Well no, if they're doing checks then they've obviously had problems before, maybe even been in some serious shit previously and want to double down just in case.
It's a simple issue of things being spoiled for everyone by the actions of the few.
English
-
[quote]Well no, if they're doing checks then they've obviously had problems before, maybe even been in some serious shit previously and want to double down just in case. It's a simple issue of things being spoiled for everyone by the actions of the few.[/quote] No it's not a 'simple' issue. It's an issue assuming guilt ahead of innocence. If a person is performing their duties and not offering suspicion of a violation there is absolutely no reason to be testing them. Same goes for DUI check points and 'stop and frisk' laws. All bs to subvert a persons right to the expectation of innocent until proven guilty.
-
Ok let's put it this way then. would you rather they continue doing the checks every so often as annoying to you as they are, or would you prefer it be found at a later date that a couple of employees have been working under the influence, your management gets into deep shit for not doing checks (especially when/if there's been previous issues) and then the place has to close down (at least for a while for new management to come in if they do cuz whoever's in charge sure as hell isn't gonna be able to stay working there) for breaking the law and you lose your job?
-
[quote]Ok let's put it this way then. would you rather they continue doing the checks every so often as annoying to you as they are, or would you prefer it be found at a later date that a couple of employees have been working under the influence, your management gets into deep shit for not doing checks (especially when/if there's been previous issues) and then the place has to close down (at least for a while for new management to come in if they do cuz whoever's in charge sure as hell isn't gonna be able to stay working there) for breaking the law and you lose your job?[/quote] That's not a realistic stance. That is a paranoid stance that you're using to justify undermining a very valuable and basic right in the US. Nothing more, nothing less. If you're good with that, fine. Don't waste your time trying to convince me to change my mind.
-
Slightly changing topic, I thought the justice system in America was guilty until proven innocent anyways? Could have sworn it was the last time I checked...
-
[quote]Slightly changing topic, I thought the justice system in America was guilty until proven innocent anyways? Could have sworn it was the last time I checked...[/quote] Lol. Sometimes it feels that way doesn't it?
-
Yep, well I'm UK and I know for 100% that it's innocent until proven guilty over here but for some reason I've pretty much always found the US to use guilty until proven innocent...