PVal, PVal wherefore art thou, PVal?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cardus

The United States Constitution is a document proscribing and limiting Federal government power.

so, you're suggesting our bill of rights doesn't apply if a state or local, or private entity tries to trample on our rights? free speech? freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc, etc? i don't think that's quite correct.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, you're suggesting our bill of rights doesn't apply if a state or local, or private entity tries to trample on our rights? free speech? freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc, etc? i don't think that's quite correct.

If you work for a private employer and you are not a member of a union or under a contract, you are considered an "at-will" employee and can be fired for any reason the employer chooses that is not specifically prohibited by law. Refusal to submit to drug testing does not fall under things prohibited by law.

And if you don't like it? Find another job.

As someone else mentioned, the Bill of Rights does not apply to private sector employment.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

If you work for a private employer and you are not a member of a union or under a contract, you are considered an "at-will" employee and can be fired for any reason the employer chooses that is not specifically prohibited by law. Refusal to submit to drug testing does not fall under things prohibited by law.

And if you don't like it? Find another job.

As someone else mentioned, the Bill of Rights does not apply to private sector employment.

It's not necessarily "private sector" when the state is involved. But taaaanks for trying.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so, you're suggesting our bill of rights doesn't apply if a state or local, or private entity tries to trample on our rights? free speech? freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc, etc? i don't think that's quite correct.

You think the 4th Amendment protects people from taking drug tests at private entities? I don't.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

You think the 4th Amendment protects people from taking drug tests at private entities? I don't.

timing is everything!


btw, it should.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Danzig

timing is everything!


btw, it should.

I think that the original intent of the founders, with regards to the fourth amendment, had to do much more with overreaching illegal searches and seizures. That would include warrantless searches of personal property or domeciles and doesn't really extend to what happens in a private business.

If a private school or business has a commitment to a drug-free workplace and lets that be known from the start then it is incumbent upon the student/employee seeking admission/employment there to understand it. Simply, in my opinion, if you don't like it, go elsewhere.

How this ties back in to PVal is a bit hazy because of the unique aspects of his life and time as a rider. However, if the State of California is what regulates his standing as a jockey and they've determined the criteria that will be used for him to remain eligible then he has the option to ride elsewhere, as he did for most of 2008-2010.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cardus

By the way, no it shouldn't.

well, i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. there weren't many big businesses back in the day; i doubt the founders thought that things such as bumper stickers or facebook postings would cause someone to get fired. or what you do on your free time for that matter.

did anyone read the article i posted? a guy fires workers who drink and he finds out, because he feels drinking is immoral. what has that got to do with your job? not a thing. it's certainly not illegal, and it's none of the owners business.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I didn't say state, county, or towns could "trample".

i'm not sure exactly what you're saying at this point....

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Not when a private entity is concerned. That is not government intrusion.

i found this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=123024596


i've learned something new today. i guess like many others, i had no idea. yikes. i figured laws on discrimination, age hiring/firing, etc, had come from rulings based on the constitution.