Actually the state of Wisconsin has a law against discriminating against smokers, with the exception of firefighters due to lung health benefits they are entitled to.

Anyway I see the Walker supporters do not know enough about his policies to answer my question.

Hospitals are starting to screen for smokers for new hires. Smoke cigs away from work, you don't get the job (blood test shows it). So far I haven't heard the policy challenged legally. Apparently companies can control behavior outside work. Nothing I've read mentions a nicotine patch user.

"Can anyone tell me why act 10 was written
to allow collective bargaining to some public employees
but not others?"
Divide and conquer, baby, divide and conquer!

Thanks for the response, but seriously can a Walker supporter tell me why?

keep making unconstitutional laws and they will continue to be challenged and overturned in court. And when 2014 comes and Scooter gets his walking papers he will have no one to blame but himself. Divide and BE CONQUERED.

Wislady, Bipartisanship isn't the Republican's getting their way. The Dems have no way of stopping the majority with anything at this point. It is 100% up to the republicans as the majority to start any talks of compromise. Bipartisanship is taking ideas from both sides, not one side giving in completely.

916WI,
I know that isn't how you are defining being intoxicated, but it does seem that is how the businesses are. What should it matter what I do in my spare time? Again, it makes sense that if you go to work drunk, you could be fired. But what is the logic for firing someone who has THC in their system (in a state where recreational use is legalized)? As far as I can tell, there is no logic there. If the employer cares about what you do on your own time, why don't they start telling employees where to eat, what television networks to watch, how many children they can have, and what brands to buy?

Do you see what the big issue is here? Why is an employer dictating my freedoms? In some cases it can make sense, such as in the military. But for your every day civilian sector jobs, it almost never would make sense. This very infringement on personal liberty is THE reason unions were started. Now you are arguing that this is also the reason unions should not exist?

It is very easy to tell someone, just take your skills elsewhere. But how easy is it to find a job that won't care if you have consumed marijuana in the past 30 days? Even in Colorado and Washington, where marijuana is LEGAL for recreational purposes, it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to find that job. Employers should NOT be allowed to discriminate against people for what they do in their own free time, if said activities do not affect the work place.

kai...Aside from the fact that saliva tests have been proven to be notoriously unreliable, I never defined intoxication as having used a substance within the last 30 days. What I said was that an employer is well within their rights to let an employee go if he/she broke their agreed upon rules of employment. I, as well as everyone I work with in this company, were made well aware of those policies before we were hired. If the employer chooses to alter those rules to conform with current law, that's totally their prerogative. I have no issue with either drug or alcohol use as I have friends and family who are involved in one or the other. What I have an issue with is having a labor union come in and define how a business owner should run their business. If the employee doesn't like the rules or the way the employer enforces them, he/she should take their skill set to an employer that has policies more to their liking and who would better appreciate that skill set.......

916WI,
The problem is that if there is alcohol in your system, that means you are drunk. If there is THC in your system, that does NOT mean you are high. So, while the logic works for alcohol, it does not apply very well at all to marijuana.

Interestingly enough, there are tests that have been developed that can tell if a person is presently or was very recently under the influence of marijuana. One such test is a saliva test. According to Wikipedia (a good starting point at least), a saliva drug test can tell if a person has used marijuana in the last 12 hours. That isn't what companies in Colorado or Washington are using, though. Instead, they primarily choose to use a urine analysis. This method can detect marijuana usage in the past 30 days or more.

Do you see the problem? Imagine if a test for alcohol was developed that could detect if a person consumed alcohol in the last 30 days. Now imagine your employer telling you that you cannot show positive for alcohol if you want to work there. Why is it their business if you want to drink excessively on occasion? It shouldn't be their business.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for not showing up to work intoxicated. But if you define being intoxicated as being able to show positive for a substance, on a test that can detect if you've used that substance any time in the last 30 days+, then I have to argue that is a poor definition of intoxication.

By the way, thanks for assuming that, because I support unions, I must have been a member of a union. No, I was never a member of a union.

I actually advocate major reforms of unions. I think they are, for the most part, corrupt and have lost their way. However, I am a strong supporter of the idea of unions, and what they are supposed to stand for. If you continue to prejudge me, even in the face of great evidence defining my views (I have shared my views NUMEROUS times on this website), then you're in for a bruising surprise.

Great story on more foolish Re-FIB-licans in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It seems that "9 WI LAWMAKERS Want To Charge Officials Who Implement Obamacare" - Duh foolish ones actually want them arrested....lol. I look forward to seeing them in a Federal Prison.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepoliti...

Great story on more foolish Re-FIB-licans in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It seems that "9 WI LAWMAKERS Want To Charge Officials Who Implement Obamacare" - Duh foolish ones actually want them arrested....lol. I look forward to seeing them in a Federal Prison.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepoliti...

I always thought the "puppies" were just more of the LEMMINGS on the way to their next Republican event / order / command.

The B e s t --> GARYPRIMER comment so far! You said it quite well about King Walker & "Divide & Conquer" - Thank you.

Walker & the Red State Lady

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepoliti...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/11...

A N D - The Walker Promise to his $500K Donor

http://www.thenation.com/blog/167840/sco...

Little Napoleon Walker
takes in the state troopers
as his litter of puppies.
"Beasts of England, beasts of Ireland,
Beasts of every land and clime,
Hearken to my joyful tiding
Of the golden future time."

"Can anyone tell me why act 10 was written
to allow collective bargaining to some public employees
but not others?"
Divide and conquer, baby, divide and conquer!

I never said you did--What I said is that if you showed up for work with any amount of drugs or alcohol in your system, the employer has every right to let you go. These policies have always been made very clear during every hiring process that I have been a part of. If you don't like it, don't sign on with that company--take your skills elsewhere.
Your suggestion that unions are necessary to force the employers to retain employees who break the rules they agreed to when taking the job doesn't make any sense.....

916WI,
Pray tell, at what point did I advocate going to work intoxicated?

Kai....What are you talking about? That's the cliffs of what you just wrote. Every company that I have ever worked for has made it's drug and alcohol policy very clear from day one......if you don't like the rules, simply take your skills to another company. I enjoy drinking excessively on occasion, but I'm not delusional enough to think that if I showed up for work with any amount of drugs or alcohol in my system, that that's acceptable and that my job should be protected because of it. Maybe your experiences within unions have led you to believe otherwise?

916WI,
Obviously your judgement is clouded by your prejudice.

Too funny! An argument in support of unions because they go to bat for workers who like to get drunk and/or stoned!

On a related note:
Employers in Colorado and Washington are saying they don't care about the state laws legalizing recreational use of marijuana. And an attorney who tried to sue to employers who discriminated against medical marijuana patients, but lost the lawsuit, says that private sector employers essentially have free reign. Essentially, if there is no union, the employer can do whatever they want. Ironically, certain jobs in the public sector that are unionized, such as Police, are protected from this kind of discrimination, by their unions.

Could you imagine your employer telling you, they don't care, you aren't allowed to drink alcohol? What if they told you that you can't smoke cigarettes? What if they told you, if you get a single speeding ticket, you're fired? It seems like they would be infringing on your individual rights, including your right to pursue happiness. However, if you work in Colorado or in Washington, you are not in a union, and you want to smoke marijuana recreationally, you might as well forget about it.

I think this is interesting. In my opinion, it shows that we do indeed need unions. You never know what other rights your employer will not allow you to have.

Just remember all...Walker built this!

The (minority) democrats will have the chance to work in a bipartisan manner when the Legislature goes back in session.

Union "extortion" rights are not "rights" in the Constitution.

Asking a question as to the validity of my statement.......can you help me out with an answer?

"that have"

Huh? Because there are no states have right to work laws on the books and also because the Federal government is so supportive of the workers unions that their employees belong to.......right??:)

"Why do you think these groups can sue and win?"
Because the cases are being ruled on by judges in Dane county that lean left?
When the state supreme court hear these cases on appeal, and overturn some of the decisions made by the lower courts, will you then blast the unions for wasting taxpayer money? After all, if the state's high court finds the legislation constitutional, then it must be......right??

The Legislative Session can't start soon enough!

Can anyone tell me why act 10 was written to allow collective bargaining to some public employees but not others?

"Scott Walker; is there anthing he can't screw up?"
I'm guessing that he wouldn't screw up the spelling of the word "anything":)

Freedom of Speech is the right to voice your opinion. It's not a right to pick pocket you're neighbor.

NEWSFLASH: collective barganing is not a right.

Walker doesn't play by the rules, ethical rules, the rule of law, the rules of human decency. This rabid dog behavior costs the taxpayers of Wisconsin a lot of money. Having a renegade in the State House is very expensive. His handlers are undoubtedly learning a lot.

The arrogant Tommy Thompson, who thought he was a shoo in and thought he would ride on the coattails of the Walker aberration to a win of the Senate Seat learned a lot. He was dumbfounded when he lost. People are tiring of the arrogant, scofflaw antics of these types.