Author Topic: Mandatory drug testing (Read 1538 times)

SirLoin · « **Reply #15 on:** October 27, 2002, 09:10:05 AM »

I suggest mandatory monkey brain transplants for Ford Motor Company execs.

lazs2 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 27, 2002, 09:36:58 AM »

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

MrLars · « **Reply #17 on:** October 27, 2002, 10:10:09 AM »

Quote

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.

Innominate · « **Reply #18 on:** October 27, 2002, 10:24:11 AM »

Quote

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.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #19 on:** October 27, 2002, 10:53:59 AM »

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.

Eagler · « **Reply #20 on:** October 27, 2002, 11:05:12 AM »

Quote

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!!!

Airhead · « **Reply #21 on:** October 27, 2002, 11:19:27 AM »

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.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #22 on:** October 27, 2002, 11:24:42 AM »

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.

lazs2 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 27, 2002, 12:13:30 PM »

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

Kanth · « **Reply #24 on:** October 27, 2002, 12:50:54 PM »

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.

Quote

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

Sandman · « **Reply #25 on:** October 27, 2002, 01:21:09 PM »

Against.

lazs2 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 27, 2002, 01:31:42 PM »

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

Maverick · « **Reply #27 on:** October 27, 2002, 01:49:31 PM »

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.

funkedup · « **Reply #28 on:** October 27, 2002, 01:54:32 PM »

"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?

Sandman · « **Reply #29 on:** October 27, 2002, 01:57:41 PM »

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.