The Straight Story
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-27-06 12:05 AM
Original message |
We need more drug testing, background checks, et al |
|
Of employers before we go to work for them.
If they can drug test us, check our records, credit, and not allow us to smoke at home I think we need to be able to do the same for those that run the company to see if they are someone we want to work for.
I would extend it to the largest share holders as well (say any over a certain percent of ownership) - the entire board of directors, ceo, cfo (especially cfo's), and so on.
We don't have to know all the results, a third party can verify them and post pertinent data on a web site (and random tests would be good as well to keep it updated).
And no, I am not bitter. Have not been denied a job for any such reason (though I suspect a few I did not get in past were due to credit rating after divorce and I was starting over). I just think things should be more consistent - and if it is important for company to know intimate details on us those same details should be presented to those applying (as opposed to digging all over web sites, sec site, etc an so on).
I dunno, maybe I am just way way off base.
|
Katherine Brengle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-27-06 12:10 AM
Response to Original message |
1. What's good for the goose, so to speak... |
|
It makes sense to me--the owners, CEOs, shareholders, etc. of a company have more power to cause that company and its employees harm than the other way around.
Kind of like how the President should be expected to uphold the laws that we have to abide by...
|
babylonsister
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-27-06 12:19 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Dimson is our employee supposedly; have we ever seen a |
|
real, honest result of a physical for him? So good luck with that, though I understand why it would be a good thing.
|
Mythsaje
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-27-06 12:25 AM
Response to Original message |
3. You DO know that Congress resisted |
|
any notion that THEY be drug-tested, right? A violation of their privacy or some such.
I sure think THAT'S interesting.
Actually, if employers think they have a right to get me to pee in a cup, or check my credit rating, maybe we should just be able to ransack their house looking for something interesting. I mean, honestly, isn't my body as much my private property as their home is THEIR private property?
|
jeff30997
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-27-06 12:35 AM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon Apr 29th 2024, 12:34 PM
Response to Original message |