20th June 2006, 07:03 PM
so on this and other posts... shall we recover the thread..
I agree with Paul Belfords post - I to have serious doubts about drug/alchohol testing when applied in a way that is not to protect or to fulfil specific legal criteria.. but only in a hope to discredit archaeology.
Many people would not take the test on moral grounds... if they did take the test they would pass.. but that is not the point.. the point is whether they should be forced to take the tests...
Nobody here is condoning drugs or alchohol use, but to 'spring' this test on people without them knowing... :face-confused:
The personal choice is taken away... the suggestion is that where it constitutes a serious need... then fair enough, IF, and only IF the employee is aware PRIOR TO employment, that this is the case.
We could spread this to suggest that everyone has a DNA sample taken, that every person is barcoded...
Another day another WSI?
I agree with Paul Belfords post - I to have serious doubts about drug/alchohol testing when applied in a way that is not to protect or to fulfil specific legal criteria.. but only in a hope to discredit archaeology.
Many people would not take the test on moral grounds... if they did take the test they would pass.. but that is not the point.. the point is whether they should be forced to take the tests...
Nobody here is condoning drugs or alchohol use, but to 'spring' this test on people without them knowing... :face-confused:
The personal choice is taken away... the suggestion is that where it constitutes a serious need... then fair enough, IF, and only IF the employee is aware PRIOR TO employment, that this is the case.
We could spread this to suggest that everyone has a DNA sample taken, that every person is barcoded...
Another day another WSI?