(11-08-2017, 07:46 AM)Sneakers Wrote:

(11-07-2017, 07:06 PM)TJBender Wrote:

---

My company's claim to my actions starts at 8 and ends around 5. Corporate ownership of an employee is not capitalism, it's slavery.

Are you suggesting the NFL's drug policy, which extends beyond the playing field and applies in jurisdictions where such usage is legal, constitutes an act of slavery?

Yes and no. If a person's quality of work is going downhill, a company has the right to fire them for it. If their work is going downhill because they're crackheads off the clock, then it stands to reason that a company could indirectly fire them for being a crackhead. If a person shows up to work impaired by drugs or alcohol, the employer has a right to fire them on the spot for any number of reasons. Likewise, if an employee is at work and has drugs in their possession, and the presence of those drugs can be proven in a way that doesn't involve physically searching the employee, they're gone. If the employee's work quality is good, they're not coming to work impaired and they're not bringing drugs to work, they should be able to sit at home and snort coke from 6 PM to 3 AM if they so choose. This is, of course, assuming they're not out at a club wearing their company polo and cutting lines with their business card.

The NFL has a slightly different set of rules in my mind because of PEDs. If a player is proven to have taken PEDs or be linked to those who manufacture or sell them, it is very much the NFL's business, as their off-the-field actions create an unfair competitive advantage when on it.

---