Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Now that a BIG difference from Ricky Williams doing bong hits in his living room between game weekends. 583203[/snapback] Ok, you just spent 10 million on a signing bonus, Ricky is hitting the bong at home and then gets the munchies, decides to go to Micky D's and runs over someone. What has that cost the his employer? It is all a liability issue. Granted different types of liability, but liablility all the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 I'll get down on this by saying.... I don't do drugs and I don't speed. If it is illegal... don't do it. If you can't perform in sports (or at a regular job) without drugs, you need to find something else to do. Unlike the above military person above... in the Navy we were tested no less than 3 times a year on average, but in the position I was in we are talking more like 6 times a year minimum. I don't do drugs... I keep my job, I do drugs... I lose my job. Simple. Personally, I don't think Pro sports do enough when it comes to drugs. And neither does corporate America. But that is just me I am sure. 583189[/snapback] Let me make myself clear on this point. I don't condone breaking the law either. I'm also, in no way saying that a business shouldn't be allowed to suspend or terminate anyone who's caught breaking the law. However, I'm glad to live in a country that has limitations regarding how you can be searched. If we want to uphold the integrity of those rights, we shouldn't forfeit them in order to make a living. That is becoming the case with more and more employment options. Is it possible to truly predict where it will end? Lastly, I'm not calling for the government to step in and say what companies can and can't do in this regard. I'm calling for people to realize that our rights are being violated and to not just simply be cool with it. For what it's worth, I'm guilty of letting it happen to me. I needed a job, they tested for pot, I realized that, in reality, going along meant smoking about one less time a year, so I did. It was no big deal on a day to day basis, but I still think it sucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Sure there's a difference. But, if you are going to issue a contract agreeing to pay someone millions of dollars, is it that far out of line to stipulate that the person receiving the contract can't do illegal drugs and can be subject to fines and punishment if caught in the mandatory testing process? I mean, nobody made Ricky sign the contract and take the Dolphins millions of dollars. 583214[/snapback] We're back to the slippery slope; how much money you make shouldn't have an effect on your privacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 We're back to the slippery slope; how much money you make shouldn't have an effect on your privacy. 583219[/snapback] It should if you agree to it in contract. You don't have to take the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelBunz Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 I'll get down on this by saying.... I don't do drugs and I don't speed. If it is illegal... don't do it. If you can't perform in sports (or at a regular job) without drugs, you need to find something else to do. Unlike the above military person above... in the Navy we were tested no less than 3 times a year on average, but in the position I was in we are talking more like 6 times a year minimum. I don't do drugs... I keep my job, I do drugs... I lose my job. Simple. Personally, I don't think Pro sports do enough when it comes to drugs. And neither does corporate America. But that is just me I am sure. 583189[/snapback] Agreed Sky. But we are also talking job description here and liability based on your job description for a company. I'd have to say leading men in a military situation with all sorts of weapons at your disposal would need a HIGH degree of accountability in the way of ensuring a drug/drunk free environment. The same goes with operating heavy machinery and being responsible for driving on behalf of your job....whether or not it is with a comapny vehicle or your own. Liability is king.....premiums.....lawsuits.....PR nightmares.....let's face it. Money is what drives the private sector to test and monitor. A desk jockey has very little to worry about in this realm, other than job performance. I'm not saying that is right or wrong....just saying that other than a drug test for acquiring the job in the first place....some jobs will never require this amount of monitoring. I was in insurance for a while.....and the one thing that used to infuriate me in obtaining coverage for an individual was this....if a person owned up to being an alcoholic and sought treatment and was doing well.....that person would be turned down in a heartbeat or charged an exhorbitant premium. As opposed to the drunk who'd never admit to being a drunk....and could sail through the application process with little problem. That always struck me as fu*ked up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 We're back to the slippery slope; how much money you make shouldn't have an effect on your privacy. 583219[/snapback] It does to the employer. It is an investment that the employer is making, and wishes to protect. You have to remember, it is not only the investment in that particular player, but also in the image of the team, which can affect marketability, which may end up costing more than the money actually lost on the player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 (edited) Ok, you just spent 10 million on a signing bonus, Ricky is hitting the bong at home and then gets the munchies, decides to go to Micky D's and runs over someone. What has that cost the his employer? It is all a liability issue. Granted different types of liability, but liablility all the same. 583215[/snapback] I don't think the NFL is organized around extra curricular traffic tickets like your business is. The disticntion not being made in regards to these examples is this: heavy equipment use and ON THE JOB drug use shouldn't ever go hand in hand. Employers have a right to test for that. I do not believe recreational use should be ferreted out by compaines, unless it is effecting job perfomrance in a measurable way. As far as away from work behavior: if you got the job in the first place, chances are you were doing whatever you were doing when you go the job - you don't get it and become a heroin addict. You are a heroin addict to begin with. Say you are and presented your credentials and landed the gig, then the employer hired a heroin addict without his knowledge, but he can perform the job as needed. If he can maintain the level the employer hired him at, but still shoots up as long as he gives the employer no reason to become suspicious to test, well then fair play to him. Detlef is right: we should not give up our liberties in order to become employed, especially if we can perform at expected levels. And YES emplyers have rights as well, but unless provided with 'probable cause' have no reason to butt into someone's life for zero reason. Edited November 30, 2004 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 I'll get down on this by saying.... I don't do drugs and I don't speed. If it is illegal... don't do it. If you can't perform in sports (or at a regular job) without drugs, you need to find something else to do. Unlike the above military person above... in the Navy we were tested no less than 3 times a year on average, but in the position I was in we are talking more like 6 times a year minimum. I don't do drugs... I keep my job, I do drugs... I lose my job. Simple. 583189[/snapback] Can't disagree with that. I'm not sure how I feel about the pre-emptive firings. That does place a lot of power in the hands of the employer. Then again, an employee with a clean record when hired who went on to commit a couple serious misdemeanors very well may be an insurance liability to his/her employer. Had these crimes been committed prior to this person's hiring, the employer probably wouldn't have hired him/her in the first place because of either liability or character issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 Ok, I think we are on the same page regarding the speeding. I guess I get your point about relying on police reports, though I think if there was a practical way of monitoring this other than police reports, the insurance companies would force us to do so. With regards to the pot, in Texas, when there is an accident such as mentioned above, the equipment operator must be tested for drugs. If that test comes up positive, regardless of where or when the guy toked, it only adds to the empolyers liability. So it is in the emoployers best intrest to test. Again, if you choose to smoke pot, I guess that is your choice, but you also choose to limit your employment. It all goes back to personal responsibility. 583197[/snapback] Perch, don't get me wrong. I'm not just pointing the finger at the businesses, they answer to insurance companies who in turn answer to an overzelous legal profession. I'm not exactly sure what to do about it, but the first thing is to get pissed off. As for the contract issue that Nick brings up, there are plenty of legal activities that players are often obligated to avoid, like operating a motorcycle. I'm not saying that any business should not be allowed to include such things. Once again, it simply bothers me that people justify the NFL's testing policy on the grounds that, they too, are subjected. Because I think neither should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soylent Green Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Weed so totally kicks a$$. I don't get drug tested here at work, either. for now. Perch, can you point to a saingle suit in the state of Texas where an employer has been liable for the negligence of an employee on their way to work not in a company car? Sure if the employee drives for a profession there is reason to let them go because of your increased insurance costs, but I call BS for any claim of liability for say a car crash on the way to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Actually Detlef, it has already happened. I had to fire an employee that we had due to multiple speeding tickets. Based upon the law in Texas anyway, if he was in a wreck on the way to work, his employer has a degree of liability regardless of whether or not he was using a company or private vehicle. The insurance company basically said you can either give him a ride to work or fire him, or we are going to cut your policy limits in half, but keep your premiums where they are. 583097[/snapback] Does this mean the guy was insured through your company, or was it that his insurance company shared the info, like insurance companies do? Secondly, that's a TX law that needs repealing (unless he was insured through you). I cannot fathom how an employer should be held responsible in any degree for an employee that is separately insured, driving his own car, on the way to or from work. It's nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soylent Green Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Secondly, that's a TX law that needs repealing (unless he was insured through you). I cannot fathom how an employer should be held responsible in any degree for an employee that is separately insured, driving his own car, on the way to or from work. It's nuts. 583242[/snapback] not law in Texas. I'm positive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 I'll add one last thing. I'm not even saying that we (as a society) should just leave a drug addict alone as long as he's doing his job well. Laws are laws, drugs that society has deemed illegal are so because they can create problems outside of one person's life. Perhaps addict #1 can function, but unless you outlaw the sale and use, you're supporting an industry that provides a substance that may cause addict #2 to do some seriously bad stuff. It is simply a matter of illegal search. What's the point of having such laws if we forfeit them in practical situations. Why should you care if the police come search your house or pull you over for no reason? I mean, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the big deal, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Weed so totally kicks a$$. I don't get drug tested here at work, either. for now. Perch, can you point to a saingle suit in the state of Texas where an employer has been liable for the negligence of an employee on their way to work not in a company car? Sure if the employee drives for a profession there is reason to let them go because of your increased insurance costs, but I call BS for any claim of liability for say a car crash on the way to work. 583238[/snapback] No, Club I can't I'm not a lawyer. But I have to assume that it has happened, since the Insurance company stated that my General Liability Insurance would either be cut in half, or the premiums would skyrocket if I didn't fire the guy. We even asked the insurance company if we took away his company vehicle, and made him drive his personal vehicle if that would be ok, and the insurance company said no, that we would still be liable. Now while I'm not a lawyer, I know the insurance companies have plenty, and I would imagine they have some basis for this stance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 It does to the employer. It is an investment that the employer is making, and wishes to protect. You have to remember, it is not only the investment in that particular player, but also in the image of the team, which can affect marketability, which may end up costing more than the money actually lost on the player. 583226[/snapback] This is a good point. However, when a team invests in a player, they are basing their investment on past history of the player, both on the field and off the field. Their is risk in every investment. If the player damages the team with off court behavior, he can then be fired; but pre-emptive action in the form of drug testing for non performance-enhancing drugs crosses the line in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 No, Club I can't I'm not a lawyer. But I have to assume that it has happened, since the Insurance company stated that my General Liability Insurance would either be cut in half, or the premiums would skyrocket if I didn't fire the guy. We even asked the insurance company if we took away his company vehicle, and made him drive his personal vehicle if that would be ok, and the insurance company said no, that we would still be liable. Now while I'm not a lawyer, I know the insurance companies have plenty, and I would imagine they have some basis for this stance. 583261[/snapback] Perch - that's a big distinction you left out earlier. He was dricing a company vehicle? Perhaps while doing so and racking up his speeding tickets placed him 'over the line' in the eyes of the insurer, something that might not have happened had he been getting those tickets without ever having been given a company vehicle in the first place. Do you know about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 is simply a matter of illegal search. What's the point of having such laws if we forfeit them in practical situations. Why should you care if the police come search your house or pull you over for no reason? I mean, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the big deal, right? 583254[/snapback] It is your right not to be tested, but if you want to work in certain occupations you give up that right. It is my right to carry a pocket knife, but if I want to fly, I have to give up that right while I'm on the plane. Should we get rid of metal detectors and x-ray equipment? These are searches with out cause, but we allow them if we want to fly. What is the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Perch - that's a big distinction you left out earlier. He was dricing a company vehicle? Perhaps while doing so and racking up his speeding tickets placed him 'over the line' in the eyes of the insurer, something that might not have happened had he been getting those tickets without ever having been given a company vehicle in the first place. Do you know about that? 583273[/snapback] I don't know, but when we asked if he could use his private vehicle, the insurance company said no, unless we took a drastic reduction in coverage, or a huge increase in premiums, so I don't think it would make that much difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 I don't know, but when we asked if he could use his private vehicle, the insurance company said no, unless we took a drastic reduction in coverage, or a huge increase in premiums, so I don't think it would make that much difference. 583279[/snapback] I know that - what I'm curious about is if your company never gave him a car to begin with and all of those tickets were on his time in his car. Would they still be able to jack your premiums? Or is this a travelling job no matter what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 No, Club I can't I'm not a lawyer. But I have to assume that it has happened, since the Insurance company stated that my General Liability Insurance would either be cut in half, or the premiums would skyrocket if I didn't fire the guy. We even asked the insurance company if we took away his company vehicle, and made him drive his personal vehicle if that would be ok, and the insurance company said no, that we would still be liable. Now while I'm not a lawyer, I know the insurance companies have plenty, and I would imagine they have some basis for this stance. 583261[/snapback] Insurance companies are so unethical that it's not even funny. If this guy had not paid his speeding tickets or had skipped out on his court dates then, yeah, I could see this guy being a liability. But this is just ludicrous. How many speeding tickets did this employee get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 It is your right not to be tested, but if you want to work in certain occupations you give up that right. It is my right to carry a pocket knife, but if I want to fly, I have to give up that right while I'm on the plane. Should we get rid of metal detectors and x-ray equipment? These are searches with out cause, but we allow them if we want to fly. What is the difference? 583274[/snapback] The difference is that most people have to work to survive. You don't have to carry a pocket knife to survive - unless your a black man at John Rocker's house asking 'where da white women at?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 I know that - what I'm curious about is if your company never gave him a car to begin with and all of those tickets were on his time in his car. Would they still be able to jack your premiums? Or is this a travelling job no matter what? 583288[/snapback] I don't know. It is industry standard to provide a truck to field superintendents, or at the very least a driving allowance. It is one of the perks that has become manditory if you want to hire someone that is worth a darn. Their primary job is supervising work on a job site, but occasionally they have to go to the lumber yard or hardware store, or what not to get materials. So I guess you could say that driving is part of their job, however it is a very very minute portion of their job. Deliveries are normally made by the material supplier. About the only time they drive, is when they forget to order something they need, and what they need is not large enough to justify the supplier to deliver it to the the job site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Insurance companies are so unethical that it's not even funny. If this guy had not paid his speeding tickets or had skipped out on his court dates then, yeah, I could see this guy being a liability. But this is just ludicrous. How many speeding tickets did this employee get? 583291[/snapback] 3 in one year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 The difference is that most people have to work to survive. You don't have to carry a pocket knife to survive - unless your a black man at John Rocker's house asking 'where da white women at?' 583293[/snapback] There are many occupations that still do not require drug testing. Also, it is that persons choice to break the law, and thus jeopardize his opurtunity for employment. If you have a problem with the law, then work on changing the law, not the result of the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soylent Green Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 No, Club I can't I'm not a lawyer. But I have to assume that it has happened, since the Insurance company stated that my General Liability Insurance would either be cut in half, or the premiums would skyrocket if I didn't fire the guy. We even asked the insurance company if we took away his company vehicle, and made him drive his personal vehicle if that would be ok, and the insurance company said no, that we would still be liable. Now while I'm not a lawyer, I know the insurance companies have plenty, and I would imagine they have some basis for this stance. 583261[/snapback] Flat out there is no liability. You insurance company fully has the right to jack up your premiums so high that you can't afford to employ the guy or they can refuse to insure you unless you move him from a position that requires him to drive (which just may well mean you are better off letting him go). But they cannot force you to fire the guy if you give him a desk job and make him drive his own car or take the bus. When the insurance company says "we will be liable", we means them, not you or your company. Anyways, no big deal if this is an at-will employee I personally feel you should have the right to can them for just looking at you funny. I just don't believe any company is liable for the negligent conduct (driving) of an employee on their way to work, company car or not simply because in Texas driving to work does not place one within the course and scope of their employment. Now if the guy has the freedom to just get up and head to a client's house or office to do business that is different. If this guy got fired because your insurance company told you to fire him, have him give me a call so we can sue you or the insurance company . If the guy was fired because his driving record is so poor you can no longer afford him as a driver or because he can leave his house and head dirvectly to a customer/client, which is a primary job duty of his, I can't do anything for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.