Re: We're royally fucked -- It's Debateable

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3] ]

Subject: Re: We're royally fucked

Author:
Alan

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:46:07 06/30/02 Sun
In reply to: Anne 's message, "Re: We're royally fucked" on 12:47:57 06/29/02 Sat

>>>My husband administers them regularly to his
>>>employees.
>>
>>Lovely. Though I think this is absolutely wrong and
>>unconstitutional, should someone not apply to work
>>there they won't have a truancy officer come to their
>>home.
>
>There wouldn't be a truancy officer if someone failed
>a drug test. The employee would simply lose his/her
>job. Or not be hired in the first place.
>
>Anne

Yes, that was my point. Not so if a student decided not to go to school to avoid taking a drug test.

Alan

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: We're royally fucked	Anne	05:12:11 07/01/02 Mon
Re: We're royally fucked -- Alan, 01:51:18 07/02/02 Tue