|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 5:27 pm Post subject: Re: what the... |
 |
|
| bojangles wrote: |
1/ Teachers are not randomly or routinely drug tested in the US.
2/ Sorry, but I don't follow your argument here.
3/ Not sure about your math, but there are also many subsidiary agencies involved besides the hospitals, like the test kit companies and blood/urine analysis labs, etc. Diagnosis is Big Business. |
1. Untrue. While it is not the norm SOME states do or are instituting drug tests for teachers in America.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-01-18-randomteachertests_N.htm
| Quote: |
| School districts in at least four Kentucky counties � Knott, Montgomery, Letcher and Floyd � do random testing, the Kentucky Education Association's Tim Southern said. |
| Quote: |
| Should teachers be randomly drug-tested too? Yes, says Linda Lingle, the Republican governor of Hawaii, where the teachers' union agreed in 2007 to negotiate terms of a new drug-testing program in exchange for higher wages. Now some Hawaii teachers are resisting. (So far, no drug tests have been administered.) The contentious issue of teacher testing has also become the subject of recent court cases in North Carolina and West Virginia, where educators argue that the cost and time taken by random tests would be better spent in the classroom. |
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1879197,00.html
2. It's very simple. "innocent until proven guilty" is primarily a Western innovation. NOT a global standard.
3. And the more "subsidiary agencies" involved the more watered down that 3 million is. You're not making a good argument here. If there is 3 million in the "pie" you have a much smaller share if 10 people/agencies are sharing then if just 4 or 5. There are dozens of hospitals and many subsidiary agencies all sharing it...the return is miniscule. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bojangles
Joined: 19 Feb 2011
Location: south jeolla
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:30 am Post subject: Re: what the... |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bojangles wrote: |
1/ Teachers are not randomly or routinely drug tested in the US.
2/ Sorry, but I don't follow your argument here.
3/ Not sure about your math, but there are also many subsidiary agencies involved besides the hospitals, like the test kit companies and blood/urine analysis labs, etc. Diagnosis is Big Business. |
1. Untrue. While it is not the norm SOME states do or are instituting drug tests for teachers in America.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-01-18-randomteachertests_N.htm
| Quote: |
| School districts in at least four Kentucky counties � Knott, Montgomery, Letcher and Floyd � do random testing, the Kentucky Education Association's Tim Southern said. |
| Quote: |
| Should teachers be randomly drug-tested too? Yes, says Linda Lingle, the Republican governor of Hawaii, where the teachers' union agreed in 2007 to negotiate terms of a new drug-testing program in exchange for higher wages. Now some Hawaii teachers are resisting. (So far, no drug tests have been administered.) The contentious issue of teacher testing has also become the subject of recent court cases in North Carolina and West Virginia, where educators argue that the cost and time taken by random tests would be better spent in the classroom. |
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1879197,00.html
2. It's very simple. "innocent until proven guilty" is primarily a Western innovation. NOT a global standard.
3. And the more "subsidiary agencies" involved the more watered down that 3 million is. You're not making a good argument here. If there is 3 million in the "pie" you have a much smaller share if 10 people/agencies are sharing then if just 4 or 5. There are dozens of hospitals and many subsidiary agencies all sharing it...the return is miniscule. |
Thanks for your interest & research...TheUrbanMyth. However...
1. I stand corrected, teachers are randomly drug tested in 4 counties in the US state of Kentucky, according to your 2009 article from USA Today. Not the norm indeed! Also a state where they probably don't have a strong teacher's union. ALL other attempts to drug test teachers in the US have been defeated in a court of law, according to your article, where they like to honor that whimsical notion of "innocent until proven guilty."
2. Seatbelts are an innovation. The presumption of innocence in modern legal proceedings dates backs to sixth century Roman Law, and is written into the legal codes and constitutions of many democratic countries. Are you arguing against this fundamental legal right?
3. The average cost of a "Health Check" is roughly 100,000 won. The foreign teacher population in South Korea stands at roughly 30,000 or so, give or take several thousand. If you test 10 teachers, thats 1 mil. won. If you test 20 teachers, thats 2 mil. won. If you test 30 teachers, thats 3 mil. won. If you test 30,000 teachers, thats way more than 3mil. won, my friend.
The bottom line here is that drug testing of teachers(in any country) is a violation of privacy and civil rights and liberties. Teachers in South Korea, and perhaps like those teachers in Kentucky, have very few real protections against these types of violations. Think of it this way,...as a teacher, would you let them randomly or routinely search your house or apartment? Why would you ever let your teaching employer randomly or routinely search your body? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 4:59 pm Post subject: Re: what the... |
|
|
| bojangles wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| bojangles wrote: |
1/ Teachers are not randomly or routinely drug tested in the US.
2/ Sorry, but I don't follow your argument here.
3/ Not sure about your math, but there are also many subsidiary agencies involved besides the hospitals, like the test kit companies and blood/urine analysis labs, etc. Diagnosis is Big Business. |
1. Untrue. While it is not the norm SOME states do or are instituting drug tests for teachers in America.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-01-18-randomteachertests_N.htm
| Quote: |
| School districts in at least four Kentucky counties � Knott, Montgomery, Letcher and Floyd � do random testing, the Kentucky Education Association's Tim Southern said. |
| Quote: |
| Should teachers be randomly drug-tested too? Yes, says Linda Lingle, the Republican governor of Hawaii, where the teachers' union agreed in 2007 to negotiate terms of a new drug-testing program in exchange for higher wages. Now some Hawaii teachers are resisting. (So far, no drug tests have been administered.) The contentious issue of teacher testing has also become the subject of recent court cases in North Carolina and West Virginia, where educators argue that the cost and time taken by random tests would be better spent in the classroom. |
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1879197,00.html
2. It's very simple. "innocent until proven guilty" is primarily a Western innovation. NOT a global standard.
3. And the more "subsidiary agencies" involved the more watered down that 3 million is. You're not making a good argument here. If there is 3 million in the "pie" you have a much smaller share if 10 people/agencies are sharing then if just 4 or 5. There are dozens of hospitals and many subsidiary agencies all sharing it...the return is miniscule. |
Thanks for your interest & research...TheUrbanMyth. However...
1. I stand corrected, teachers are randomly drug tested in 4 counties in the US state of Kentucky, according to your 2009 article from USA Today. Not the norm indeed! Also a state where they probably don't have a strong teacher's union. ALL other attempts to drug test teachers in the US have been defeated in a court of law, according to your article, where they like to honor that whimsical notion of "innocent until proven guilty."
2. Seatbelts are an innovation. The presumption of innocence in modern legal proceedings dates backs to sixth century Roman Law, and is written into the legal codes and constitutions of many democratic countries. Are you arguing against this fundamental legal right?
3. The average cost of a "Health Check" is roughly 100,000 won. The foreign teacher population in South Korea stands at roughly 30,000 or so, give or take several thousand. If you test 10 teachers, thats 1 mil. won. If you test 20 teachers, thats 2 mil. won. If you test 30 teachers, thats 3 mil. won. If you test 30,000 teachers, thats way more than 3mil. won, my friend.
The bottom line here is that drug testing of teachers(in any country) is a violation of privacy and civil rights and liberties. Teachers in South Korea, and perhaps like those teachers in Kentucky, have very few real protections against these types of violations. Think of it this way,...as a teacher, would you let them randomly or routinely search your house or apartment? Why would you ever let your teaching employer randomly or routinely search your body? |
1. So far they have been defeated...but the Supreme Court appears to be leaning in favor of the employers..time will tell. Anyway Kentucky is part of the U.S...so my point still stands.
2. You claim that this is a fundamental legal right. I pointed out that this is a WESTERN legal right and is NOT enshrined in most legal systems around the world. That does not equate to arguing against...merely pointing out a fact.
3. Nobody said anything about 3 million WON. Mr ttompatz said $3 million and I went with that figure.
As for your final paragraph. Drug tests are REQUIREMENTS for MANY jobs around the WORLD. Such as police, firefighters and now teachers.
This is legal in many Western countries. So no it is NOT a violation of any civil rights or liberties. You DO have the right to refuse it. But if you agree to take a job which involves these tests then you are giving consent.
You don't want the tests don't take the job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brauggi
Joined: 10 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As far as the chest x-ray, does anybody know if kimmi will accept the PPD skin test in lieu of a chest xray? It's more accurate and less dangerous for the patient, anyway, but I haven't been able to find an answer on this anywhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
