Drug Tests

[AdminAssistant]

Seems ridiculous to me that you pay taxes for police and don't make them work to defend people and their property.

Seems ridiculous to have a justice system that favours the wealthy.

Seems ridiculous to me as well, Raps. Our education system and health system favor the wealthy, also. Hell, everything here favors the wealthy, because any time people try to change things for the better, the upper tiers begin to cry "Socialism! Dirty Commies!!"

[Rapscallion]

sorry our supreme court has said they have no obligation to do so.

*blink*

Wow.

Just a suggestion from this side of the pond. You might want to look at that decision with a view to reviewing it. Just a thought.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

First, actually, not making the police legally responsible for your safety does make some sense. It means you can't sue them for every time something happens to you and they aren't able to stop it.. there would have to be some limits imposed in general (ie, what if the police are racing to save you, and they are smashed head on in an accident?? Does that mean they should be sued for not getting to you in time?). But... to not respond without good reason seems stupid! Besides, as has been said, they aren't psychic (yet).



Pedersen...

The most the company should do is act on the reasonable suspicion: Send the employee home, and follow disciplinary action as detailed in their employee handbook. Yes, this can lead right up to termination. I'm okay with that.

So... a company should be able to discipline and terminate an employee based on suspicion alone? Odd, I really didn't think you'd condone that! (after all, you have argued that they shouldn't be allowed to gather the evidence that would normally be required, and they certainly don't have the right to enter your home...


Getting paid $10/hr for only 8 hours work, but actually being under their control for all 24 hours, 7 days a week.. no thank you!!! Fortunately, over here, you're actually allowed (in some limited ways, at least) to express your dissatisfaction about your employers without copping any punishment for it.

[Boozy]

First, actually, not making the police legally responsible for your safety does make some sense. It means you can't sue them for every time something happens to you and they aren't able to stop it..

Exactly. If these women won their case, it would mean police forces would need to carry massive amounts of liability insurance. Many small towns would no longer be able to afford a force of their own. Precedence would have been a major concern here.

[BroomJockey]

Many small towns would no longer be able to afford a force of their own.

I thought you were in Canada. Do many small towns in Ontario have their own police? I thought they just had the RCMP and the OPP, and then major metropolitan centres had a police department.

[Boozy]

I thought you were in Canada. Do many small towns in Ontario have their own police? I thought they just had the RCMP and the OPP, and then major metropolitan centres had a police department.

Why does it matter that I live in Canada? I was commenting on a story from the U.S.

But to answer your question: Most small towns in Ontario now use the OPP. Although even just ten years ago my small home town had their own force.

[BroomJockey]

Why does it matter that I live in Canada? I was commenting on a story from the U.S.

It mattered that I misread your comment as "Many small towns here would no longer be able to afford a force of their own. Precedence would have been a major concern."

Thus, intimating that you had small police forces around in small areas, which confused the snot out of me The fact that you're Canadian has nothing to do with your ability to comment on a US story.