Author Topic: The Urine Test  (Read 1422 times)

Offline Chairboy

  • Probation
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8221
      • hallert.net
The Urine Test
« Reply #15 on: February 29, 2008, 09:43:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by sluggish
You do realize that most employers require a pre-employment drug screening, right?
Most?  Quantify that, and provide a citation please.  I've never had a job that requires a drug test, nor did I require them of my employees when I owned a small business.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

Offline sluggish

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2474
« Last Edit: February 29, 2008, 09:59:51 AM by sluggish »

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6142
The Urine Test
« Reply #17 on: February 29, 2008, 09:50:47 AM »
Quote
I think you just might be surprised how many employers will bypass this little part of the hiring process if you protest it in the right way.


So just how do you protest it in the right way? Just wondering since I've always found the pre-employment drug screens an annoyance.
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline Shamus

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3582
The Urine Test
« Reply #18 on: February 29, 2008, 09:51:00 AM »
Sounds like a pretty good idea.

I believe that it should be expanded a bit though.

Any company that receives money from the government for any product or service should have all executives, employees and stockholders tested.

shamus
one of the cats

FSO Jagdgeschwader 11

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
The Urine Test
« Reply #19 on: February 29, 2008, 09:58:52 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by sluggish
Sorry to hear your Google's broke...

http://www.google.com/search?q=percentage+of+employers+who+require+drug+screening&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1


Im with Chair, I have never worked at a job that tested.

You spouted the bull****, back it up.

Offline Jackal1

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9092
The Urine Test
« Reply #20 on: February 29, 2008, 09:59:11 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Elfie
So just how do you protest it in the right way? Just wondering since I've always found the pre-employment drug screens an annoyance.


Basically just refuse to test on the grounds that you believe it violates your privacy................do it in such a way that shows you are willing to back it up if needed.

My wife worked for a National....well now worldwide company for 12 years.
They required drug tests in their hiring process and also random employee tests.
She refused on all occasions. Not a problem. Many more followed suit.
If you show that you are not willing to have your privacy and rights invaded and they believe you will stand upon that, most will back down.
It`s as simple as don`t rock my boat, I won`t rock yours.
I have never taken a drug test for anyone, anywhere.
I know quite a few that have and have been terminated on false positives due to medication that tests positive for something it is not.
Democracy is two wolves deciding on what to eat. Freedom is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline sluggish

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2474
The Urine Test
« Reply #21 on: February 29, 2008, 10:02:18 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Im with Chair, I have never worked at a job that tested.

You spouted the bull****, back it up.


Why are you getting hostile?  Did I kick your dog?

About 90% of all employers today require pre-employment drug screening.

You guys don't get out much, do you?

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
The Urine Test
« Reply #22 on: February 29, 2008, 10:02:18 AM »
this is a tough one.    I don't want to work alongside a druggie.  I don't want him operating machinery around me.

If he is then I want to sue the company for having him on the job and them not doing enough to make sure he wasn't.   I think it should be up to the company and it should be clear in the employment papers you sign..

If you work in a cubicle (cant imagine that) then maybe it doesn't matter how loaded you are...  I don't want you on a forklift or backhoe around me tho.. every see what those things can do to fragile little human bodies?  I have.

It should be up to the company.

I also agree that we shouldn't pay welfare but.. since I have no say in that.. then the least we can expect is that they are sober and ready for work.  I see nothing wrong with random drug testing of welfare recipients.

With a class B license I can be randomly tested at any time.  I drive to work and see the zombies all milling around their yards.   they need to be tested.

If they are loaded.. they are not ready to work or capable of looking.

lazs

Offline AWMac

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9251
The Urine Test
« Reply #23 on: February 29, 2008, 10:08:26 AM »
Makes you wonder why they don't test CEO's and CFO's huh?

Offline ridley1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 677
The Urine Test
« Reply #24 on: February 29, 2008, 10:25:30 AM »
If you suspect that an employee is on the job and under the influence....YES! Urine test time.

If it's a matter of a lottery, "hey, your number came up...go pee" NO!

If my duties are being completed in a satisfactory manner. Leave me  alone.

Urine tests are indicators of PAST use. Not present impairment.

Urine tests Look for metabolites.  Many legal prescription and over the counter medications can kick back a positive urine test for illegal drug use.

Offline VonMessa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11922
The Urine Test
« Reply #25 on: February 29, 2008, 10:30:27 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by ridley1
I don't agree with random tests. I consider it an infringment of my rights.  I'm innocent, prove me guilty.
 Do you have cause to ask me for a pee in a bottle? No? Then don't.

The urine test looks for past use. Not present impairment. My smoking a joint over the weekend on my personal free time is none of your concern.




AMEN!!!!!!

:aok :aok :aok :aok
Braümeister und Schmutziger Hund von JG11


We are all here because we are not all there.

Offline Tac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4085
The Urine Test
« Reply #26 on: February 29, 2008, 10:32:08 AM »
I've had several jobs that required a urine test before getting hired.

Mortage, customer service, pc technician... different fields.


I agree, those who collect welfare checks should undergo a urine test every other check that gets sent to them.

If my taxes go to welfare checks then I would like them to go towards those who use that money to get a job or better themselves not spend it on drugs.

While it will not clean out all the welfare parasites, it will flush out a good amount.

Offline VonMessa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11922
The Urine Test
« Reply #27 on: February 29, 2008, 10:55:32 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
this is a tough one.    I don't want to work alongside a druggie.  I don't want him operating machinery around me.

If he is then I want to sue the company for having him on the job and them not doing enough to make sure he wasn't.   I think it should be up to the company and it should be clear in the employment papers you sign..

If you work in a cubicle (cant imagine that) then maybe it doesn't matter how loaded you are...  I don't want you on a forklift or backhoe around me tho.. every see what those things can do to fragile little human bodies?  I have.

It should be up to the company.

I also agree that we shouldn't pay welfare but.. since I have no say in that.. then the least we can expect is that they are sober and ready for work.  I see nothing wrong with random drug testing of welfare recipients.

With a class B license I can be randomly tested at any time.  I drive to work and see the zombies all milling around their yards.   they need to be tested.

If they are loaded.. they are not ready to work or capable of looking.

lazs



As stated before by others, this proves prior or past use, not present level of impairment.  So.......

What about the individuals who stop using long enough to pass a whiz-quiz, only to get ripped on a daily basis?  ow do we stop these folks?

Also what about the recreational user who stays clean and sober throughout the work-week, and only partakes on his/her personal time?   If they have an accident at work (while they are not impaired whatsoever) and drop a hot urine?  Should they be treated or punished in the same fashion as someone who actually was high at the workplace?

Most (not all) employers that do require these tests, do so because they get better insurance rates.  Some bean-counting actuary has decided that this lowers or limits the amount of drug abusing employees and therefore the accident rate.

So... chugging along in the same vein, why not have a pre-employment stupidity test?  I know plenty of folks out there who have had their gene pool urinated in or, are just plain stupid, inattentive or careless that haven't consumed a single mind-altering substance in their life.  What type of regulation do we have to single out these folks?  Do we dole out the same punishment to these people?   What if they are habitually stupid?  Are there rehab clinics for stupidity?  What if they are only stupid on the weekends?  Does that make it OK, or less of an infringement?

Maybe I can elaborate later.  Right now, I should get back to my job that didn't require a drug test.
Braümeister und Schmutziger Hund von JG11


We are all here because we are not all there.

Offline texasmom

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6078
The Urine Test
« Reply #28 on: February 29, 2008, 11:01:56 AM »
Past use (like an over-the-weekend joint) also is a great indicator of the level of respect for the law/authority that someone has. If they're willing to disregard the law in respect to the use of drugs, you can be darn sure they're willing to disregard your work policies as well.

That's the whole *nothing is more important than me* attitude which has enveloped us lately.
<S> Easy8
<S> Mac

Offline VonMessa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11922
The Urine Test
« Reply #29 on: February 29, 2008, 01:00:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by texasmom
Past use (like an over-the-weekend joint) also is a great indicator of the level of respect for the law/authority that someone has. If they're willing to disregard the law in respect to the use of drugs, you can be darn sure they're willing to disregard your work policies as well.

That's the whole *nothing is more important than me* attitude which has enveloped us lately.


It is a matter of perspective.  What if the law(s) in question are useless or require an update.  Lets continue to keep marijuana illegal because it's an evil weed!!!!  (but in the meantime keep swilling the alcohol because it's MUCH MUCH safer for you mind, body and sense of judgment) Because alcohol is legal, it's OK?  

Please, let us not get into a debate about respect for the law.  No offense TM, but have you ever disobeyed the speed limit? Prove you haven't (un-deniable proof) and I will personally go to Geno's and hand deliver an authentic Philly cheesesteak to your doorstep.  It's impossible to prove is what I am getting at.  

But seriously, are there a certain amount of laws that we must break before it becomes a lack of respect?  Or is it a certain number of times we break a particular law?  Does it not include moving violations, because they are laws also, just like any other.  Or is it when we find ourselves facing a misdemeanor violation or do we wait for it to be an actually felony before it is constituted as disrespect for the law.

You can absolutely NOT generalize about peoples level of morality or work ethic by what they do in their private homes, on their personal time.  That would be like me making the assumption as follows:   I am your neighbor and I see you sitting by the pool in a lawn chair all weekend long, every weekend. You don't do any housework, yard work, or home maintenance  in general.  I also happen to own the local widget company that you have applied for employment at.  Knowing what I have observed of you as a neighbor, can I safely come to the conclusion that you are a layabout and lazy and will not have any work ethic as an employee of mine?  Would it be fair of me to not hire you based on my observations?  

Everyone, everywhere has broken SOME type of law at some point in their life.  Even if they didn't know it at the time.  Ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it, correct?  Where do we draw the line?

We can also reverse this analogy.  I may have an employee who is bar-none, the best I have ever had.  They come to work 10 minutes early every day, not just getting their on time, but actually ready to work when the bell rings.  He is well mannered, educated, and well spoken.  He is the most productive guy I have on staff.  He can turn out twice as many widgets as any other employee.  He is never sick, never takes time off, never makes defective widgets, works overtime if needed, and is basically the epitome of a model employee.  

But..........

When he goes home, he drinks himself into a stupor, beats his wife, kicks the dog, molests his children, and is having a torrid affair with the gardener.  

Do we judge this guy bu the way he appears at work?

Maybe it is better to not assume at all and decide what kind of person someone is when we know all the facts about them, how they conduct themselves at work, home and play, and then make an educated decision based upon ALL observations.

Let's not say because someone smokes marijuana, double parks, speeds, or pull the tag off of mattresses has a blanket disregard or disrespect for all other laws, legal or moral.

Ich bin der schmutzige Hund und ich genehmige diese Anzeige!
Braümeister und Schmutziger Hund von JG11


We are all here because we are not all there.