be followed by 'Found Suspicion' and are done by qualified MD's when the search is done...they are referred for further inspection...the officer has no right nor is he/she taught to stick a finger where it does not belong!

If you are referring to strip searches when a person is booked this is also covered under the Fourth amendment...no suspect is ever strip searched in the field...only pat downs are allowed...the only exception would be on entering the country from another country..then the person is taken to a back room and strip searched by a officer of the same gender...!

Strip search routine here is the same, always in private (only in custody) and only with officers of the same sex (requests for opposite sex officers are always denied...). It's allowed by legislation and has to be strictly followed and it is audited each time it's carried out.

On intrusive searches in my state we have a veritable maze of legislation that guides this, but same, only a medical practitioner or RN can do so (RN because some isolated areas only have the Flying Doctor).

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Businesses have every right to make your employment conditional on their terms, just as you have the right not to sell them your labor on your terms. They are buying your labor, and if they say they're not going to buy any labor from someone unless certain conditions are met, I have no problem with that. They are not the government.

If cops were to do so, its a different story. But in the free market, the buyer and seller of goods or services have every right to do so on their own terms.

Monolithic businesses often have too much control over the process. Reasonable restrictions by the legislature on corporate intrusion are acceptable. I mean, every piece of software you buy comes with an EULA that deprives you of just about every write you have according to the law. You can either accept that or not buy software. You alone, of course, not buying software is not going to change shit. If the government actually considered these things enforcable, the US would be just as much a police state as if the government itself mandated it.

 

[Beefy]

Monolithic businesses often have too much control over the process. Reasonable restrictions by the legislature on corporate intrusion are acceptable. I mean, every piece of software you buy comes with an EULA that deprives you of just about every write you have according to the law. You can either accept that or not buy software. You alone, of course, not buying software is not going to change shit. If the government actually considered these things enforcable, the US would be just as much a police state as if the government itself mandated it.

You think this is due to not enough governemnt? Seriously.

 

[Diuretic]

This might seem to be a bit obscure but if you want to know who runs a society look at the content of the criminal law. And I mean look past the obvious stuff like, murder is a crime.

In England in the 19th Century farm labourers were getting organised and were beginning to agitate for better conditions. They did a few really stupid things like setting fire to farmer's haystacks in the night. Guess what? Suddenly setting fire to haystacks became an offence for which offenders could be imprisoned for massive prison sentences. But until the haystack burning the ordinary property protection offences were considered to be fine.

Another example. In London there is an area called Blackheath, it's not far from Greenwich. In the 19th Century Blackheath was a desirable location for the wealthy, they built big houses on large tracts of land and had the availability of the common land at Blackheath for recreational purposes. But suddenly some of the wealtlhy householders found themselves being set upon by muggers who carried articles of disguise, chloroform pads and so on. Up until then the usual robbery provisions were okay for everyone (robbery was dealt with by hanging) but when the wealthy in Blackheath were being set upon suddenly anyone caught with an article of disguised or deleterious drug without even having used either of them was being turned over and locked up to prevent robberies on the wealthy burghers of Blackheath. It was also made an offence to "loiter or lie in wait" so that if you were wandering around on Blackheath common and couldn't explain yourself then the constable would bin you.

I won't go on but I can find plenty of examples like this.

Commercial interests can be protected by civil law - by tort law, contract law and civil regulatory law. You'll know who's in charge when people can be imprisoned for breaching commercial interests like copyright. If it's not happening yet my guess is that it will.

 

[Liberano]

lets say you go to a interview for a new job, and the potential employeer says you have to sign this piece of paper so they can search your body for controlled substances---with out probable cause. you sign the paper, or you won't get the job, but your not worried, because "you have nothing to hide".

It is the thought process of "Don't worry if you have nothing to hide" that scares me.

Do these people understand that our constitution was not developed for people that had something to hide? That is true--It was developed (later, with our bill of rights) to protect a people from a government--and now businesses.

You may have nothing to hide, and that is cool---but don't give away your childrens liberitities because you don't mind giving up your individual rights that people died for you to have.

IMO, a business has no right to ask an employee to give up our rights to privacy or free speach (or any constitutional right)---just to work for them so they have a shot of wealth. They ought to be happy enough to have a demend that requires employees to work for them. They should be happy somebody comes to work on time and puts in a honest 8 hours of work so the employee can pay their bills and have a crappy shot of a retirement. leave their rights alone, unless they are intoxicated at work. They are making you wealthy employeers. And you are making your employees owned.

There is one other way a citizen can lose some of their constitutional rights. that is when you are under arrest, and you become a "ward of the state"--you lose your rights.

Now we have employeers taking away our rights. Is there a parallel between working for such an employeer, and being a prisioner as a ward of the state?

But they are not taking away your rights, these are conditions (not rights) of employment. You are not forced to submit to agree to these, you are free to look for an employer who will not do this. And there are many as I've never signed on to that agreement or even heard of it except in a few occupations.

 

[LadyT]

The fact is that businesses are held liable for employees. If a AA has a drunk pilot and in a drunken stupor kills and/or injures passengers, not only will the pilot be held criminally liable but the business will be responsible for damages too. They have every right to protect themselves.

 

[theMAJORITY]

But they are not taking away your rights, these are conditions (not rights) of employment. You are not forced to submit to agree to these, you are free to look for an employer who will not do this. And there are many as I've never signed on to that agreement or even heard of it except in a few occupations.

How about your right to privacy? Sure, you wave the right, but you have to or you will not get the job.

Can you really see a difference between searching your body with no probable cause and searching your home with no probable cause? (I already see cars in one major employeers (jn my area) parking lots slim jimed and searched).

There is no other way to look at it from a constitutional stand point of citizens of this country. They ask you to give up your right to personal privacy, and you sign a piece of paper allowing them to do so (under duress). It is a contract simular to selling your soul to the devil, to gain something-- IMO. You give away your right to privacy to gain a pay check. That is wrong.

 

[theMAJORITY]

The fact is that businesses are held liable for employees. If a AA has a drunk pilot and in a drunken stupor kills and/or injures passengers, not only will the pilot be held criminally liable but the business will be responsible for damages too. They have every right to protect themselves.

I understand that point (thank you), and it seems to be the focal point of incompatability with citizens rights.

You picked a occupation that involved the saftey of 300 people on a plane. I can see some added accoutability in that case. But, if we talk about manufacturing, I see companies that have a employee turn over rate of 100% or more in a year (most seem over 30%). I know a little bit about manufacturing, and how a person that knows his/her job well and trained properly (something that is not done with employeers with a high employee turn over rate), is a much more safe employee. I would not be suprised if the high turn over rates are a cause of more accidents, simply because new people going through the revolving door are not accustomed to their job. Not unlike a new Marine in Irac has a higher chance of making a mistake and dying.

Now, how about the guy sitting at his desk, pushing a pencil, or designing whatever? That is a far cry from 300 people of public on a plane.

I also firmly believe these companies with a high turn over rate do not measure the costs of trying to train a constent influx of new employees. I would not be suprised, that if these factors were measured accuratly, some might find that their bottom line actually increases with less employee turn over, and accidents actually drop. (your point is about liability and accidents--right?)

I see your point, but I just think most employeers, without direct public responsibility, would be better off not treating their employees in a ownership mannor. I think many fo them picked the wrong direction---but it was a direction dictated by the war on drugs. It is a political decision for many employeers, more than it is a decision to limit law suits. I have worked for both types of companies. I probably worked with 25 or so that did new hire drug testing. I never worked for a company that did random--that seems to be the bigger companies. I worked for about 7 that did not drug testing at all, unless there was an accident.

One point here is------If you don't do drug testing, to prove your employees, who you say the employeer is responsible for---the employeer will have collect no documentation to incriminate them selfs in a liability issue. Your point holds up a agenda that is not holding the rights of the citizens in high regard.

Any accident can cause a law suit. It really does not matter if the person was intoxicated or not---it espically does not matter if the person smoked a dubbie two weeks ago. I have also never seen a shop in my life (and I have seen a lot), that 100% complies to all of OSHA's standards for safty. Go to any machine shop, and you will find a workpiece rest further away from the consumable grinding wheel than OSHA standard of1/8th of a inch on a bench grinder--for one example) The question really is----Do employeers now have more accidents due to the constant influx of new employees (the majority of influx is due to drug testing--(and avoiding liability for something the employeer collecting evidence against itself), than they do with a work force of people that know their job well? Dont be mistaken. Many of these companies have a huge employee turn over rate. With all my jobs, I found that the companies with the high turn over rates, were the worst to work for and had the worst shop safty with seemingly more accidents. No kidding

Also, how much of the training costs and other problems with hiring new employees are really a negative against the companies bottom line. Is it really their decision--or is it political with the war on drugs?

I would like to see those numbers. I wonder why I have never seen those numbers on the surface.

Critical thinking my friend. I think it is a gift.