Here and in the thread "Searching staff...Is this right" we are witnessing a further erosion of our basic human rights. At least in The USA.

The Constitution limits the Government in what they may require of the free population. This is the area where the right to privacy and the security of body and home are guaranteed.

The erosion began when schools were exempted from recognizing these same rights for children. Were you ever in a classroom where the teacher announced that the whole class was going to be held after the bell until the culprit of some prank was so ashamed of his misdeed that he would fall down from his desk and writhe on the floor begging for forgiveness from both his teacher and his classmates? Yeah! Right! And yet it was condoned because you were CHILDREN and had not reached the age of MAJORITY. And besides, the teacher had to be able to control his classroom. Such a small inroad, treating ALL as convicted of an individual's crime.

Yes, I can see the necessity for maintaining order in the classroom but the above is such a lazy and unimaginative approach and it misses the opportunity to teach children beyond the three "Rs". An experiment in psychology was dome in the sixties that involved a man who would approach a total stranger and explain that his pocket had been picked. He would say that although he didn't REALLY believe that his subject was guilty of the crime, would they just take out their wallets and show them to him? This borders on unlawful search, all but for the question "Would you please...?" With an equal amount of others there was no "Please". It was an aggressive "Show me your wallet!" and about an equal amount of folks in both groups readily complied with the request or the demand! Have we been taught to so readily abandon our rights? Apparently so.

For a corporation to make such a blatant demand upon potential or actual employees is sickening. This is the assumption of guilt until innocence is proven. There is guilt here alright but it is the corporation and the government which are guilty of violating our Constitutional rights.

This is one reason why the state governments are so careful to point out that driving is a "privilege" and not a "right". This allows them, in their "jurisprudential" way of thinking, to run roughshod over many of a person's rights which are not actually under their big umbrella of the assumption of guilt. To wit, I believe it is wrong to compel a driver to provide self-incriminating evidence by obeying a roadside sobriety test or submitting to a blood test. The officer should be able to submit his own observations and those of his dashcam to substantiate his case. You have seen those test. Were they required of you to GET your license? No! So why should they be required at a police stop? They are designed to make you look guilty!

By the same token once the police have made their observations that convinces a judge that you may indeed be guilty of DUI, then the judge can issue a writ compelling a more conclusive test. Do it THAT WAY and quit violating the US Constitution! This is NOT splitting hairs because it has lead to the very subject that is being addressed in this and the other thread mentioned above.