Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor
Think of it this way. THe company hires a known drug addict. That person under the influence does something that results in the deaths of several innocent people. Who do you think the legal community and the courts are going to go after? THe worker who likely has little money thanks to pay and benifits being eroded to line the pockets of the CEO? Or the company who he was on paid duty when this took place?
You can safely assume its the Company they will be going after since he was representing that company at that time. And opened them up to potientially hundreds of millions of dollars of liability. Extra insurance premiums even if they are accquitted, and millions in legal costs win or lose.
Thats the motivating factor of drug testing above many of the others. They could care less about that worker but thats millions they won't have to hand out in unwarranted bonuses throughout the ole boys club that year.
|
Why would they hire a 'known' drug addict? *Just kidding*
I see your point and I think you're probably right as to why it happens. I just don't agree with it in principle.
Don't get me started on CEOs and their benefits...
__________________
Chris
2007 E550 4Matic - 61,000 Km - Iridium Silver, black leather, Sport package, Premium 2 package
2007 GL450 4Matic - 62,000 Km - Obsidian Black Metallic, black leather, all options
1998 E430 - sold
1989 300E - 333,000 Km - sold
1977 280E - sold
1971 250 - retired
"And a frign hat. They gave me a hat at the annual benefits meeting. I said. how does this benefit me. I dont have anything from the company.. So they gave me a hat." - TheDon
|