Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beast on October 27, 2002, 02:26:22 AM
-
at work. All in favor say I.
I
:D
-
Of course.
Also, employers should be allowed to mount security cameras in employees homes, to ensure nothing undesireable going on, and mount GPS trackers in employees cars, to make sure nobody is goofing off or possibly conspiring with a rival company. Maybe GPS tracker implants, for employeees AND thier family....
Or maybe it's just none of thier f**king business.
-
Monitoring. You mean like going through your email address books and etc... No way thats the end or was it already. Whatever, never the less :) Yes to mandatory drug testing.
I
-
I am for mandatory drug testing at work. I of course include not only home improvement stores, auto parts stores, etc, but also:
The President and his cabinet members
All members of the Congress
All members of the Senate
All members of the Supreme Court
All members of the Police
All members of Fire Depts
All members of the military.
All lawyers
All doctors
All nurses
All pilots
All flight attendants
All teachers
All members of the media
All I can think of at the moment.
-
Yeah who needs that silly right to privacy thingie.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Yeah who needs that silly right to privacy thingie.
I think it might impact how a pilot flies, how a President makes decisions, how a police officer fires his weapon, how a supreme court justice might rule, how a doctor might operate, etc.
-
But if DRip was to listen to Rush Limbaugh on shrooms, this Monday morning on the OT forum might just be over the top interesting, not just a unclever onslaught repost of CNN.com topics.
-
I actually kind of like some of the posts Rip does. He seems like a decent family man. Kinda boring if everyone had the same outlook and opinion, don't you think? I can appreciate a difference of opinion and respect those of opinions different than my own.
Just out of curiousity creamo, why do you seem obsessed with Rip and what he posts? Can't you just ignore his posts? If not, how about squelching him? You might be happier that way as it seems you want to b**ch about him. Not flaming you mind you, just curious. Did he actually ever do you wrong?
-
I'd say yes in certain cases - where someone's job has a direct impact on the safety of others.
Airline pilots for example - I know a bunch of them. Every one that I know is a great guy, total professional when it comes to work, etc. Heck, most of them won't have a beer or two with dinner, even if they aren't flying until the next day and would be well within FAA guidlines, etc.
But for every 999, if there's 1 who is an irresponsible P.O.S. - the 'right to privacy' of the entire 1000 isn't worth the 200+ innocents killed when that 1 screws up. At least it isn't a worthwhile tradeoff to me.
I get tested for drugs due to my job (military). I don't have any problem with it.
If you work a register at Home Depot then I don't care if you succumb to refer madness however.
Mike/wulfie
-
I actually kind of like some of the posts Rip does.
What % of those 14,000 posts is "some"?
He seems like a decent family man.
Certainly he is. And a right wing Republican pro gun hunter like me. This is a BBS you tool, all in fun. I like to goof on the astronaut, kung fu specialist, race car driver in training, bullet dodger, wife beater hero, engineer, management specialist that automates his job to the point the union ought to be disbannded, master of all topics. He spends 4 hours a day, 5,000 posts a year pushing it, I just laugh and respond accordingly.
Kinda boring if everyone had the same outlook and opinion, don't you think?
The basis for every fun discussion interaction of people, be it sports, opinions, or politics. Your a visionary.
I can appreciate a difference of opinion and respect those of opinions different than my own.
Hi Jesus.
Just out of curiousity creamo, why do you seem obsessed with Rip and what he posts? Can't you just ignore his posts? If not, how about squelching him? You might be happier that way as it seems you want to b**ch about him.
It is impossible, he makes up a large percentage of posts here, and I find them highly entertaining. For reasons other than you, but still.
Not flaming you mind you, just curious.
I'm as sensative a Laz2. I cry at night, but Funkys friends hold me.
Did he actually ever do you wrong?
Nope, not really. His personal emails after I tweak him to death push the line, but I don't really care. Telling my wife she is 'not a woman' and 'poor' is a small issue. She wondered what it was all about, I said don't worry, it's a old sorry fool. She said OK, and went on with her day.
Any more questions? Email Animal.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
I get tested for drugs due to my job (military). I don't have any problem with it.
Only problem I have with it is I've never seen or heard of higher than an 0-5 being tested.
-
I could pass a drug test any day of the year, so it really doesn't affect me, but I don't see why it's necessary. Testing positive for a drug and being intoxicated at work aren't necessarily the same thing. Why is it an employer's business if you smoked a joint last night in your home, if you're sober at work?
SOB
-
and mount GPS trackers in employees cars,
almost there, at the moment the federal government requires on certain fishing vessels transponders that transmit position, course, speed and ID of these fishing vessels. NE region has them and soon the south atlantic area will too. Instead of making funds available for enforcement to do their job they make the fisherman buy these things. Another reason I hear is search and rescue however they are already required to mount an Emergency Position Indication Radio Beacon that only transmits when triggered buy the ship sinking or manual activation.
I figure it only a matter of time before our cars have them this way we won't need the police to clock you on radar it will just transmit your speed and a ticket will be mailed to your house.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Only problem I have with it is I've never seen or heard of higher than an 0-5 being tested.
I have.
-
Mandatory drug testing
I don't think I'd be in favor of mandatory drug testing for everybody in all lines of work ... that would be a huge waste of money. Drug use on most jobs usually becomes evident all by itself.
-
I suggest mandatory monkey brain transplants for Ford Motor Company execs.
-
If the employer wants to start a program then that is his bussiness. If the employee wants to get a different job that is his.
I think some proffessions need mandatory drug testing tho. I have a class b drivers license and am mandatory/random tested. If doing drugs is more important then I will get a different job.
An alternative would be that airlines could post publicly wether they tested their pilots for drugs or not. Passengers could then choose. Hospitals could post about their surgical staff etc. I would be for a mandatory disclosure. "this lasic surgery doctor is not required by our firm to be drug tested".
lazs
-
Originally posted by MrOrange
almost there, at the moment the federal government requires on certain fishing vessels transponders that transmit position, course, speed and ID of these fishing vessels.
Are you sure you're not mistaken the requirement that all comercial vessels be equipped with an EPRIB?
Those are activated automaticly when submerged or manualy by the crew...I haven't heard of any requiement for them to be continualy active.
Except for waterskiing I've been a landlubber for the past 5 years so things may have changed but a requirement for all commercial vessels to ping their position, speed and course would have created a major stink that I just haven't heard of.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I think it might impact how a pilot flies, how a President makes decisions, how a police officer fires his weapon, how a supreme court justice might rule, how a doctor might operate, etc.
The purpose of drug testing isn't to determine wether or not someone is competent in thier job. It's to enforce the way a person is "supposed" to behave outside of work.
Showing up at work stoned, drunk, or high, is plenty of reason to fire someone. But what they do at home, away from work, is none of thier business.
A breathalizer test for a pilot boarding his plane is different from a blood/urine test to find out if he's smoked pot at home in the past month.
-
testing sucks, here's a couple reasons why.
1. they test for pot, and it tells wether you've got high in a month, not wether your high at work.
2. you can't smoke pot but you can do acid at work. tests can't find it yet.
3. workers who follow 'policy' and rules laid out by company are tested. the dip toejam who actually makes the policy can be stoned while he does it.
4. the people who actually make, interpret and enforce the laws, rules and regulation on drugs aren't tested.
5. in post accident drug testing, they test the guy who got hurt, not the guy who causes the accident. so the issue isn't a drug free workplace or saftey. the issue is liability, if they can find something in an injured guys piss (even if it had no effect on the accident) it lessens the companys liability if they go to court. however if they test the guy who causes the accident and he comes up possitive, the injured man could sue the company for not providing a safe workplace, so they don't test him.
6. it's an irelivant issue. if a guy is unsafe or incompitant, fire him, wether he is high or not doesn't matter. are you really gonna feel better knowing the dipshit who screws things up every day is sober. and if he is safe and cometant on monday morning is it really anybodys bussiness what he did friday night.
7. how big a step is it from listing perscription drugs you are taking to explain false positives, to the boss kicken the test guy a couple extra $ to let him know guys who have health problems they may not want their employer to know.
these are just a few of the problems I have with piss tests. if I was more awake I could come up with several pages more.
as a guy who don't get high I still feel my rights are being walked all over every time I have to take one (several times a year in my industry) it's no more fair than if companys did random searches of employees homes to see if they've been stealing company property. last time I cheacked the rules you had to have probable cause to search somebody. but if you have enough cash(big bussiness) the rules don't aply to you.
-
Originally posted by SOB
Why is it an employer's business if you smoked a joint last night in your home, if you're sober at work?
SOB
Because if you smoked a decent joint the night before you are not 100% sober at work the next day
It's the right of the company to have testing or not
it's a priviledge to work, not a right
play by the rules of the ppl signing your check or go on down the road and play with ppl whose rules are closer to your own
I think testing should be at every job, the only way to half way clean up America..It'd start witht he serious heads and work its way down as SOB mentioned, the not 100% burnt brains have their kits ready to beat a scheduled test. Surprise tests are another story
Test them all and let the unemployment line sort them out!!!
-
Well, it's not fair if we test the workforce and don't test welfare recipients. I think if you want a handout the least we expect is that that welfare check doesn't buy dope, so all people on any form of aid, unemployment included, should be drug tested.
-
in this country at least we are suposed to have the right to be free from unreasonable search and sesure (reasonable is defind as having probable cause or a warrent from a judge). I say if people don't want to play by that rule maybe they should move down the road.
-
I don't want a pot head flying the plane I'm on.
I think that it's up to the employer wether he thinks he should have a pot head on the payroll...
Most who are afraid of testing are simply want to hide the fact that they are druggies. If the employer thinks druggies are good workers then he will simply ignore the test. No problem.
If drugs are more important than the job u are at then get another job and quit sneaking around.
lazs
-
This post says it all, I don't agree with the one posted later by the same author, but this one says exactly what I'm thinking.
If you don't want to do it, don't.
I've been drug tested before when I worked on aircraft and I didn't like it but I agreed that me and everyone else working on that thing should be tested.
I'd rather error on the side of safety in those sorts of cases.
Now working with networks and computers, if someone wanted me to drug test for that, they could bite me and I'd go look elsewhere.
I wouldn't say no way and still expect them to hire me.
And I certainly wouldn't think it'd be okay for everyone else to be drug tested for my safety and not me for theirs given the same situation, that's just hypocritical.
Originally posted by lazs2
If the employer wants to start a program then that is his bussiness. If the employee wants to get a different job that is his.
I think some proffessions need mandatory drug testing tho. I have a class b drivers license and am mandatory/random tested. If doing drugs is more important then I will get a different job.
An alternative would be that airlines could post publicly wether they tested their pilots for drugs or not. Passengers could then choose. Hospitals could post about their surgical staff etc. I would be for a mandatory disclosure. "this lasic surgery doctor is not required by our firm to be drug tested".
lazs
-
Against.
-
what part are you against sand? I am against mandatory testing of all people in the U.S. but am for mandatory testing of government employees in safety sensitive jobs like flying C130's or driving semi trucks for the government. I am for mandatory testing programs of class a and b drivers licences... I am for testing in the airlines or...
I would like places that don't test to post that fact prominently. If an airline that doesn't test has a plane go down because the pilot was loaded then they should be guilty of murder.
If yu can't give up drugs then you should work somewhere that it doesn't matter.
lazs
-
Search and siezure protection applies to criminal actions and prosecutorial situations not the work place.
Don't like testing? go to another form of work them more in tune with your freelings. As for me I do not want the mechanic on my airliner, car, bus, train or any other form of transportation to be under the influence at all. The same goes for the pilot, engineer driver etc. of all of the above, not to mention your surgeon, airtraffic controller or what have you.
I also do not want to have to share the road with someone who has taken some drug that impairs their reflexes, cognitive abilities or visual skills, not to mention decision making process. Those types of folks kill far too many on the roads now.
As to GPS monitoring of vehicles, there are many commercial vehicles that use it now. There was a flap over a car rental company that used it and charged extra when the vehicle was driven out of the area specified on the contract. It is here now.
-
"Yeah I think it's a great idea for corporations and the government to have real time monitoring of our blood and urine chemistry and whereabouts at all times."
Geezus what a bunch of sheep. You guys ever read 1984 or Brave New World? Is that what you want?
-
I don't like random screening. I think it's a violation of trust. Without probable cause, I don't think someone should have to prove their innocence for the sake of proving their innocence.
That said... I understand that certain jobs place others directly at risk and safety is paramount. Airline pilots, doctors, etc. Fine... test there if you must.
The rest, it's a hard sell. It's not about job performance. It's about morality. If you're a poor performer, your job is at risk. The root cause is irrelevant. Hell... you could be slacking at work because you spend too many nights up late flying simulated WWII aircraft in some online arena. It doesn't really matter.
-
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-
Search and siezure protection applies to criminal actions and prosecutorial situations not the work place.
that is an interpritation, of the constitution. not the actual words. the interpritation was handed down from a court that doesn't get tested.
how can you trust their judgement if you dont know if they are drug free.
which leads to one of my points about testing. it is only enforced on the people who live with the rules not the ones who make, interpret, or enforce these rules
-
i took a drug test once and they said i failed it - see i don't get that because i was on plenty of drugs ????:confused: those tests are weird...
-
probable cause??, we don need no steeken probable cause.
remember "land of the free and home of the brave" are just words in a song , it don't mean that you are free or brave.
44MAG
-
Mandatory drug testing? Cool!
But ahh who pays for the drugs. I don't wanna do no tests if we have to pay for the drugs ourselves.
And which is the highest rating? Is like1 the best? or 10 the best and 1 the worst?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
testing sucks, here's a couple reasons why.
4. the people who actually make, interpret and enforce the laws, rules and regulation on drugs aren't tested.
I am.
-
The problem with commenting on the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights with regards to this topic is that today's problems were in no way applicable back then.
Doctors back then? We didn't have surgeons. The state of medicine back then...if the Doctor was 'buzzed' your chance of survival probably wasn't altered that much.
Truck drivers (especially those transporting flammable and/or other hazardous materials), airline pilots, military pilots, the military in general - no possible correlation.
There was not a single occupation back then where negligence could put dozens of innocent lives at risk so quickly.
Friendly fire with a musket? One guy dies. A combat engineer who is hung over and screws up the fuzing on a military demolition job is going to kill everyone within 15 meters of him, every time.
Pilots - don't get me started on the comparisons. The captain of a merchant ship back then could be dead and the crew would still get the ship to a port safely.
It's about discipline in my book - an airline pilot, a SSN Skipper (or anyoone who's a part of the crew of that SSN), a pilot in general, a surgeon - they are going to be and should be held to a higher standard of discipline than a network administrator (providing he doesn't work on FAA computers).
To me it's not about good or bad. I don't care if people smoke the ganja in terms of judging someone's character. Some of my best friends are lifetime members of that club. I think no less of them because of it. Hell, 20 years from now, when I'm not tested and won't have a clearance I'm willing to bet I'm going to be tied down and have a bong duct taped to my face at at least one party.
But sometimes people who use drugs (including alcohol) recreationally let the recreation get out of control, or sometimes the recreation gets out of control regardless of a person's intent. It's not a judgement of them in my book - it happens sometimes and that's life. The testing is to protect 'innocent' people who are trusting a professional with their lives (be it flying drunk, becoming addicted to something and selling classified data to support a habit, falling asleep on watch, showing up for surgery with unsteady hands, etc.) from the worst case scenario involving a professional's voluntary recreational habits.
The worst case scenario varies greatly amongst different jobs. If your worst case scenario involves people getting killed, everything can go wrong even if you do everything right/'by the book'/etc. There's no need to triple the odds of the worst case showing up because you had 4 too many the night before and your reaction time is 80% of what it should be.
Everyone who is a network admin., smoke one for everyone who can't until they retire. :)
Mike/wulfie
-
I think only gun owners should be tested for drugs.
-
shoot dope, not people
-
Where is Udie. I know he believes in mandatory test drugging:)
-
Nope.
I don't come to work stoned. You don't come to work stoned. If we do we get sacked. Simple.
You don't need drug testing to tell whether someone is on drugs. (unless you're an idiot)
Plus the considerable risk of false positives and expensive industrial tribunals or legal actions.
Plus the fact the human body is a natural pharmocoepia and any one of us would test positive for a number of Schedule I (or class A) drugs. (depends what you test)
Plus the inability of tests to pick up other drugs of abuse
Humans have used drugs for at least 8,500 years and they've never shown any signs of stopping, despite the most brutal repression throughout the ages.
I wish people would get over it and start thinking about how to help people use drugs without them damaging themselves and others.
If we legalized and taxed recreational drugs as luxury items like Alcohol and tobacco you would see a dozen internecine conflicts around the world slowly draw to a close as the farmers went back to rice/maize/coffee/wheat whatever and the money ran out.
Legalize and tax it and suddenly organised crime syndicates are hit by a huge cut in overall profits, meanwhile tax pennies/dollars/euros flow into the bank to spend on guns and oil (and maybe even hospitals and schools and roads and railways).
As legal supplies of various drugs begin to flow, usage can be monitored, quality is assured and damage is limited.
Those who develop problems (and there are always some) can be treated.
It wouldn't eradicate the black market by any means, but it would certainly make a significant dent in the numbers involved, whic in turn would mean less burglary, robbery, mugging, hold-ups etc. There's no denying that thieving to feed a habit is the worst kind because its a long series of offences.
When habitual heroin addicted burglars are caught, local detection rates rise by as much as 50% (in smaller areas).
And of course the state could manufacture and retail the substances, and through sheer economy of scale it could make a huge profit, even if it undercut the black market by 80% (not to mention all that lovely tax too. I mean, noone in here uses drugs so no real objections to taxing the hell out of the longhairs and junkies huh?)
So all in all, don't go to work coked/stoned/tripped out of your head - that's just stupid (and obvious to everyone around you). You don't need drug testing to see that.
But will someone up there please get your head around the 'problem'. It's only a 'problem' if you chose to treat it like one.
pax
oh almost forgot - should we check our pilots for drugs before they go into combat? Or maybe just search them in case they're carrying dexamphetamine sulphate, for example.
And what about our infantry? I would rather give them some pep pills than have them falling asleep at crucial moments.
Remember some drugs can enhance your performance. You just need to choose the right drug for the job, and you can usually find one without too much difficulty for almost any occupation.
-
super market stock boys should be tested for drugs , we don't want them to get the green peas mixed up with the green beans, think of the mess that would cause
-
Bounder you know we aren't talking about 'permitted' performance enhancers. A guy could test positive for something and if it's a permitted substance then no harm done.
Mike/wulfie
-
concho is your testing voluntary (truly voluntary, not volunteer or hit the bricks) or mandatory. if manditory I think your department is the exception rather than the rule. around here and most other places I'm aware of neither the cops, judges, or politicians are tested.
also in the construction trades, the guys who develope safety policy and the engineers who design the structures are rarely if ever tested. but the guy sweeping up after, he gets tested regularly.
-
Heh, need a billboard.
Wait, I'll use the O'Club
-
senna<--- tested posative for AH in system.
LOL.
-
Then why not enforce it on a regular basis, say every year. Just report to a clinick and take a piss. Hell I already stop off at Starbucks everymorning and that kills about half an hour in line waiting for the most expensive coffee known to the free world.
:)
-
Wulfie....
Originally posted by wulfie
Bounder you know we aren't talking about 'permitted' performance enhancers. A guy could test positive for something and if it's a permitted substance then no harm done.
Mike/wulfie
What if your employee is using an OTC drug like DXM? He tests positive, but its ok cos it's only cough mixture? That's telling people, you can come into work stoned, so long as it's not an illegal substance you're abusing. It seems there is a persistent myth that illegal drugs are somehow more powerful and/or dangerous than legal ones. This is patently false.
I don't differentiate between legal and illegal drugs. The effects are not altered by how the law relates to a substance.
For almost any circumstances you can find a substance (illegal or otherwise) which can enhance your performance if used appropriately.
I would rather have an airline pilot who made sensible use of a stimulant (caffeine, theobromine, amphetamine, cocaine) than fell asleep at the controls. Of course many people refuse to believe there is such a thing as sensible use, despite practicing it themselves every day.
Yet no-one tests surgeons (or pilots or long disance truck drivers) for fatigue levels in the same way as drug testing)
Either we're talking about drugs affecting people's work (in which case you don't need drugs tests, just eyes in your head) or we're talking about employers screening their employees for illegal activity.
If it's the latter (i.e it's about illegal drugs (and don't forget, your body is CHOCK FULL of illegal drugs already)) then The employer is being co-opted into law enforcement. In which case why not have mandatory polygraph tests for other illegal activities?
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
concho is your testing voluntary (truly voluntary, not volunteer or hit the bricks) or mandatory. if manditory I think your department is the exception rather than the rule. around here and most other places I'm aware of neither the cops, judges, or politicians are tested.
also in the construction trades, the guys who develope safety policy and the engineers who design the structures are rarely if ever tested. but the guy sweeping up after, he gets tested regularly.
Hit the bricks type. Although they are much more interested in our handling of "entrusted property" than actual drug use. We handle a lot of dope that comes out of Mexico, sometimes tons at a time.
-
Please no drug tests.... The leaf is friendly! It loves you all....
*sings random bob marly songs*
-
Drug testing is a joke. It's impossible for the government to regulate or control social behaviour. Look how effective prohibition was..
-
Originally posted by funkedup
"Yeah I think it's a great idea for corporations and the government to have real time monitoring of our blood and urine chemistry and whereabouts at all times."
Geezus what a bunch of sheep. You guys ever read 1984 or Brave New World? Is that what you want?
the dopers would go for a Brave New World - SOMA
keep the masses happy, keep the masses stoned ...
-
funked etc... you are talking avbout freedom? Wjhat about the employers freedom? It is difficult to fiore sonmeone because of performance isssues. It is impossible to fire him because you think he may be on drugs.
Look... I don't care if my phone repair guy smokes pot or even has a heroin addiction. I don't care what HTC employees do. I do care what a surgeon or a c130 pilot does.
Most jobs...If you don't like testing and the sales job you have tests.... get a different job or... test positive but be so good at your job that the guy doesn't care. The courts have taken away so many of the employers rights to hire and fire these days that he can't just fire someone on poor performance or suspicion. If he fires you cause you tested positive for pot then he probly was looking for an excuse to gert rid of your worthless butt anyway... and... the reason you are worthless is probly cause of the pot.
Not sure what you guys are saying... Are you saying that being loaded on illegal drugs in the workplace is a "privacy" matter? How is that illegal search and seizure? You don't have to submit to the test?
Isn't it exactly like driving? You are randomly drug tested as a driver because it is a "privilage" ... you are driving a deadly weapon on roads that you do not own.
sheesh... if you were worth a damn nobody would care about your addiction.... least till it got out of hand... and it will... eventually.
lazs
-
Not sure what you guys are saying... Are you saying that being loaded on illegal drugs in the workplace is a "privacy" matter?
No we're saying your body fluids are YOU'RE body fluids (seems to me a persons body should be even more private than their home). And nobody should be able to search them without a warrant or probable 'cause. These companies are violating the rights that are guaranteed to citizens of the United States. And our gov't does nothing, except promote it. These kinds of searches are constitutional violations. And the offenders should go to jail.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
...are constitutional violations. And the offenders should go to jail.
yes, doing ILLEGAL drugs on or off the job (ie breaking the law) - they should go to jail
to shorten the thread
question:
should there be mandatory drug testing?
dopers - NO
non dopers - YES
-
I supposed you'd first have to establish that the use of drugs/alchohol will impact your ability to do the job. Then you'd have to establish an exact limit of imparement. Then you'd have to strictly enforce every aspect of it.
From my experience, drug and alchohol problems at work will eventually result in termination. As will poor performance in general.
AKDejaVu
-
We pre-screen all employees, and send them for a test if they are involved in an accident of any kind (injury or not).
It is incredible how many idiots fail the pre-screen test. some employees simply walk away from the job after having an accident.
There are times when we would like to encourage amfetamine usage, but that would be wrong.;)
Random testing, isn't necessary.
-
So even if the person gives their permission to be tested, you still believe that the employer should have to go get some sort of warrant to test them?
Originally posted by capt. apathy
No we're saying your body fluids are YOU'RE body fluids (seems to me a persons body should be even more private than their home). And nobody should be able to search them without a warrant or probable 'cause.
-
For.
Your employer has a right to expect your best effort. If you spent your time getting stoned the night before you can't give your best. You have to play by their rules if you want to work for them.
Besides, mandatory drug testing isn't really about home use and you guys know it. It's about on the job use. And we're not just talking about pot here, and you know that as well.
When you get your first job it's time to grow up, as painful as that may be.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Nay
-
Against- until they change their policies in drugs tested for, basis for testing, and who gets tested.
As it is now, it's a hypocritical joke. Think I'm wrong? Pick up a book or don't even bother arguing with me.
-SW
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
For.
Your employer has a right to expect your best effort. If you spent your time getting stoned the night before you can't give your best. You have to play by their rules if you want to work for them.
Besides, mandatory drug testing isn't really about home use and you guys know it. It's about on the job use. And we're not just talking about pot here, and you know that as well.
When you get your first job it's time to grow up, as painful as that may be.
Regards, Shuckins
Every modern definition of quality goes something like this:
Conformance to Requirements
If an individual meets the requirements of the job then who cares what he puts into his or her body? If the requirements of the job are too easy to meet while on drugs, raise the requirements or lighten up on the drug testing. If the requirementas of the job include the need for the absence of drugs in the system then test.
-
there is a small store near where i live , they have been looking for a ast mgr for one year (they have a sign out front ) the job dosn't pay much , i asked why they haden't found anyone yet, they told me they haven't found anyone that could pass the drug test.
-
eagle
*********
question:
should there be mandatory drug testing?
dopers - NO
non dopers - YES
***************
wrong
capt. apathy= non-doper- votes NO
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
eagle
*********
question:
should there be mandatory drug testing?
dopers - NO
non dopers - YES
***************
wrong
capt. apathy= non-doper- votes NO
are you a non doper because of the tests? :)
-
Eagler, I'm not a big fan of the drug testing either. And I don't do drugs.. never have... even before they did tests.
I think you'll find this is not that uncommon of a belief.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Eagler, I'm not a big fan of the drug testing either. And I don't do drugs.. never have... even before they did tests.
I think you'll find this is not that uncommon of a belief.
AKDejaVu
I believe I would find the vast majority opposed to testing, partake on tested substances to one degree or another
you, I believe, are in the minority - non doper (never doper) against testing
once again, if you aren't doing something wrong, illegal in this case, you have nothing to worry about...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
once again, if you aren't doing something wrong, illegal in this case, you have nothing to worry about...
True... you just gotta worry about that guy all f'ed up on percocets, nyquil, alcohol or other legal substance that can and will make you careless and unsafe in any line of work.
You may like drug testing Eagler because it offers you a chance to label people as dopers and dead heads if they oppose your viewpoint.
Perhaps people don't like the idea of drug testing because the whole point behind it (work safety) is completely bipassed and is used as a means to keep only those who do illegal drugs from working or off the illegal drugs... while at the same time, it allows you to work in complete ignorance with drunks, pain killer abusers, and other druggies who get their high legally.
"safety", "productivity" and drug screening have about as much in common as water and air.
-SW
-
nope, I'm a non doper because many years ago I asked myself why I smoked dope.
the answer was "to help releave me of some of the stress in my life."
then it accured to me that most of my stress was caused by letting a stoned guy handle the details of my life. (ie. me)
-
once again, if you aren't doing something wrong, illegal in this case, you have nothing to worry about...
accept for false positives destroying your carreer and reputation.
-
actually you better have a prescription for any med a test pulls up or it becomes illegal also
many jobs it boils down to a liabilty issue - read $$$$
for others its just a way for the company to get the biggest bang for their buck. A straight crew will in the long haul give them the better value for their salary $$.
-
actually you better have a prescription for any med a test pulls up or it becomes illegal also
Yes, very true... but then it reverts back the policies issue I brought up... many (and I emphasize many) companies do not test for legal drugs and strictly test only for a select 5 types of drugs.. all are illegal of course. I forget the 5 types right now, well I remember 4 of 'em: cannibis, amphetimines and methamphetimines, psylocybin, and opiates.. forget the last one..
In any event, it doesn't test for drugs or other substances in the system that would impede work performance or safety.
And this is also the same in the federal government, where they only test for illegal drugs and nothing else.
My problem isn't with drug screening... my problem is with what they test for, why they test for it and why they won't change it to something better and far more effective..
You can fail a drug test for having a poppy seed muffin, btw, and some employers won't give you a second chance...
-SW
-
and what happens when the look at your 'declared drugs' that you gave them and decide they don't like your medical condition. you could cost them a bundle by raising insurance premiums. so as you get older and maybe you need the nitro for your heart or whatever. your boss all of a sudden has access to private medical info. but it's ok, we've all learned how far you can trust corprate executives in the last year or so (if you didn't know all along), I'm sure they won't take any of this info they've recieved and consider it when deciding who needs laid-off.
-
I think it depends on what drugs they are testing for. I don't want to fly on a plane piloted by a crackhead but I don't care if he/she has had a joint last night any more than if he/she had a few beers.
I don't want to fly on a plane piloted by someone who is currently intoxicated (no matter what the source of the intoxication).
As someone stated above a company is free to impose drug-testing on it's employees. This is fine with me - I am free to go and find another job. As far as state institutions imposing testing well I think that as long as they are only testing for illegal substances that is fine - I perhaps disagree with what should and should not be illegal but that's another debate entirely.
-
LOL! the dopers are making way too much out of this... If yu tell the tester what perscription drugs you have taken you are in the clear... I never take drugs anymore but I did get novacain and I took a painkiller after a particularly bad dental session (root canal).. As luck would have it I was tested the next day. Simply toild emn what was in my system.
Look.... to Hell with your rights.. You don't have the right to work anywhere.. what about the employers rights? The guy who is paying you? He knows that if you do drugs regularly for "recreation" you are on a slippery slope towards becomeing a worthless piece of toejam and a huge headache for him.. Why should he have to suffer for your frailty? If you are very valuable he may decide to tough it out with you and just keep a little closer eye on you and wait till the enevitable decline before he gets rid of your worthless ass. or...
you may smarten up and quit and then he won't have to worry about it. To even suggest that regular drug use doesn't affect job performance is ludicrous.
When I used to drink I said that I drove better drunk than my ex drove sober... that was true but... neither one of us should have been on the road.
lazs
-
This whole drug thread is rather strange. You people are like an angry mob of people trying to harrass the dope heads. Sheesh, a simple test would resolve everything. Then everybody can get back to doing what it is they do best rather than worst. Ive had to take these tests before and they arent that big of a deal.
I
Im all for it then. :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
---snip---
once again, if you aren't doing something wrong, illegal in this case, you have nothing to worry about...
This is the scariest line in American politics. Something Tailgunner Joe would have said. I don't do drugs either Eagler, anymore.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This is the scariest line in American politics.
nah
the scariest line would have been:
"GORE WINS!"
:)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This is the scariest line in American politics. Something Tailgunner Joe would have said. I don't do drugs either Eagler, anymore.
Funny thing... The left uses the same argument when it comes to gun control laws.
-
hey eagler, could you come up with a different term than 'doper'?
it's not offensive or anything, i just get a mental image of my grandpa when you say that - it's 2002 no one says 'doper' for cryin out loud
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Funny thing... The left uses the same argument when it comes to gun control laws.
Oh yea... well.......
I need to think about this one. You might have a point, then again, you might be confusing the abrogation of a right to privacy that is one of those Inalienable ones, with the limitation of gun ownership, which is not one of those inalienable ones, just a poorly worded amendment.
naah, not the same.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I believe I would find the vast majority opposed to testing, partake on tested substances to one degree or another
you, I believe, are in the minority - non doper (never doper) against testing
I believe I am in the overall minority. Most people that are for the testing have used drugs at some point. Its simply that most have tried it. Maybe you haven't... but if that's the case... you are also in the minority.
once again, if you aren't doing something wrong, illegal in this case, you have nothing to worry about...
Can't say I care much for this statement at all. Its right out of 1984. Maybe we should also put exceding the speed limit governers on our vehicles too. And also put bad thoughts = pain "medication" in the drinking water. I mean... if you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about... right?
I don't believe that the use of drugs necessarily promotes an unsafe work environment. I'd be curious to see if anyone has correlated the two. I believe the excessive use of anything does promote an unsafe work environment... including humor. I can honestly say I've seen more work/safety impacting situations arrise as a result of a practical joke than those that were even remotely drug related.
For every whacked out wierdo that does something stupid, there are thousands that simply have no excuse.
AKDejaVu
-
Does private industry have the right to establish their own rules of behavior? I think so. Do private citizens have the right to choose their employer? I know we do. What's the big deal? If you don't want to be tested don't take the job or refuse the test and possibly be fired. If enough folks don't want to be tested then companies will quit testing rather than lose good employees.
The military tested for a long time and probably does still. Did I like to be tested or like having to watch other guys pee? Hell no. Did I feel it was necessary? Absolutely.
-
Originally posted by mrfish
hey eagler, could you come up with a different term than 'doper'?
it's not offensive or anything, i just get a mental image of my grandpa when you say that - it's 2002 no one says 'doper' for cryin out loud
LOL
what do you suggest you young whipper snapper you?
what's a 2002 doper called :)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh yea... well.......
I need to think about this one. You might have a point, then again, you might be confusing the abrogation of a right to privacy that is one of those Inalienable ones, with the limitation of gun ownership, which is not one of those inalienable ones, just a poorly worded amendment.
naah, not the same.
Sidestep the issue and look at the argument, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you've nothing to hide."
It's not a good argument for gun registration, nor is it a good argument for drug testing, IMHO.
Both liberals and conservatives seem to use it around here on occasion. Of course, their are a few more vocal types from the right that seem to use it ALL the time to justify government forays into personal privacy.
-
once again, if you aren't doing something wrong, illegal in this case, you have nothing to worry about...
the same argument for searches of houses. the police could just oick an area and go door to door, searching for drugs, unlicensed guns, stolen property, or contraband of anykind.
would that be ok too? if you got nothing to hide, no harm done right?
-
I consider mandatory drug testing an invasion of my privacy. I dislike it intensely and agree with the poster who likened it to being required to prove your innocence when there is absolutely no evidence that you're guilty.
That said, I had to take one to get my current job. I did and, not surprisingly given my lack of drug use, I passed. I still consider it an intrusion into my personal space.
-
I bet I have done more drugs than the top two drug advocates in this thread combined.... then again maybe not but... enough to know something about em and the lifestyle.
we are not talking about going to your home and testing you on a mandatory basis. We are talking about employers rights.... ONLY his rights. he isn't going to deprive you of life or liberty... at best he is simply going to fire your worthless butt. You face no criminal prosecution. He is simply protecting himself and.... you have the right to refuse testing. you have the right to not work for him. He is simply saying..."hey, if you work for me I want you free of illegal drugs." He is smart enough to know that no druggie has the courage to admit that he is useing so... he needs to test. He can't "tell by looking" and he knows that his opinion will not hold up in court.... a failed drug test or ten helps his case a bunc tho and he is able to get rid of his problem...you.
lazs
-
a failed drug test or ten helps his case a bunc tho and he is able to get rid of his problem...you.
Lazs, I dunno what you are talking about here... lots of employers test during the application process. How can you be a problem if you aren't even working for them yet?
Sure, it circumvents a lot of problems with burn outs, meth-heads and other major drug abusers.... but it still won't tell you if the guy you are about to hire is an alcoholic (with just as much problems as any other drug abuser) or someone who gets all hopped up on pain meds. SOME tests will detect pain meds... most won't, except for really strong pain meds.
If you are going to use drug tests as a means to detect who will be a good employee and who won't be, wouldn't it make sense to have a "dumb ass" test too?
I know plenty of people who are not only un-productive (because of themselves, no drugs involved) but also extremely unsafe to work around... again, not because of drugs...
But, if you wanna subscribe to the belief that the current drug tests are anything but another shoddy shot in the dark at the failing drug war, then go right on ahead.
It's still BS, any way you slice it.
-SW
-
I second that. I would rather work with someone who comes in high every couple days than someone who is stupid. at least the high guy will run out from time to time and have a good day. stupid people are stupid every day of their lives.
testing is a waste of money that could be used to pay higher wages and get better employees. if someone does a good job for you don't screw with them, leave them alone and let them make you money. who gives a damn what they do with their spare time.
and if a guy is a screw up, does it really make you feel better to know he's sober and this is as good as it's ever gonna get.
you could get rid of about 95% of the pages in every companys saftey manual and company policy if they would just have a 'moron free workplace'
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
if someone does a good job for you don't screw with them, leave them alone and let them make you money. who gives a damn what they do with their spare time.
Unless a company has a policy of mandatory random testing like the military then they will probably do just as you suggest. A test may only be invoked when there appears to be a problem?
-
most companys who have piss tests go with the random or post accident(for the person hurt not for the person causing). I take 5-10 a year, 1 anual for my union (complete crap my union should be protecting us from this), 1-3 randoms and the rest are pre-employment for companys who don't honor the unions anual.
very few companys test for 'cause' anymore. most go with randoms, pre-employment and post accident.
I was working a job 4 years ago. some guy didn't keep track of his tools. dropped a 4# sledge 45', it hit another guy in the back, as he was bent over working. the victim got the piss test. they have nothing to do with safety.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
I was working a job 4 years ago. some guy didn't keep track of his tools. dropped a 4# sledge 45', it hit another guy in the back, as he was bent over working. the victim got the piss test. they have nothing to do with safety.
Yeah, they do that so they can weasel there way out of paying medical for the person who gets hurt.
If he was on drugs, he doesn't deserve medical... even if some other retard was the one who hurt him.
Drug testing/screening is a joke... I think the military should have it... but I think that's about where it should end.
-SW
-
Come out of the fog and see the light!
daily drivers - You are more burnt they you realize :)
a drug test is no more an infringement on YOUR rights than you working for someone for minimum wage while stating your low pay is violating your rights .. It's an employers choice to do so and the employee's choice to take it or leave it. where's the violation? Your piss is his piss when he's paying you by the hour - sorry. Your bellybutton is his bellybutton as he is liable for you while your on his clock.
-
You take 5-10 a year
1 Union plus 3 randoms. = 4 (out of 5-10 total)
so you have about 1-6 accidents where you are the victim a per year.
Why are your coworkers trying to kill you?
Originally posted by capt. apathy
most companys who have piss tests go with the random or post accident(for the person hurt not for the person causing). I take 5-10 a year, 1 anual for my union (complete crap my union should be protecting us from this), 1-3 randoms and the rest are pre-employment for companys who don't honor the unions anual.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Yeah who needs that silly right to privacy thingie.
There is no provision in the Constitution for a right to privacy. That's a concept that keeps changing with the US Supreme Court decisions. The effects of drug use are a public concern, and therefore not subject to any perceived privacy rights.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This is the scariest line in American politics. Something Tailgunner Joe would have said. I don't do drugs either Eagler, anymore.
Who is Tailgunner Joe? McCarthy?
-
you guys are justifying... Do drugs or not... It is illeagal but if you are sneaky enough and dishonest enough then you will probly get away with it. No big deal but..
Why should an employer have to deal with it when all the studies done show that a drug free work place is safer and more productive. If you couldn't even quit drugs long enough to find a job and flunk the pre emplyment test then you are beyond stupid. you are self destructive. I don't want yu on the job and... if you injure me and are loaded and the employer knew yu failed drug tests previously then I am gonna sue him big time. As for stupid?
well.... hard to fire stupid.. thank the unions and liberals.. we are stuck with stupid but we can eliminate "druggie" which is better than nothing. You have all the privacy and search and seizure rights there are.... you can refuse a test just like you can refuse a sobriety test on the highway. If drugs are that important to you then you can just quit and find an "enlightened" workplace where drug us is condoned and even.... encouraged...
certainly there are plenty of big companies out there that have become huge and profitable by allowing/encouraging drug use amongst their employees? Just go to one of them. Imagine being able to work around creative, sensitive people who are safe and understand the benifiets of drug use.
lazs
-
Lazs, when you can stop insinuating things that I never even hinted at... I think this could be a worthwhile discussion.
But since you insist to ignore what I write and reply to what you have concocted in your own mind... I digress and am done trying to point out that not only do drug tests/screening not do what they were intended to do, but they are simply a last resort shot in the dark for a miserably failing war on drugs.
-SW
-
wulfie... it is you who are not sticking to the point. It is not up to us to decide the value of drug testing except in public safety jobs and I contend that the rate of accidents has gone down in any public saftey job where drug testing takes place. The DOT program is a huge success.
you are justifying... and doing it badly. plus....
private employers should have the right to require drug testing if they want.. they should be able act in any way they see fit on the information obtained from the testing. If they want to fire your unsafe, non productive butt then that is up to them. If they thought it was hurting profits to do so then they would not do it.
lazs
-
It is not up to us to decide the value of drug testing except in public safety
Really? Who's it up to?
you are justifying... and doing it badly. plus....
Justifying... what? I dunno where you think I'm justifying anything, where have I said anything about doing drugs or... well anything but the premise for drug tests/screening and their reason for being implemented?
Find that for me, then tell me again I'm justifying something...
private employers should have the right to require drug testing if they want..
Yup... but the current policies are roadkill... and the reasons for their implementation are roadkill. If they change them to truely be for job safety, productivity and reliability, I won't have anything to argue with. But like I've been saying, they only do the above half-assed.
If they want to fire your unsafe, non productive butt then that is up to them.
And how does giving you a pre-screen before you even get the job do that?
It doesn't...
But since you seem to think I am all about them completely getting rid of drug screening, let me refer you to this post earlier in this thread:
Against- until they change their policies in drugs tested for, basis for testing, and who gets tested.
Hmmmm.... there goes your justifying argument.
-SW
-
Because if you smoked a decent joint the night before you are not 100% sober at work the next day
this is the biggest BS i heard yet
actually i joint is worked out in about 2-3 hours
and the next day u are really fresh.
Very ignorant and unrelative to say coz if u get drunk also in that army u workin for. There are bars in the militairy aint it ?
Than ur a man the next day coz u could get out off bed.
Yeah i been in the army I seen people trown up on appel.
They never been accused for bad drinkin behaviour the night before.
very hypocrit to say huh ??
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Alcohol is HARDDRUGS mariuhana is SOFTDRUGS !!!!
U guys got such a big plate on ur head u will never understand
in fact i 100% believe it's not ur self made opinion but something that brain washed along time ago.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Look.... to Hell with your rights.. You don't have the right to work anywhere.. what about the employers rights? The guy who is paying you? He knows that if you do drugs regularly for "recreation" you are on a slippery slope towards becomeing a worthless piece of toejam and a huge headache for him.. Why should he have to suffer for your frailty?
I know people who use illegal drugs and alcohol who are very successful in the workplace. Yes there are plenty of people whose problems with drugs and alcohol affect their work. But there are plenty who have no problem at all in the workplace.
For the latter group to get fired because of a positive test, while some crappy, but sober, employee, keeps his job, is not just and not productive. What employees do on their own time is absolutely none of the employer's business.
And I'm not a "doper". Real life is much more interesting than drugged life.
-
I do very good at my work even better than some none smokers and non drinkers.
I don't smoke on my work offcourse like drinkin u dont do that on work to.
In fact i'm so good that i'm choosen to setup a new line in the plant i work for.
It's an american company but glad it is in holland.
No i don't walk over water but i work efficient and hard when it has to. What more would my boss wants from me , i'm also never sick and overstressed.
Last time i called myself ill it was 3 years ago.
Hmmm and i smoke 3-4 joints a day.
other facts:
-got my driving licence on 1 joint
-best night shooter in the platoon years ago on 1 joint
-passed my proces technics exam while only learned the day before on many joints and one on the morning of the exam.
-i fly the crap out on AH and can make some good dogfights while stoned
-I never made any accidents while driving stoned and got my licence about 10 years.
If one off the above things went wrong u know all where to point at
that's just silly
:rolleyes:
-
Drugs impair your perception of yourself and your world, so how much credibility can a stoner's viewpoint really have?
-
Drugs impair your perception of yourself and your world, so how much credibility can a stoner's viewpoint really have?
thruth coz i mess up my life and i always got it wrong.
-
bug
stay 100% sober for six months
then do what you are doing now one night
then the next morning you tell me you are 100% sober
ain't no way
fact jack - problem is you'll never be sober 6 months to find out for yourself
and to answer ur other thread - both are bad for your growth - mentally, physically & spiritually
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Drugs impair your perception of yourself and your world,
so does self-righteous attitudes
-
look... you guys are proving my point not yours. If you are really good (and valuable) at what you do then your employer will most likely ignore the fact that you are a druggie and that you are on a downhill run. He will most likely squeze as much productivity out of you as he can before you turn into a real piece of toejam.
wulfie.. Who cares if the programs set up by a private co. are poorly done? It is their concern and not ours... it is their profit and their loss. If they don't want people with illegal drugs in their system on the job then who are we to tell them how to hire and fire? None of our bussiness.
What do you care what illegal drugs are tested for? Like I said... it is their bussiness not yours... you wanna smoke pot for instance? fine.. go to a more "enlightened" employer. What's the problem? You still haven't told me what the problem is? I get tested all the time and have never had a positive test result. so.... what about testing bothers you.... exactly?
lazs
-
I like to argue the point Lazs...
I got tested once, was positive for "Other"... was clean at the time... an employer could of overlooked my application because of that.
-SW
-
Kanth,
while I won't discount people out to get me. :D
I work in construction, at the end of the year I have anywhere from 5-12 w-2's some of those are for comapnys I've worked for up to 6 different times in a given year. so with sometimes having 2 or 3 dozen jobs a year it's not uncommon to get 2-5 (sometimes more) pre-employment piss test per year. some companys have given me 2 or 3 from their company alone in 1 year. (you'd think they'd keep that crap on file, huh?)
oh ya and the owner of the jobsight sometimes also wants a piss test. so to recap. the union piss tests you before you can get sent on a job, then the contractor tests you before you get the job, then the customer tests you before you can work on their property. so worst case scenario I supose I could end up taking a couple dozen of them in a year if I got all the wrong jobs but hey {sarcasm warning} I don't feel violated at all :mad: {end warning}
-
hehe this drug test stuff makes me glad I live in a communist country :D
-
Originally posted by wulfie
The problem with commenting on the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights with regards to this topic is that today's problems were in no way applicable back then.
Friendly fire with a musket? One guy dies. A combat engineer who is hung over and screws up the fuzing on a military demolition job is going to kill everyone within 15 meters of him, every time.
I was just out drinkin' with some America West pilots, and we all agree. Anyone stupid enough to be within 15 meters of a bomb disposal squad deserves to die.:D
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Drugs impair your perception of yourself and your world, so how much credibility can a stoner's viewpoint really have?
That really is the most uninformed statement I have yet read in this thread. You should add the following:
"all generalisations are dangerous"
I would be interested in which drugs you have taken that impair your perception of yourself and the world.
How is it that the substances I take don't impair my perception of myself or the world, yet the ones you take do? Are we using different substances I wonder?
Maybe you are drinking too much coffee, or cocacola
-
bounder.. employers test for drugs that may cause THEM a problem.. They don't care how much caffene you hve in you cause so far.. it ain't been a problem. Even if you use perscription pain killers it can become their problem so a positive test for perscription drugs requires a doctors care.. if the doc says you are fine to work on morphine.... fine with the employer.. he is off the hook.
It is allmost impossible to get a false positive these days and if there is a questionable test... most employers simply test again but.. again.. I say it is their perogative. They don't mind throwing out the very, very small amount of "good druggies" with all the bad. It's good bussiness and smart odds to do so.
Keeping a druggie for the life of his job and not having him become a problem is like winning the lottery odds wise without the reward. Why should they do it? Why do they owe a druggie a job?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Why should they do it? Why do they owe a druggie a job?
lazs
to keep him from stealing his mother's jewelry to support his habit of course :)
party on dudes ... work for Friday & ur soma, don't think too much about it and realize there maybe more to it all, just take another hit and be "happy"
the world has a place for you, don't worry ... LOL
-
Originally posted by Eagler
party on dudes ... work for Friday & ur soma, don't think too much about it and realize there maybe more to it all, just take another hit and be "happy"
the world has a place for you, don't worry ... LOL
Eagler, your sig says 'God bless America.'
You seem to be the one sucking on the soma nipple if you believe that:
a) god (any god) exists.
b) she favours the USA.
And which soma are we talking about here - the one from the Rig Veda, or from BNW?
Lasz2.
Ultimately I agree. the employer should be free to impose drug tests on his employees. If they don't like it then they can walk (I did & god knows this happened in Silicon Valley too a while back).
OTOH I think it wrong to compel employers to institute employee drug testing., as was suggested by the thread starter.
Also I think the term Druggie is far to woolly a term to be useful, if we're going to talk about how substances influence work, we need to know what work and which substances. Druggies is simply too broad a brush IMO.
-
I never wished to "compel" anyone to do anything. Allthough I would like an airline (for instance) to post a conspicuously on their tickets and at their stations that they do not drug test their employees if that is the case.
lazs
-
I'm ummm still not clear, do they set the drugs we test or can we request specific stuff we'd like to test?
-
bounder
Brave New World
no soma sucking here - don't drink or smoke
my sig doesn't suggest God favors the US over other countries
just blesses it as it needs it
-
ok Eagler, what I was trying to say is that
:::God is your soma:::
(To paraphrase a famous german guy).
-
Originally posted by bounder
ok Eagler, what I was trying to say is that
:::God is your soma:::
(To paraphrase a famous german guy).
hehehe
wrong again
just because I say "God Bless" doesn't mean I'm religious/church going bible thumper
Life is my Soma - I take it straight & sober
-
OK point taken. That's a relief