Another one for the books!

[easymo]

Hey guys they are kids.  The school is giving them a cookie to behave.  How did this go flying off into a civil rights issue. How about a little common sense.

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by koala
Huh? Did you even read the law that I quoted? In Kalifornia businesses are not "free to do as they please", but are prohibited from administering a polygraph test. The government, on the other hand, is free to do as it pleases.

Yeah, the Government does a lot of things differently than privately owned businesses.

What's your point?

So why would your average business go through all the trouble of paying for a drug test?  Because of some morality kick?  Because they're on some anti-drug crusade?  Try again.

Then you tell me. If they don't include alcohol, it ain't for safety and it ain't for job efficiency.

The only thing a drug test tells you is that someone has done a drug recently. It doesn't indicate whether the person is currently under the influence of it or not.

Apparently, though, you think you know what the drug tests are for. Let me tell you something, they ain't for much more than preventing a drug user from getting a job. End of story.



Elfenwolf- whatever I do on the weekends doesn't effect my work performance during the week. OTOH, if I went into work all fugged up.. yes, it would effect job performance. Then again, if I went in all hopped up on Nyquil PM, my job performance would be effected. The only thing these drug tests are good for is to find out who does ILLICIT drugs and prevent them from getting a job.

If you think otherwise, you are seriously dillusional and should read up on exactly what these drug tests are. If they do not include alcohol, or any other impairing licit/legal drug, then they are not for safety NOR are they for hiring people who are efficient at their jobs.

I know plenty of sober people who suck bellybutton at their work, maybe they should have a "suck ass" test instead? Seems it would go a lot further towards job safety and efficiency than these joke of a drug test.

I'm opposed to drug tests because they are complete roadkill. They don't test for everything that effects job performance, efficiency, or safety- the reason these drug tests were first instituted back in 1983.
-SW

[koala]

Yeah, the Government does a lot of things differently than privately owned businesses.

What's your point?

My point is that businesses should be free, just like the government, to administer drug or polygraph tests if they so choose.  Prohibiting a business in California from screening individuals with a polygraph test is crap, and doubly so since the government allows it for itself.  Is this a hard concept to understand?

Then you tell me. If they don't include alcohol, it ain't for safety and it ain't for job efficiency.

Why do you say they don't test for alcohol?  If you take a piss test and there's alcohol in your system, are you saying the test doesn't report that?  Try again.

Apparently, though, you think you know what the drug tests are for.

It doesn't matter what they're for.  If a business feels that a test is a legitimate indicator of work performance / trust worthiness / attendance rates / whatever, and is not discriminating based on color / creed / sexual orientation / whatever, then it should have every right to apply the test.  If you don't like it, go apply somewhere else.  Pretty simple, eh?

Let me tell you something, they ain't for much more than preventing a drug user from getting a job. End of story.

Ahh, so businesses are out to persecute the poor drug users.  That's how they make their money.

[midnight Target]

I have fired an employee for failing a piss test and coming up positive for alcohol.

[AKSWulfe]

My point is that businesses should be free, just like the government, to administer drug or polygraph tests if they so choose. Prohibiting a business in California from screening individuals with a polygraph test is crap, and doubly so since the government allows it for itself. Is this a hard concept to understand?

Why do you think businesses should be free to issue polygraph tests?

So they can find out how toejamty of a worker you will be.... before you even started working there?

Why do you say they don't test for alcohol? If you take a piss test and there's alcohol in your system, are you saying the test doesn't report that? Try again.

Because.... they don't.

I've taken 'em before. I read that lil strip. I see methamphetimines, amphetamines, cannabis(THC), cocaine, MDMA, MDA, psylocibin, etc.... I don't see alcohol. And if it ain't on the test... then I guess the test can't report it, huh?

There is no requirement for testing for alcohol... neither in the government nor in the public workforce.

You think any differently? Try again.

It doesn't matter what they're for. If a business feels that a test is a legitimate indicator of work performance / trust worthiness / attendance rates / whatever, and is not discriminating based on color / creed / sexual orientation / whatever, then it should have every right to apply the test. If you don't like it, go apply somewhere else. Pretty simple, eh?

So, you think it's cool to discriminate based on what a test shows... which is NO indication of how an individual will perform at work, but only what they do in their spare time... but at the same time, color, creed, sexual orientation is not cool?

Hear me out... if you generalize a race based on your experience with them, then you're discriminating. If you generalize a religion based on your experience with them, then you're discriminating.
If you feel that because that dude is gay, he might grab your ass, and you don't hire him... you are discriminating.

But... if you generalize a group of people based on what they do on their own time in their own homes because you have had past experiences with other people that do the same thing... it's totally cool?

The irony....

Ahh, so businesses are out to persecute the poor drug users. That's how they make their money.

They certainly ain't gonna help them get a job.
-SW

[koala]

There is no requirement for testing for alcohol... neither in the government nor in the public workforce.

You think any differently? Try again.

Did you not read Midnight Target's post directly above yours??

Hear me out... if you generalize a race based on your experience with them, then you're discriminating. If you generalize a religion based on your experience with them, then you're discriminating.
If you feel that because that dude is gay, he might grab your ass, and you don't hire him... you are discriminating.

But... if you generalize a group of people based on what they do on their own time in their own homes because you have had past experiences with other people that do the same thing... it's totally cool?

The irony....

I'm not saying it's "totally cool".  Which tests I feel are important for my business is not the issue.  I'm saying that businesses have a right to screen people based on what they feel are legitimate reasons.  The government has banned discrimination based on color / creed /sexual orientation, so that's really not a point of discussion.  Drug testing has not been banned, nor has it been mandated by the government.  It should be up to a business to be free to administer it if it so chooses.  Is that short-sighted?  Maybe so.  Do I want to work for a business like that?  Maybe not.  But, that's not the point.

Using your line of argument, businesses should not be able to "generalize" a group of people based on what level of education they have, regardless of the job they're applying for.  I know some very good software engineers who have nothing more than a high school degree.  Does that mean businesses shouldn't be allowed to require a college degree for a job?Businesses have to "generalize" by definition, because, regardless of the exceptions, that's the best way to maximize their chances for finding a suitable candidate in a reasonable manner.

[Sox62]

Originally posted by Elfenwolf


Well, excuse ME, but as a parent I want to know that when my child arrives at school she is "confined" there until school is dismissed at the end of the day. I am absolutely opposed to an open campus at her school that might encourage illicit off campus activities and behaviors. I depend on my child's high school to vouch for her whereabouts during school hours and, in fact, would go ballistic if they knowingly allowed her to leave the campus during school hours.

My parents trusted me with off-campus lunches in high school,and I never gave them a reason not to.

It's a shame you don't trust your daughter the same way.

[AKSWulfe]

Yes, but in the case of someone with what some would call less than acceptable education (used loosely, I know that education is only a small part in being good with computers/software) he probably had experience. The experience got his foot in the door, and he probably stunned everyone in there... thus securing his job position.

But with a drug test, you can have all the credentials, all the experience, and have a whole flotilla of recommendations... once that drug test comes back positive for something, you're back at square one, looking for a job.

Now, yes it's true, drug tests don't interfere with me... not right now anyway. I do work for the fed gov too, but I don't get tested.. nor has there been any reason for them to do it.

but that still doesn't mean that I like the idea of drug tests becomming an acceptable means to screen applicants. Currently it may be rare... but it was far rarer just a few years ago. Then Best Buy did it, and shortly thereafter more businesses and corporations followed.

In the future, will it be possible to even hand someone your resume before you have to piss in a cup?

I dunno... but that's why I'm opposed to it, because I don't want it to become like that.

Yes, I read Target's reply... but he's the EXCEPTION (caps because I mean extreme exception) not the rule. In the case of the fed gov, people go to lunch and get a couple rounds of drinks for lunch... sometimes a little before lunch too... and sometimes a little after lunch as well.

Either way, it doesn't sit well with me unless drug testing includes ALL drugs, not just illicit ones.
-SW

[Elfenwolf]

Originally posted by Sox62



My parents trusted me with off-campus lunches in high school,and I never gave them a reason not to.

It's a shame you don't trust your daughter the same way.

Sox, she goes to a school that has a closed campus. If she is off campus she knows she's in violation of the school's rules. If I found out she were sneaking off campus I would take away her car. If the school had an open campus and she could go off campus to get something to eat then that would be fine. In fact that would be better for me because she begs me to pick her up a Subway sandwich about once a week. It's not about trust, it's about following the rules.

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by koala

Typical double standard.  Apparently it's okay for the government to require a test, but not a private business.

The law recognizes that employment standards for public safety, law enforcement, and national security are different than those for a change monkey at the video arcade.

[koala]

The law recognizes that employment standards for public safety, law enforcement, and national security are different than those for a change monkey at the video arcade.

Yeah, I guess the only important / high responsibility jobs are in the government

[Sox62]

Originally posted by Elfenwolf


Sox, she goes to a school that has a closed campus. If she is off campus she knows she's in violation of the school's rules.

Fair enough-I wasn't aware of that from your previous post.My apologies.