5 ms·

So many people have gotten fired from their job (and had careers/jobs ruined) over private communications that got leaked to the Internet in the last couple of

So many people have gotten fired from their job (and had careers/jobs ruined) over private communications that got leaked to the Internet in the last couple of years. Nobody even mentions the fact that their privacy was violated. They only care about the private conversation that got leaked (and of course, how the person needs to be punished). Anything you write on the Internet, even if it's just your personal beliefs, will come back to haunt you in the future no matter how innocent it seems like at the time. If it offends someone (and pretty much anything you write will offend someone), there is a chance you could have your livelihood taken away from you. I'm more concerned with this than any government surveillance. I'm fine with legalizing drugs. I'm not fine with the inability of me, as a business owner, to be able to fire someone for coming into my place of business under the influence. This is exactly what the CA proposed law wanted to allow a few years back.

Dylan16807 12y ago
>I'm not fine with the inability of me, as a business owner, to be able to fire someone for coming into my place of business under the influence. As a business are you currently less able to fire someone for being under the influence of marijuana than if they were under the influence of alcohol?
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  Yes. Especially when the advocates continue to say that the major use is medical. There is no medical alcohol.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    Ethanol is part of the treatment for methanol poisoning. That would be an acute care situation though, not something that would be a concern in the workplace.
  - GauntletWizard 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiseptic#Some_common_antiseptics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiseptic#Some_common_antisept... Ingested alcohol is less commonly used as a medical aid, but most every hospital uses alcohol on a daily basis.
  - CyberDildonics 12y ago
    If a manager wants to fire someone they've already fucked up, why search for a reason and make up all these hypotheticals that rope in other factors?
    - eru 12y ago
      The original cause might not stand up to legal scrutiny. Or any kind of scrutiny.
  - pdkl95 12y ago
    While other's have brought up how ethanol in the style of (or sometimes literally) a very-high-proof vodka is used to treat methanol and ethylene glycol (antifreeze) poisoning, it is unlikely that these uses be seen outside of a hospital or other emergency medical facility. A better question is someone who is under the influence of something that is commonly prescribed, such as opioid painkillers[1], antihistamines[2], or various psychiatric medication[3]. People are prescribed those medications for many different reasons all the time. The ability to drive or operate dangerous devices can be impacted as bad as ethanol, and many will impact attention or social interaction in various ways. It is difficult to compared these to marijuana, but it is obvious that some have much stronger reactions to these drugs. Just like with drunk driving, the problem here is the focus on any particular drug instead of focusing on behaviors. It is similar to default-allow in computer security; trying to enumerate bad things[4] that might allow for bad behavior, the real solution is to change how the problem is framed. Citizens concerned about safety on public roads are not actually interested in how much ethanol someone has had to drink. What matters is if someone has the necessary reflexes, fine motor skills, and situational awareness to drive safely. Ethanol consumption correlates with these problems, with a lot of variability. Instead of the breathalyzer, we should be testing the features that actually matter. This might suggest that some people cannot drive even when they are sober... which is kind of the point. If someone shows up to work under the influence, you should evaluate if they are causing any sort of actual problem, and fire them for that. On the other hand, if they are on something but they do their job properly, then why complain? [1] can cause to cause extreme sleepiness, dizziness, and/or nausea in some people [2] many antihistamines - such as diphenhydramine ("Benadryl") which is over-the-counter - are well-known to be powerful deliriants. In many people normal doses can impact driving as bad as ethanol and make coherent conversation difficult. [3] the problem here are to numerous to list. The popular antipsychotics can have almost any type of side effect you can think of, antidepressants can have unpredictable effect, and anxiolytics can cause drowsiness as bad as the opioids. [4] http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/dumb/ http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/d...
gress 12y ago
Do you think that business owners should be allowed to fire people for coming in to work under the influence of other prescription medications?
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Depends on the details of the prescription and how affected they are. I wouldn't expect the needed doses to be very high? Then it wouldn't be an issue in the same way it shouldn't be a problem to have a single drink before work and a BAC of .02 If the prescription unavoidably interferes with work competence then I'm not sure where things go other than "complicated".
- paulhauggis 12y ago
  Does it effect their job? Will it make them a danger to others while being under the influence (a good example would be in a warehouse handling packages, equipment, etc)? If so, yes. The issue is that many business owners will be held liable for the actions of a person under the influence while at work because they allowed it to happen. There needs to be a balance between employee and employer rights or complete tort reform to make the person under the influence completely responsible for their actions.
  - gress 12y ago
    These are good questions to which the answer 'the employer gets to be the judge' doesn't seem adequate. But yes, I agree that there is a problem with the current diffuse responsibility that creates terrible incentives for everyone.
  - samatman 12y ago
    Let me propose that, for any category of job, we may create a test which is a) safe to perform and b) indicates if the worker is able to do that job. You can therefore check, without prejudice, if a worker is capable of doing that job, without invasive inquiries about their bodies and private life. And should. And should be legally barred from otherwise testing employee competence.
  - 12y ago
random_pr 12y ago
you should always write under a pseudonym: http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1993/10/msg00759.html http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1993/10/msg00759.html
- e12e 12y ago
  Always liked the fact that Franklin initially published the quote:"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." under a pseudonym. Now the fact that he published it in a work that essentially was meant as satire of his age's hipsters does make his intended meaning somewhat suspect...
seanp2k2 12y ago
Can you explain more about the part where you can't fire people for being high at work? That seems wrong. http://www.calaborlaw.com/can-my-boss-fire-me-at-any-time-for-any-reason-what-is-“at-will”/ http://www.calaborlaw.com/can-my-boss-fire-me-at-any-time-fo...
- kbenson 12y ago
  > This is exactly what the CA proposed law wanted to allow a few years back. It's possible (likely) that it didn't pass, but that it was proposed is troubling itself.
therealwill 12y ago
Most states are at will employment so it is fairly easy to terminate someone who is unable to perform their duties (whether they're high or not.)
yuhong 12y ago
I am thinking of removing anti-discrimination laws completely (not just to create exceptions) and allowing regulators (such as anti-trust) to impose anti-discrimination conditions on specific companies instead. The idea is that most of the time we would let the market deal with discrimination instead of using the relatively expensive legal system.

Dylan16807 12y ago

>I'm not fine with the inability of me, as a business owner, to be able to fire someone for coming into my place of business under the influence. As a business are you currently less able to fire someone for being under the influence of marijuana than if they were under the influence of alcohol?

paulhauggis 12y ago
Yes. Especially when the advocates continue to say that the major use is medical. There is no medical alcohol.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Ethanol is part of the treatment for methanol poisoning. That would be an acute care situation though, not something that would be a concern in the workplace.
- GauntletWizard 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiseptic#Some_common_antiseptics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiseptic#Some_common_antisept... Ingested alcohol is less commonly used as a medical aid, but most every hospital uses alcohol on a daily basis.
- CyberDildonics 12y ago
  If a manager wants to fire someone they've already fucked up, why search for a reason and make up all these hypotheticals that rope in other factors?
  - eru 12y ago
    The original cause might not stand up to legal scrutiny. Or any kind of scrutiny.
- pdkl95 12y ago
  While other's have brought up how ethanol in the style of (or sometimes literally) a very-high-proof vodka is used to treat methanol and ethylene glycol (antifreeze) poisoning, it is unlikely that these uses be seen outside of a hospital or other emergency medical facility. A better question is someone who is under the influence of something that is commonly prescribed, such as opioid painkillers[1], antihistamines[2], or various psychiatric medication[3]. People are prescribed those medications for many different reasons all the time. The ability to drive or operate dangerous devices can be impacted as bad as ethanol, and many will impact attention or social interaction in various ways. It is difficult to compared these to marijuana, but it is obvious that some have much stronger reactions to these drugs. Just like with drunk driving, the problem here is the focus on any particular drug instead of focusing on behaviors. It is similar to default-allow in computer security; trying to enumerate bad things[4] that might allow for bad behavior, the real solution is to change how the problem is framed. Citizens concerned about safety on public roads are not actually interested in how much ethanol someone has had to drink. What matters is if someone has the necessary reflexes, fine motor skills, and situational awareness to drive safely. Ethanol consumption correlates with these problems, with a lot of variability. Instead of the breathalyzer, we should be testing the features that actually matter. This might suggest that some people cannot drive even when they are sober... which is kind of the point. If someone shows up to work under the influence, you should evaluate if they are causing any sort of actual problem, and fire them for that. On the other hand, if they are on something but they do their job properly, then why complain? [1] can cause to cause extreme sleepiness, dizziness, and/or nausea in some people [2] many antihistamines - such as diphenhydramine ("Benadryl") which is over-the-counter - are well-known to be powerful deliriants. In many people normal doses can impact driving as bad as ethanol and make coherent conversation difficult. [3] the problem here are to numerous to list. The popular antipsychotics can have almost any type of side effect you can think of, antidepressants can have unpredictable effect, and anxiolytics can cause drowsiness as bad as the opioids. [4] http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/dumb/ http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/d...

gress 12y ago

Do you think that business owners should be allowed to fire people for coming in to work under the influence of other prescription medications?

Dylan16807 12y ago
Depends on the details of the prescription and how affected they are. I wouldn't expect the needed doses to be very high? Then it wouldn't be an issue in the same way it shouldn't be a problem to have a single drink before work and a BAC of .02 If the prescription unavoidably interferes with work competence then I'm not sure where things go other than "complicated".
paulhauggis 12y ago
Does it effect their job? Will it make them a danger to others while being under the influence (a good example would be in a warehouse handling packages, equipment, etc)? If so, yes. The issue is that many business owners will be held liable for the actions of a person under the influence while at work because they allowed it to happen. There needs to be a balance between employee and employer rights or complete tort reform to make the person under the influence completely responsible for their actions.
- gress 12y ago
  These are good questions to which the answer 'the employer gets to be the judge' doesn't seem adequate. But yes, I agree that there is a problem with the current diffuse responsibility that creates terrible incentives for everyone.
- samatman 12y ago
  Let me propose that, for any category of job, we may create a test which is a) safe to perform and b) indicates if the worker is able to do that job. You can therefore check, without prejudice, if a worker is capable of doing that job, without invasive inquiries about their bodies and private life. And should. And should be legally barred from otherwise testing employee competence.
- 12y ago

random_pr 12y ago

you should always write under a pseudonym: http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1993/10/msg00759.html http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1993/10/msg00759.html

e12e 12y ago
Always liked the fact that Franklin initially published the quote:"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." under a pseudonym. Now the fact that he published it in a work that essentially was meant as satire of his age's hipsters does make his intended meaning somewhat suspect...

seanp2k2 12y ago

Can you explain more about the part where you can't fire people for being high at work? That seems wrong. http://www.calaborlaw.com/can-my-boss-fire-me-at-any-time-for-any-reason-what-is-“at-will”/ http://www.calaborlaw.com/can-my-boss-fire-me-at-any-time-fo...

kbenson 12y ago
> This is exactly what the CA proposed law wanted to allow a few years back. It's possible (likely) that it didn't pass, but that it was proposed is troubling itself.

therealwill 12y ago

Most states are at will employment so it is fairly easy to terminate someone who is unable to perform their duties (whether they're high or not.)

yuhong 12y ago

I am thinking of removing anti-discrimination laws completely (not just to create exceptions) and allowing regulators (such as anti-trust) to impose anti-discrimination conditions on specific companies instead. The idea is that most of the time we would let the market deal with discrimination instead of using the relatively expensive legal system.