DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Josh Gordon applies for reinstatement

Tell me of any other place of employment where you can fail their drug test policy four of five times and get your job back. I'll wait.

There's a difference between being less fortunate and blowing opportunities you have been given. Someone with Gordon's talents and opportunities due to that talent aren't "less fortunate". They have turned their backs on just how fortunate they actually are.

I don't think it's an issue of discussing the rules and if they should change. I certainly think weed should not be a part of the NFL drug policy. I think a lot of us feel that way and that in and of itself would be a great discussion.

But I don't see anyone who has actually attempted to do that. What I see is people who feel that rule is wrong and even though the players agreed to those rules, Josh shouldn't be held accountable to follow those rules.

IMO those are two separate discussions.

He also said

Titus 3:10 ESV
As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,

Player knows rules and requirements for employment, can't live by requirements. Saying weed shouldn't be on list, JMHO, making weed legal is STUPID. Brain changes, birth defects, and driving skills impaired....sweet. Alcohol and all its fantastic societal benefits aren't enough. Thank God Josh isn't an airline pilot, let him dope up and play ball...sweet. Go Browns!!!

Alcohol is gross. I personally hate it. I hate the way it makes me feel. I hate the way it makes people act. That said what others choose to put in their bodies is none of my business. Nor yours.
You should have no rights to tell Josh what he can and can’t put into his body. Despite your obvious hang ups. Birth defects from weed? You need to put that reefer madness era garbage to rest.
The NFL and every other employer needs to put an end to cannabis prohibition and the archaic rules that come with it.
Show up to the job stoned? Fine, get fired. The rest of my, or Josh’s, life is none of anyone else’s business.

They are, as I have pointed out.

Also, aren't the results of such test private? It is only released a player has failed the testing protocol. I don't think we know exactly for what. I think we assume it is for pot, but it could be for something else as well.

Dayton was at one time a giant GM/Union town...keeping one's job after 4-5 drug tests wouldn't make the radar of transgressions "protected" by the Union.

The "place of employment" in this instance are the 32 teams in the NFL. The industry is the NFL.

Any place of employment can choose to hire someone or to give someone x-chances or not...but no industry can ban a person FOR LIFE from attempting to get a job within said industry. That would be a giant no-no...as in a violation of one's human rights.

Josh is a dipsnot...he is where he is because he broke the rules. I've never believed otherwise. At the same time, I can believe that the rules are unfair, over-reaching, perhaps-illegal, and ridiculously applied or ignored. The appeals process is even more egregious.

Peen,

With all due respect, I am not "forgetting" anything here. I've never once said he should not be subject to the rules of his job. I have said repeatedly that he is where he put himself...he has no one to blame but himself for where he is today. The "rules are the rules" is a saying for a reason...you and I both know that.

What I have said is that the rules IMO are over-reaching, unevenly applied/ignored, possibly illegal, have no clear appeals process, etc. I don't say that hoping/thinking/wanting the player named Josh Gordon will/to get back in the game.

The rules are ridiculous and JG should remain on suspension in accordance with those ridiculous rules.

I grew up i the Dayton area. My dad actually worked for Chrysler in Dayton and retired from there. As he explained to me, the unions started for all of the right reasons. But some of their policies had become so ridiculous that Chrysler couldn't even fire someone that had no business still having a job.

And none of them were because it was "illegal to fire someone". It was because the the union made it such a hassle on the company it wasn't worth it.

Also the NFLPA is the players union and they do have an appeals process.

I might agree with you on the rules. Until the rules change, we are left with him repeatedly breaking the rules. I don't agree with stopping at a stop sign when taking a right hand turn. It should be treated more like a yield, but it isn't, so I stop.

I had a Twinsburg Chrysler employee who bought several cars from me when I worked up in Kent. He said that there was a guy who showed up for his shift, and slept through it. Frequently. Chrysler fired him, and the union went to bat for him and got his job back. Just amazing. Other employees on the line had to do their jobs along with his so he could sleep. There were a lot of good people who worked at that plant when I sold cars, but there were a few who were .... not as good.

I can't even tell you how many guys I've listened to tell about their drinking days and how they would constantly show up to their shifts at the auto plans utterly hammered and the unions would save their jobs over and over again.

This is why, despite growing up in a construction union family, I'm anti-union these days. It's Yin & Yang. A long time ago, the bosses had too much power and unions were needed to empower the workers and create better conditions and better pay, but now the unions are the ones with too much power and they need to be put in check as in more cases than not, the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

LOL @ the love for Flash...Hilarious...

In case you didn't know, he is NO LONGER ON THE BROWNS TEAM!!!!!!!!!!

I think that anytime we are placed into a situation where we have to sign up for something that we don't necessarily agree with but we have to choose between signing on the dotted line or going hungry or in the case of player contracts in the NFL pass up our dream as a condition of employment and a part of that is giving up our personal freedom guaranteed to us under the constitution things have gone to far, period.

The mistake here I believe is believing that employers have rights. They are NOT people so they have no rights, period. Individual rights were guaranteed to us so we could truly be free and any condition that is created no matter the motive that requires any individual to sign away those rights is wrong period. It is NOT a free choice and no you cannot say no to it and be a part of the NFL. This is also true of many many jobs in this country now. In fact protections for employees are nearly non existent at this point.

So my question is this I guess what would make anyone think that Josh or any player in the NFL or all of us really should have to sign away one or any of our freedoms as a condition of employment? This isn't freedom that is for damned sure. If Josh or any player or any of you believe that players can say no or many of us as well to this requirement you haven't a clue what freedom looks like.

If this were IMO actually a choice that is respectful of you're rights then you should be able to say no and participate anyway, but we all know that is NOT the case. The response that I see coming from far to many of you that Josh agreed too, or he could have said no are truly out there. You don't have a choice sign or go hungry that is your choice.

I personally don't think you can call us free in this instance we are clearly not and I don't trust corporations with my rights nor do I feel I should be required to as a condition to ply my trade. You can call it freedom if you wish but it's NOT, and in truth and in reality personal freedoms were put in place to protect us all from this very thing.

I have said no to signing non disclosure agreements in the past because a part of that agreement was that I could not work in my trade if I quit for a period of time. Companies have used these contracts as a means of enslaving their employees and way to many of us IMO think it's OK.

Companies have the ability to fire employees for showing up to work drunk or high, and beyond that they can stuff it when it comes to intruding in rights guaranteed us under our constitution. If you truly believe in personnel freedom you can't support this. This practice should have never gotten started to begin with IMO.

Calling this freedom or choice shows how brainwashed people have become.

Now I am done, please continue.

Yes they do...and in many drug-related offenses the NFL could sit on an appeal and not say squat for unlimited lengths of time OR they can hop right to the appeal, lift it and move on...there's no rhyme or reason and that allows for the appearance of favoritism.

So a business has no rights? They are somehow breaking the constitution by having requirements, standards and conditions of employment?

It's a contract the players union negotiated for under the collective bargaining agreement. The players could have voted the contract down and held further negotiations. They chose not to and ratified the contract.

Can you explain how the constitution enters into that?

He did show up for work drunk or high. You seriously can't consider that an employer unaccepting of illegal polysubstance abuse (such as what JG has admitted using, I'm not talking just marijuana here) by their employees is infringing on someone's constitutional or inalienable rights. Just what rights would those be? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Drug addicts aren't a happy lot and most definitely aren't choosing life or liberty. They are slaves to their addiction to life shortening substances.

I wonder where our founding fathers would stand on this?

You're way off base.

One, a company is a legal entity and it DOES have the right to set hiring standards for itself.

Secondly, just what Right it is you *think* is being infringed upon by a company setting those standards.... do you HONESTLY believe that you have a Right to do whatever you want and still have any job you want?

That's NOT how it works. That's not how ANY of this works.

One problem, as I see it, is that the NFL can say nothing except that "the player has been suspended for (term of suspension) for violating the substance abuse standards set forth in our contract with the players."

They can't say how many total violations the player has had, just what drugs he tested positive for, or really much else at all.

I sincerely doubt that the NFL is looking to take its stars off the field over nothing. That would be suicide for their business. The testing the NFL does is not set up to catch the occasional user. It is set up to catch the habitual abuser. Why do I say this? Because they literally say to the players, "Here is when we're going to test you. Refrain from drugs during this time". The casual user isn't being caught in this particular web, but rather the abuser.

Exactly. There is no "right to employment." Losing your job does not violate your rights.

Your making a joke of this and of people's rights.

You may want to actually read the constitution and while your reading it look for the part that says employers have rights and for the part that says you may be forced to sign away those rights guaranteed you under this document.

But stop trying to frame it as having a choice when non exists.

No one is saying he can't work. He just needs to abide by the rules of the company he works for. Fairly simple and straightforward.

He can get a job anywhere he wants as long as it isn't the NFL.

Even if he gets a shot, I seriously doubt any team will hire him.

Why?? He has been more or less fired by several teams. He hasn't been able to cut it as a good employee anywhere.

I actually agree he has to follow the rules. What I am saying is some rules have overstepped the bounds when it comes to freedoms that we are guaranteed under the Constitution. That employers have no limits when it comes to how they create much less enforce their rules.

I say be very careful here your signing yourself up for something that has no constraint.

I think if you show up for work work hard be productive reliable and yes accountable no employer has the RIGHT to require you to take a piss test. It's enough that the employee meets all the requirements related to his job beyond that my boss can stuff his intrusion into my personal life in his arse.

I guess I would really like to see what you might have to say if I asked, where do my employers rights stop, and mine begin?

I don't joke about Rights.
You're off base. You have no Right to a job. You're free to seek employment elsewhere if you don't like an employer's conditions. You have NO RIGHT to demand they change their standard because you don't agree with them.

The employers don’t need to change their systems… the system needs changed. Prohibition of cannabis and it’s archaic rules need tossed at the federal level. All employers should then be told to knock it off with their pee tests. Hire on merit. Fire for cause…. Not for a weekend doobie.

Nor do they have a right to intrude on their employees privacy and that is my point and in truth they have no rights period beyond this is the job. You show up you work hard and are productive what you do in you're time away is you're business just like it's nobody else's business what you do with you're free time.

And although you may not like it the Constitution of this country spells your rights out pretty well and that goes for everyone not just people who work for a particular employer. It's gone to far with the frontal attack on privacy. Search the internet for something I guarantee the next time you log into facebook the advertising will play to whatever you were searching for, and it will do that in spite of any privacy setting in your computer.

Go to a web page and when the little message can we see your location shows up say no and then they still know where you are don't they? They can't respect even their customers privacy and in truth have proven to be quite untrustworthy with the data they gather on people, and according to far to many people it's all okay. And you think it's okay that they do all of this openly when it comes to their employees. Be careful with who you trust, and who you give away your rights to even if they do write you a check each week. There is no oversight and what there is is ignored and you and you're rights are up for grabs.

One of the things that really sort of set me off when it comes to privacy issues was I when I moved here to PA and went to a new Dr. I was given a questionnaire to fill out one of the questions I was asked was what is my social security number. Just like always I left it blank.

After some time had passed the Dr. office brought in a new kiosk system was put in place for patients to check in thru. When I went to this system I was asked one of the many same questions I was asked when I filled out paperwork the 1st time I went to this office was is this you're social security number, and low and behold in spite of the FACT that I had not provided that information to them they had my social security number. I was livid over it.

As most of you know if your social security number becomes compromised and you become a victim of identity fraud you are in for a world of crap. That is why I never have given my information to anyone that had no need to know. It is as many of you know your responsibility to secure that information. When it comes to a Dr having this information you are given no reassurance that your information is secure. That means everyone and anyone who has access to this system can get your social security information and now you become the victim of their mishandling of this information.

When I confronted my Dr with my anger over this he said it's likely the insurance company gave this information to them. Who authorized the insurance company to share that information with anyone? You may also know that a law was passed to make it mandatory that you provide insurance companies with your social security information. Did you know that there is NO law saying who they can share that information with? In this case no one else could have provided that information BUT the insurance company. maybe you think that's OK, I do NOT.

And to really drive that point home my Dr.'s office had their system compromised and guess who had to watch for years now to insure I didn't become a victim?

There are no checks and balances in place. There is NO privacy when it comes to you, none and there may soon come a time where an employer will know based on information that is gathered that you are likely to have health issues and as a result you will be excluded from working for them based on that information.

This has actually reach a crisis stage IMO and as I have becomes aware they are sharing information about you in an endless stream of data gathering and it's just a matter of time before we all become true victims because we didn't say that without oversight and protections in place we left ourselves open to this evil. The one thing we do have working for us is the guarantees laid out for us under the constitution but employers have side stepped these guarantees by making it mandatory that you sign away those rights in order for you to work for them.

When it comes to the NFL for all intent and purpose the NFL is 32 employers who openly collude with each other to restrict the free movement of employees. Lets say this Ford and GM don't work with each other to stop a ford employee from working at GM, but the NFL is allowed to do exactly that. And it extends to a long list of issues.

As many of you have figured out Josh can go and get a different job, but he cannot get a different job in the NFL so restrictive are the practices of the NFL that they actually own the rights to all but a very few of their employees. There IMO has to be a line somewhere and it goes for all employers that says it ends here. But as of this moment no such line exists and I think it's wrong. Mostly because there is NO limit to what they can and often do require.

If we all keep giving away our freedom we won't have any and I object.

I think we all have a right to our privacy, and that extends to our employer. As I have said show up for work do a good job you owe them nothing beyond that and you simply do NOT.

When what you do in your free time impacts your work time, or when it violates something like a drug usage policy, a workplace has EVERY Right to regulate that. NONE of that is protected activity under the Constitution. You have absolutely zero protected Rights under the Constitution when it comes to drugs or alcohol or tobacco or any other substance use. All

I get your point, but your point is wrong. I feel that you're confusing "how you wish things were" with "how it actually is".
I don't disagree that too much has intruded upon our privacy, and I agree that a lot of the tracking tech companies do stomps on the 4th Amendment, but none of that actually violates anything (though a case really should be brought to the Supremes, but they wouldn't agree because the 4th restricts only the government, not private companies). As someone who is VERY Pro-Constitution, pro-privacy, and works in tech, I really could not agree more, and don't get me started on the smoldering garbage that is the Patriot Act.... but, that is also all a completely separate issue that doesn't apply to Josh Gordon or employers/drug testing, at all.

When it comes to drug testing, an employer violates absolutely zero Constitutional Rights with this requirement. None. If you think it does, I'd love for you to point out the clause that prohibits it, but I can assure you that it is NOT the 4th Amendment.

Yes, but, again, this is arguing what should be and not what currently is. You can't expect an outcome based on how you wish the system was, and Josh has a decorated history of far more than just a weekend doobie being the issue, anyway.

Object all you want.

Good luck.

So lets stop pretending that we are remotely free. As I have said show me where an employer has the right to make it mandatory that you sign away your constructional rights? Show me where it says that employers have 1 single right period.

They do in a common sense way have every right to place expectations on employees in terms of job performance. Beyond that I don't think they have the right to any information including drug use of their employee.

It's just a matter of time before a part of pre employment you also must submit blood for DNA analysis to see if you are predisposed to certain health issues and as a result many of us will be excluded from being employed period. We need protection set in place that draw lines and as of this moment those protection don't exist.

So bad has it become that in most states under right to work laws employees can be fired for any cause or no cause at all. It appears to me that perhaps it's not truly right to work so much as it is right to fire. And the list of things that employers can do is they now can require and employee to give up any right they are guaranteed under the constitution and I think it's wrong and no rule no law will ever convince me otherwise. I have an absolute right to privacy in every respect and that right super cedes any employers right to know. If I do my job and do it well they don't have a right that says they can anyway. Not without some protections of you and that is what is lacking the laws do not protect us anymore there are no lines that say it stops here.

So I ask again where do an employers rights end and mine begin?

Do I have the right to refuse to train someone to do my job? Given that my employer can fire me for any reason or no reason at all why should I train anyone?. I know so I can avoid being fired, right got it? Could I not actually train someone then at the end of that training be fired myself even though I meet the job requirement for the real purpose on the part of the employer to avoid wages? Are we so confused that we believe that employers don't do this?

Did you know that an employer can fire an employee and that under the law they do NOT have to pay a Nickle of back vacation that the employee has earned? An employer can fire someone to avoid paying vacation that is how bad it is? I had a friend who was recently fired after working for a company for 20 years. He was let go for stamping paperwork instead of hand writing in the date, they are refusing to pay him the over 200 hours he had banked in vacation pay. Where are the protections for the employee? Did you know that employers aren't required under law to pay any vacation at ALL.

Oh and I can attest to the absolute fact that my friend was a pro in every way he was the best inspector in the company period and they fired him for total BS, and under current law they can and did cheat him out of his vacation pay. There must be limits.

Like I say I think there needs to be common sense used and there need to be lines to protect all interested parties. But the requirement to sign to agree has no place without protection. The choice between refusing to sign and starve is NOT a choice, is it?

What I am trying to show here is that the law has become very one sided and there by all appearances to me are no limits to what they can and cannot do.

I will concede one thing to you as of this moment the laws all favor the employer and whatever rules they wish to set in place and I think it's completely wrong and in many instances there are abuses taking place and for me at least I think it is easily it's most abusive when it intrudes to the point of invading my privacy.

The NFL is not telling Josh Gordon he cannot use marijuana. It is saying that he cannot continue to fail drug tests and work in the NFL. Those are two different things. Again, there is no right to employment. An employer can have a code of conduct, or whatever they want to call it. It's up to the employee whether or not they want to abide by it and work there, or not work there.

No where in the Constitution does it state that an employer need to change (or ignore) its expectations to align with how an employee wants to behave, or is capable of behaving.

There's the thing, though. With testing like it is, you ARE saying that if you want to play in the NFL, then you are prohibited from smoking pretty much at all (especially in his case with the elevated testing frequency). I don't believe any testing we have can differentiate if you've smoked 1 minute/hour ago, or 1 day or week ago. So by testing being what it is, you ARE effectively telling NFL players that they can't use MJ at all.

I think the NFL has a hard sell to justify its stance on marijuana given what its employees are doing as part of their jobs (they're not operating heavy machinery, not performing open-heart surgery or anything like that... they're playing a game). I don't believe there's any evidence that says MJ gives a competitive advantage.

There is this thing that despite what a few states are allowing, it is illegal.

That might be the inconvenient fact being missed by some.

The could be's and should be's don't matter here. That is an entirely different topic.

He was caught not because his job performance dropped off but because they test. I object to testing without cause. I would agree if an employee displays odd behavior witnessed by several people that is out of the norm then it may be justified but testing without justification is intrusive without cause. There need to be protection in place that are respectful of individual rights if they wish to do business in this country. They of course can go elsewhere if they don't like it.

The Supreme Court says it is legal for employers to require drug testing as long as it is required of all employees within specific job categories. If an employee does not want to be drug tested then they can chose not to take that job. If they take the job knowing the company does drug testing then they must abide by the conditions of the employment they agreed to upon being hired. The only thing that is unconstitutional is for the employer to release the results of drug testing to the public.

Not only that, but if I am not mistaken, the NFL drug policy is a collectively bargained policy. Both the NFL (employer) and Players Association (employees) agree to this. (along with many other provisions)

There is no Constitutional amendment that specifically says that the NFL must pay its players a specific minimum salary. There is no law that states that an employer must pay its employees a specific amount of its revenue.

We know what is going on and one poster doesn't and is trying to turn this in to a political discussion.

Time to move on.