Should mandatory employment arbitration be illegal?

[Barret]

Does anyone else feel that mandatory arbitration agreements should be illegal?

Specifically I am talking about when an employer requires as a condition of employment an employee to sign and agree to have an arbiter handle any disputes rather than a court. Essentially resulting in a near total inability to bring an employer to court whenever you would have reason to. (i.e. discrimination, pay issues, injury, etc.)

I think congress should make mandatory arbitration illegal, as well as any attempts by an employer to prevent the formation of a union. I also think it should be law that an employer can not drug test an employee unless there is valid reason to suspect drug use.

[Barret]

1. Bump for day hours

[Occulus]

2. In some cases, yes.

The Postal Service routinely and systematically violates the Family and Medical Leave Act by issuing denials "due to insufficient documentation" rather than following the guidelines set forth in the law. However, there's no possible court remedy; even though they are violating a federal law, we still have to handle it through the union.

God, I hate working for this company, but I can't afford school just yet. Trust me- the USPS is *NOT* a good place to work.

[Nikia]

3. I don't know why random drug testing is allowed and encouraged

From what I've read and heard, random drug testing is encouraged on the federal level. The administration would like to see every employee subject to random testing. Even though drug use is illegal (although by varying degrees by state, with in some states it being equivalent to a speeding ticket), it is unjust for an employer to dictate what an employee can do outside of work hours. Even if it could be argued that the company has an interest that their employees never use drugs, it is unjust for them to have a system that carries out an active investigation on all employees. Why is subjecting employees to urine tests any different than requesting that random home searches be conducted on employees? Why isn't drug use considered a protected health issue anyway?
As far as these and other issues, the Bush admininistration won't be favorable to any laws that gives the employer less of an advantage. Many legislators have this position too. Unfortunately, the economy encourages people to seek employment at places with lots of unfair restrictions. Facism is a system of both government and corporate control, which Bush and company is hoping to achieve in the U.S.

[Baltimoreboy]

4. What do you consider fair reasons for drug testing?

[Barret]

5. Something along the lines of

You come in to work and can't walk straight. Or you can't speak in a succinct manner when you normally are able to. Or you smell of something.

In other words - things that would give a cop probable cause to suspect drug/alcohol use.

[Baltimoreboy]

6. So handling dangerous tools

Dangerous substances, weapons, driving, etc. are all OK with you?

[Barret]

7. Ummm

where did you get that? I just said it should be done if you are impaired from it at work. Next time bother to read.

I do NOT, however, think it should be with out reason. In fact some employers have adopted this policy - you are only tested if there is reason to believe you are on something, or if cause an accident.

[Baltimoreboy]

8. So then you support tort reform

Which is the only way companies can afford to be this risky with their dangerous employees. Otherwise they will be sued when the drugged employee gets hurt or harms someone else.

The companies are doing it to protect themselves from suit. If you eliminate the ability to do it, then you leave them vulnerable.

[Barret]

10. Uh huh

So tell me this - what employer in the entire nation drug tests employees every day?

The vast majority drug test ONLY prior to employment. What fool would use something prior to getting hired knowing that? The next day he could use something, go in to work, get someone hurt, and boom law suit. The previous days drug test didn't do a damn bit of good. Of course people who sing corporate americas line rarely seem to think about things from a realistic perspective.

And yes - I would support legislation, for example, requiring that any law suit brought about as a result of the actions of an employee on a drug/alochol be brought only against that employee and not the company.

[Baltimoreboy]

11. It still happens

Many people don't get jobs as a result of such tests.

Addiction is more powerful than reasonable behavior.

I think companies would support your approach, lawyers would not.

[Barret]

13. You'll have to forgive me

if I support civil rights over money. Rather or not a company or lawyer likes it or not.

And I have to say I've never heard of anyone getting caught in a pre-employment test in a VERY long time.

[Baltimoreboy]

15. Oh, the pot smokers still get caught

Several failed my last job's pre-screening test. This job doesn't make me pee in a cup.

And I see your point about rights, I'm just saying companies aren't doing it for fun. They are doing it to protect from lawsuits.

[Nikia]

16. And with today's economy, you don't know when you are getting hired

Employees who are laid off are often stressed as it is. If they have any kind of dependence, it may not be the best time for them to completely quit. A couple months go by, they've applied to every job around and only get rejection letters. They are even more stressed out and take up up an offer from a friend for relief. A few days later, they receive a call saying that one of the companies decided to hire them if they pass a drug test which must be taken that day. They fail the test, of course, even though the person may not use drugs at or shortly before coming to work.
Pre employment drug tests are not as oppressive as random test in which you are always under suspicion, especially when the fact that the company drug tests is clearly stated before the person applies for the job. They do keep a number of people out of the workforce especially during tought times like these where a person with mild dependence may be seeking jobs for months. Think of how many people who would have difficulty abstaining from alcohol for months. In general, I think that drug use, has nothing to do with suitability for employment at the majority of jobs and I think employers should not use criteria for employment that is not related to the job (that includes credit checks and in some cases, criminal background checks).

[Nikia]

12. An company which applied to and random testing

Their policy was something like this:Employees will be randomly tested by the computer randomly selecting their social security numbers. The employee will be informed of their selection as soon as they report for their shift. They will be watched and driven to the testing sight by a human resources personnel. They will be tested and fired upon a poisitve test result. The employee may appeal for a retest on the same specimen which will be paid for at the employees expense.
Maybe I am glad that I didn't get that job. Even if I hadn't used anything for months, the whole process sounds rather anxiety invoking, don't you think? I haven't been drug tested since my pre employment drug test for my current job, which at that point I should have had nothing to fear. The test was one of those quick test drug tests where two lines show up if the test is negative and one if it is positive after a short period of time. Until the time had almost expired, my second methamphetamines line wasn't showing up. This is a substance that I have never used or even been around. Luckily it did, but for a couple minutes, I was terrified.

[Barret]

14. Sounds like a hell hole

I don't do drugs and I don't like being treated like a suspect who is guilty until proven innocent.

I would never take a job like that.

[Nikia]

9. The intersting thing about workplace accidents/impairment

The biggest causes of workplaces accidents are not drug use or even alcohol use, which causes more accidents than drug use. They are stress and sleep deprivation, things that society, including many workplaces encourage.
Most drug tests detect drug use for days or weeks after the employee has been intoxicated. The least harmful drug that is usually tested for, marijuana is detectable for the longest amount of time. Alcohol abuse is harmful and more common than drug abuse, yet alcohol is detectable for only a short period of time, pretty much when the person is intoxicated. Really though, what difference does it make to the company whether myself and a couple friends get drunk Friday night or get stoned on pot Friday night and come to work sober on Monday. Isn't that my personal decision which has nothing to do with my job?
Not every job that requires random testing requires unsafe things. Retail jobs often require drug testing now as do office jobs. Many jobs allow employees to be employed and use impairing perscription drugs, which could be dangerous if the employee were driving, handling dangerous chemicals, etc.