MISTER Jaroszewski, you are full of crap. You assholes think just because someone's working for you or under you, it entitles you to know what that person does on AND off the job, thus giving you control over employees' behavior and personal habits. None of your goddam business!

Your employees are not your personal property. Last I heard, slavery has officially been over in this country, since right after the Civil War. You speak in general terms about "drugs" when in fact, the ONLY drug that stays in one's system longer than a day or two is marijuana. One can test positive for THC weeks after that last toke. Which means these tests give absolutely no proof whatsoever that someone is high on the job. It also means pee tests are designed to target pot smokers in particular.

You don't need to examine employees' urine just to determine whether they're "putting themselves and their workmates at risk". That's hogwash, Mr. J. It isn't about safety; it's about CONTROL and INTIMIDATION. Your old safety argument just doesn't hold up, because most jobs drug test nowadays regardless of occupation. I'd bet $$ even Walmart greeters get pee tested, and cashiers at Staples.

After doing some research, Mr. Hartmann was able to conclude that in the history of air travel, there has never been a case of an airliner crashing due to a pilot stoned on the job. Given the crazy, ever-changing schedules and long hours pilots are subjected to, sleep deprivation is what we should be concerned about! Not marijuana.

Long as they're performing their duties satisfactorily, while showing no outward sign of impairment; long as you've no grounds for suspicion, you can leave employees the fuck alone. But you control freaks will never stop harassing people without provocation, sticking your noses where they don't belong…

So what comes next, Mr. J, the branding iron?! It's because of assholes like you that I've been self-employed all my life. I could not tolerate you fascist pigs inspecting me and my colleagues like livestock, looking inside our bodies for something you can then use against us, as if our lives off the job and our personal habits were anything you should be concerned about. I would never allow myself to be violated like that, subjected to something so invasive and degrading.

You're damn right drug tests are making someone rich! For a test that costs ten cents to make, it's thirty bucks a pop, just so these companies can scrutinize employees' private lives! Wowie-zowie. Sure is a lot of money being made off prohibition! And that's just one example out of many to illustrate who profits from this ugly racket.

Money-money-money! Money and power, whuddia know.

I repeat: if they're doing their jobs satisfactorily, you've nothing to be concerned about. Yet you preface your argument by saying "Well if you can show up here clear of any substances taken in your time – you’re gonna be fine and have nothing to worry about.” The key phrase, of course, being "in your time". Meaning his time, you pig. So what's it to ya? Just where do you get off, threatening people like this?!

Please explain how your habit of prying into the contents of your employees' bladders is just a "small breach of privacy" as opposed to a major breach of privacy, and why we should be willing to give up our physical integrity, freedom and autonomy in "certain situations". You mean "certain situations" like the jobs most adults must do each day, that they depend on to support themselves and their families? Aren't these the "certain" situations you speak of, Mister Jaroszewski?

You ask if your drug testing policy is an "arbitrary intrusion" (Bingo!) or a "coherent policy" that workers "understand and are aware of" when they are hired. I hate answering a question with more questions, but in this instance I must. First of all, how is this not arbitrary when one is showing up on time and performing one's duties as required? And please enlighten me to what is "coherent" about the logic and/or rationale behind such a policy.

If there's one thing we can agree on, Mr. J, it's the "A" word. As you've stated, the word "arbitrary" is key. Indeed. It's one of those words that stands out, from the very heart of this issue. But what gets me is your next phrase, where you ask if there are "circumstances whereby a person is happy [ - 'happy'?!!! - ] to divulge extra information about themselves?" Are you serious?! Why should I - or anyone, for that matter - be "happy" about "divulging" to you (as my employer, not my doctor!!) the contents of my fucking bladder?! Especially when the information I'm "divulging" enables you to control my private life, or any aspect of my private life, off the job. Because everyone is ENTITLED to a life. We work so that we can live. The time we spend off the job is what we're working for. It's a slice of life that is ours and ours alone. I don't know how to put it in plainer English than that.

"Where is the greater good?" you ask rhetorically. How about telling me what that is, big shot, just for our collective entertainment! But no; instead of clarifying exactly what that means here, you coyly toss out some vaguely worded drivel about "ethical theory", "Kantian theory" and "universal law". Kinda reminds me of a quote I once saw, taped on this lady's fridge, that went something like: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, confound them with bullshit." Because this is one piece of work you've posted here Mr. J. You then toss out another rhetorical question: "Would it be alright if breaches of privacy were the universal law?" What I find so fascinating here is what follows: "I would suggest not." After four paragraphs of you arguing in defense of drug tests on employees, performed arbitrarily and randomly, you suddenly do this about-face and describe some other theory by this dude named Kant, who came up with this radical, crazy idea that human beings should be the end rather than the means to an end. (Someone else's end, like yours Mr. J.)

So then you flip-flop back again, onto your authoritarian little soapbox, declaring: "while privacy is important, I believe there is a greater consideration here." and "I believe the right to be physically safe is the greater good." How convenient for you, asshole. So tell me, what should be more important to ME than MY RIGHT to (1) decide who I'll submit my urine to, and where and when; (2) my freedom and privacy off the job; and (3) my right, as a human being, to simply have a life?

I hate to pop your bubble sir, but the "security of person" referred to in Article 3 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not limited to "safety from physical harm" like New Zealand's version. It's about personal boundaries, about not being violated; not being forced to submit to arbitrary, random, humiliating inspections where even the most private functions of our bodies are fair game. I'd rather be dead than have to live under a microscope 24-7, subjected to the constant, relentless scrutiny of some self-serving goddam employer! What is it about "physical integrity" you don't understand, Mr. J? Again I ask, what makes you think writing someone's paycheck entitles you to control over that person's entire life off as well as on the job? Because when you control someone's life on and off the job, what it basically means is that you are controlling EVERYTHING in that person's life.

Now we face the prospect of employers dictating to the women on their payrolls whether or not they are allowed access to birth control!! Where does it END?!!!!!!!

Your subordinates subject themselves to these abusive inspections without complaining because they have no choice, sir. Jobs are so scarce nowadays. People have to eat and pay their bills. Many live paycheck-to-paycheck, just one months' unemployment away from homelessness. They submit to these degrading rituals under the threat of termination. Talk about coercion! Some might even allow themselves to be brainwashed into thinking you're actually doing them a favor. I'm sure your brainwashed, more submissive subordinates come in real handy while workers "engage" in the writing of your company's drug testing policy. As for the rest of 'em, you don't know what's going through their minds when they pee in your little cup Mr. J. But if technological advances ever offer a means by which employers can spy on workers' thoughts as well as their bodily fluids, I'm sure you'll be among the first in line to get ahold of it. Asshole.

So what happens when workers refuse to submit to these tests? They're fired, right? They're free to be unemployed and back to pounding the pavement, to facing the prospect of homelessness once more.

Did you know someone can "fail" a pee test just by eating poppy seeds on a bagel? So much for obligatory "rehabilitation" for drug "abusers".

Recent intoxication off the job is not synonymous with impairment on the job. I'll say it again: the former is none of your business; only the latter need be your concern.

How does ANY drug testing NOT breach privacy "principles"? What "principles"?! You authoritarian fucking assholes are so full of it. You just keep on confounding 'em with your bullshit. But you're not fooling all of us. It's not a "safe" workplace you're after; it's an AUTHORITARIAN one.

Do you happen to live in New Zealand, by the way? Whether you do or not, Jaroszewski, I'd like you also to explain to us why American workers should give a flippin' damn about New Zealand's so-called "privacy principles". Who the fuck cares? - Aliceinwonderland