Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU!mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Re: Firing Message-ID: <12263065490.2.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Mon, 15-Dec-86 16:10:39 EST Article-I.D.: RED.12263065490.2.MCGREW Posted: Mon Dec 15 16:10:39 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 16-Dec-86 22:05:47 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 31 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu Yes, I do oppose those laws. It has been so long now since I sent the mail that I have forgotten the context; I believe that it had something to do with drug testing. Anyway, while I agree with you in general, I think your argument needs a little work. Most employers can dismiss employees during or following a short "probationary" period and show little or no cause; hence an employer can try out a new employee with less risk than you imply (of course, the expense of hiring new employees is still substantial, what with SS benefits, Federal and state checkoffs...but I digress). The major point is still this. Employers have a hard time establishing to a court that employees aren't doing an adequate job. So long as employers can't can people for arbitrary reasons, you're going to have things like widespread drug testing. Why? Courts may not accept "he was doing a lousy job" as adequate for dismissal, but "he snorted enough cocaine to choke a medium-sized horse" ought to do the trick. Liberals take note: *this* is the effect of labour protection and civil rights legislation. I wonder how our friends in the ADA, the ACLU and the AFL-CIO feel now? Of course, if they regretted, this would imply that liberals can learn -- in which case, of course, they'd be conservatives. This message brought to you courtesy of Redbusters. -- Rick. -------