Slippery Slope?

[Wonky3]

For what it's worth, here is the original post. 

My concerns are still the same. 



http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory.com/?token=cFFFQVlWVwtGWHFSXVlZXxxTXlg=


From that article: 

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says. (If you’re an employer, this would be a good time to review your drug policy.) Don’t expect the courts to drive much change in this area: Judges in a number of states consistently have sided with employers."

The above is a factual reality faced by employers and employees alike.

Below is a self described "what if" fantasy that can not be backed up by any real examples to any measurable degree.

So what if you work for someone who does not want you to drink a beer on your day off? Or, maybe you have been living with your girlfriend/boyfriend for years but never married? Or your employer knows you are an atheist? 


Your employer should not be able to dictate your lawful behavior, especially when off the job. 

Which makes your argument a "straw man" and invalid.

That my "self described what if fantasy can't be backed up by any real examples to a measurable degree" only supports the tone of this thread: "The slippery slope". To what degree an employer can exercise control over an employee's life OFF THE JOB when that behavior does not effect the on the job performance, is the issue. At this point, we don't really know. So yes, I used "what if" example. Hence: "The slippery slope". 

Not a straw man. 

Yep, I agree that what a person does off the job is none of the employers business when it does not affect the employer. That is what I got out of your posts.

Yes. That's basically it. But like all things social (and too often political) the lines get blurred, and conventional standards change with the times
I (personally) can understand that a employer might want an "ethics clause" in an employment contract. The problems arise of course in the details of that contract the employer asks the worker to sign. We had such a contract where I worked, and while it was seldom an issue when conflicts did come up we first asked our Union to deal with it, and if it couldn't be settled at that level our Union brought in the lawyers. 

In small companies with no bargaining unit, the employee is at the mercy of the boss unless he or she has the resource to hire a lawyer or wait the years it takes for a government agency to litigate the issue. 

When I posted this "Slippery Slope" thread, it was these kind of things I had in mind. Changes are coming fast, new issues (legal MJ, in this case) and since so many people are no longer covered by collective bargaining, they could face an uphill battle in securing rights. 

Employers have reasonable expectations that the people they hire are law abiding, ethical, and conform to good work standards. Employees have every right to expect that the boss does not interfere with their personal lives unless they engage in illegal or unethical behavior that might embarrass the Company or effect their job performance. 

My hope is that it balances so that both "sides" are happy with the agreements. I, for one, am glad I was represented by a   Union (IBEW) to protect me from any abuse from the company. Likewise, the Company had the protection of the Contract to enforce workers behavior. Win-win. 

[cletus1]

For what it's worth, here is the original post. 

My concerns are still the same. 



http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory.com/?token=cFFFQVlWVwtGWHFSXVlZXxxTXlg=


From that article: 

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says. (If you’re an employer, this would be a good time to review your drug policy.) Don’t expect the courts to drive much change in this area: Judges in a number of states consistently have sided with employers."

The above is a factual reality faced by employers and employees alike.

Below is a self described "what if" fantasy that can not be backed up by any real examples to any measurable degree.

So what if you work for someone who does not want you to drink a beer on your day off? Or, maybe you have been living with your girlfriend/boyfriend for years but never married? Or your employer knows you are an atheist? 


Your employer should not be able to dictate your lawful behavior, especially when off the job. 

Which makes your argument a "straw man" and invalid.

That my "self described what if fantasy can't be backed up by any real examples to a measurable degree" only supports the tone of this thread: "The slippery slope". To what degree an employer can exercise control over an employee's life OFF THE JOB when that behavior does not effect the on the job performance, is the issue. At this point, we don't really know. So yes, I used "what if" example. Hence: "The slippery slope". 

Not a straw man. 

Yep, I agree that what a person does off the job is none of the employers business when it does not affect the employer. That is what I got out of your posts.

Yes. That's basically it. But like all things social (and too often political) the lines get blurred, and conventional standards change with the times
I (personally) can understand that a employer might want an "ethics clause" in an employment contract. The problems arise of course in the details of that contract the employer asks the worker to sign. We had such a contract where I worked, and while it was seldom an issue when conflicts did come up we first asked our Union to deal with it, and if it couldn't be settled at that level our Union brought in the lawyers. 

In small companies with no bargaining unit, the employee is at the mercy of the boss unless he or she has the resource to hire a lawyer or wait the years it takes for a government agency to litigate the issue. 

When I posted this "Slippery Slope" thread, it was these kind of things I had in mind. Changes are coming fast, new issues (legal MJ, in this case) and since so many people are no longer covered by collective bargaining, they could face an uphill battle in securing rights. 

Employers have reasonable expectations that the people they hire are law abiding, ethical, and conform to good work standards. Employees have every right to expect that the boss does not interfere with their personal lives unless they engage in illegal or unethical behavior that might embarrass the Company or effect their job performance. 

My hope is that it balances so that both "sides" are happy with the agreements. I, for one, am glad I was represented by a   Union (IBEW) to protect me from any abuse from the company. Likewise, the Company had the protection of the Contract to enforce workers behavior. Win-win. 

All that and then some. You know that some of our forum members do not want employees to be able to join unions and collective bargain for benefits and job protection. I never understood any working person would be against the working man trying to get decent wages and benefits for themselves and their families. I hope Hugo chimes in and tells us why he is anti union with some compelling reasons other than being brainwashed by Fox News.

[Hugo]

All that and then some. You know that some of our forum members do not want employees to be able to join unions and collective bargain for benefits and job protection. I never understood any working person would be against the working man trying to get decent wages and benefits for themselves and their families. I hope Hugo chimes in and tells us why he is anti union with some compelling reasons other than being brainwashed by Fox News.

You continue to prove your ignorance.  I was anti Union (anti socialist) long before Fox News existed.

[chuck white]

All that and then some. You know that some of our forum members do not want employees to be able to join unions and collective bargain for benefits and job protection. I never understood any working person would be against the working man trying to get decent wages and benefits for themselves and their families. I hope Hugo chimes in and tells us why he is anti union with some compelling reasons other than being brainwashed by Fox News.

You continue to prove your ignorance.  I was anti Union (anti socialist) long before Fox News existed.

His brain washing, started at an early age.

[Wonky3]

All that and then some. You know that some of our forum members do not want employees to be able to join unions and collective bargain for benefits and job protection. I never understood any working person would be against the working man trying to get decent wages and benefits for themselves and their families. I hope Hugo chimes in and tells us why he is anti union with some compelling reasons other than being brainwashed by Fox News.

You continue to prove your ignorance.  I was anti Union (anti socialist) long before Fox News existed.

His brain washing, started at an early age.

Hugo was never brainwashed. He comes to his views and opinions from any number of ways, and like most of us a result of life experiences, family, teachers, and reading (or not reading, again, like many of us). 

There are probably lot's of reasons for the loss of Union members in the last 50 years. Among those reasons are the often despicable behavior of some of our Unions. The Teamsters and United Auto Works to name a couple, who either got in bed with the owners or went criminal and looted the membership. Some of the Unions representing government workers have taken advantage of the relationships they developed with the very people who were there to bargain with them. 

That said, many Unions kept faith with the "founders" (Like Samuel Gompers) and still hold with the values of COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, wanting not only the best for the workers but for the success of the business they are joined with. (I was a member of one such Union: The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers). There are many others who continue the tradition. 

The single and simple fact is that as individuals we have little power against ALL large institutions. Collective bargaining allows us to band together for common goals to help balance this power. 

And so, this "slippery slope" of the tension between employer and workers as to what kind of behavior is acceptable OFF THE JOB, as well as when working. It's my opinion that only with good ethical collective bargaining will workers (even low and mid-level administrators) be able to protect their rights. 

I'd be interested to hear from others about options that SINGLE INDIVIDUALS can adopt to provide these same protections. 

[solomon]

Individuals will never have any power against the corporations. Slaves can ask for lighter chains, and might get them, but only at great peril. A dollar is a chain around your brothers neck, often obliging him to debase himself to feed his family. The earth is free, but men hold it hostage and sell it back to you.

The Knowledge of Good and Evil is the realization that Evil always wins. Good can only do what is Good. Evil can do anything, it can impersonate Good and undermine its foundation. Soon(now) all is just shades of Evil, some appearing "Gooder" than others(the lesser of the two Evils). This is the mindset of all business, whether or not the actors cognize it.

[Wonky3]

Individuals will never have any power against the corporations. Slaves can ask for lighter chains, and might get them, but only at great peril. A dollar is a chain around your brothers neck, often obliging him to debase himself to feed his family. The earth is free, but men hold it hostage and sell it back to you.

The Knowledge of Good and Evil is the realization that Evil always wins. Good can only do what is Good. Evil can do anything, it can impersonate Good and undermine its foundation. Soon(now) all is just shades of Evil, some appearing "Gooder" than others(the lesser of the two Evils). This is the mindset of all business, whether or not the actors cognize it.

Solomen is remembered for his wisdom. 
You might in fact be wise. 
But your attitude and "world view" is so foreign to me that we don't have anything to discuss. 
I will continue to believe that ALL power comes from the individual when like minded people join forces in common cause. 

[solomon]

Individuals will never have any power against the corporations. Slaves can ask for lighter chains, and might get them, but only at great peril. A dollar is a chain around your brothers neck, often obliging him to debase himself to feed his family. The earth is free, but men hold it hostage and sell it back to you.

The Knowledge of Good and Evil is the realization that Evil always wins. Good can only do what is Good. Evil can do anything, it can impersonate Good and undermine its foundation. Soon(now) all is just shades of Evil, some appearing "Gooder" than others(the lesser of the two Evils). This is the mindset of all business, whether or not the actors cognize it.

Solomen is remembered for his wisdom. 
You might in fact be wise. 
But your attitude and "world view" is so foreign to me that we don't have anything to discuss. 
I will continue to believe that ALL power comes from the individual when like minded people join forces in common cause. 

Indeed, individuals in like minded groups have a power. The problem arises from the exercising of the power. If you overthrow the dominant paradigm then some other group loses. Revolution always leaves some at the bottom. Education to the point of equality is the only Evolution that could save us. Unfortunately, ignorance is the coin of the realm.

[tvguy]

Total Whack job. Great.

[solomon]

Total Whack job. Great.

Maybe you could elaborate?

[tvguy]

Total Whack job. Great.

Maybe you could elaborate?

You are doing fine on that with every post.

[solomon]

Total Whack job. Great.

Maybe you could elaborate?

You are doing fine on that with every post.

You like to stir the pot. Got it. 

[tvguy]

Total Whack job. Great.

Maybe you could elaborate?

You are doing fine on that with every post.

You like to stir the pot. Got it. 

That's probably a fair assessment.But I just say what I think for the most part.

[solomon]

Total Whack job. Great.

Maybe you could elaborate?

You are doing fine on that with every post.

You like to stir the pot. Got it. 

That's probably a fair assessment.But I just say what I think for the most part.

Perhaps you have heard this one then: opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink.

[tvguy]

Maybe you could elaborate?

You are doing fine on that with every post.

You like to stir the pot. Got it. 

That's probably a fair assessment.But I just say what I think for the most part.

Perhaps you have heard this one then: opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink.

No they don't all stink. Just some opinions. I think the opinion to not procreate at a young age because it's not fair to your would be children is an opinion that reeks.
If that's actually true.

[solomon]

You are doing fine on that with every post.

You like to stir the pot. Got it. 

That's probably a fair assessment.But I just say what I think for the most part.

Perhaps you have heard this one then: opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink.

No they don't all stink. Just some opinions. I think the opinion to not procreate at a young age because it's not fair to your would be children is an opinion that reeks.
If that's actually true.

I think you are blind to reality, that also reeks. It would probably be more polite to start a new thread if you would like to continue this character assassination. 

[tvguy]

You like to stir the pot. Got it. 

That's probably a fair assessment.But I just say what I think for the most part.

Perhaps you have heard this one then: opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink.

No they don't all stink. Just some opinions. I think the opinion to not procreate at a young age because it's not fair to your would be children is an opinion that reeks.
If that's actually true.

I think you are blind to reality, that also reeks. It would probably be more polite to start a new thread if you would like to continue this character assassination. 

A guys who uses hallucinogenic drugs and talks to God to gain much wisdom is telling me about reality.

[Scrapper]

That's probably a fair assessment.But I just say what I think for the most part.

Perhaps you have heard this one then: opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink.

No they don't all stink. Just some opinions. I think the opinion to not procreate at a young age because it's not fair to your would be children is an opinion that reeks.
If that's actually true.

I think you are blind to reality, that also reeks. It would probably be more polite to start a new thread if you would like to continue this character assassination. 

A guys who uses hallucinogenic drugs and talks to God to gain much wisdom is telling me about reality.

Goodness... It's been awhile since this place has made me laugh so much! 😀