in reply to Re: Headhunters and exclusivity clauses
in thread Headhunters and exclusivity clauses
I never peed in a cup for them either.
I'm willing to bet that most people swayed by the biting "documentary" stories they see on Dateline, and other hard-hitting news programs, would immediately say, "This person refuses to submit to a piss test, so he must be doing drugs." That's disturbing that most "mainstream Americans" would accept this form of intrusion (any type of drug testing) without flinching. So, I figured I would just say thanks to lemming for "stickin' it to da man". :)
As an aside, it'd be interesting to see variations of this in a poll. I'm wondering if it's truly an extension of the community's support of privacy or if it's a necessary extension for fear of being caught. Furthermore, does recreational use (if applicable) affect your ability to work?
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re: Re: Re: Headhunters and exclusivity clauses
by myocom (Deacon) on Jan 06, 2001 at 04:26 UTC | |
by kudra (Vicar) on Jan 06, 2001 at 04:40 UTC | |
|
Re: Re: Re: Headhunters and exclusivity clauses
by a (Friar) on Jan 06, 2001 at 11:40 UTC |