Angry about drug tests.......

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
1. These tests aren't random - they pick people who they suspect are users.
2. The tests shouldn't exist in the first place - they're trying to dictate how you live your life. As long as you don't come into work high or whatever, it shouldn't be a problem.

:thumbsup:

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: TallBill
I took about 11 drug tests in just under 4 years with the Army. Don't use drugs and you won't piss hot, simple as that. If this is an issue for you, don't work for a company that drug tests.

What if they outlawed something you do enjoy?

Drug tests (and drug laws, but that's another thread) are a blatant violation of privacy. They're essentially saying that they don't care whether you perform your job or not, only what you do off the clock.

What the fuck are you talking about? Then can legally test for drugs that are an illegal substance. No, pot isn't worse then alcohol, but it happens to be illegal.

If you don't like it, then don't work for that company. You have a choice too. It isn't an invasion of privacy, because you waive that right to privacy when you sign the paper agreeing to drug testing.

Exactly. Stupid druggies whining about it. I wouldn't have a problem if every single employer used frequent random drug tests and those testing positive would immediately get fired.

Where I work we do random tests every year for every employee. None of my staff have ever tested positive, but that's probably because they are intelligent enough to stay away from that crap.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: DarrelSPowers

Originally posted by: TallBill
I took about 11 drug tests in just under 4 years with the Army. Don't use drugs and you won't piss hot, simple as that. If this is an issue for you, don't work for a company that drug tests.

This... and what CV said too...

Drug tests are a farce. The only thing that ever shows up is weed, because most harder drugs are out of your system within a few hours to a few days.

I could write forever as to how bullshit I think drugtests are, but I've found I enjoy working with people at companies that don't drug test as compared to companies that do.

This is also true for hair tests?

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: TallBill
I took about 11 drug tests in just under 4 years with the Army. Don't use drugs and you won't piss hot, simple as that. If this is an issue for you, don't work for a company that drug tests.

What if they outlawed something you do enjoy?

Uuuhhhhhh, McFly, if that "something" happened to be very illegal, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Now I completely disagree with employers testing for smoking and other perfectly legal substances, unless it somehow has a direct bearing on the job requirements.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Ns1

And, I don't think there's any reason whatsoever to screen people working in finance. I'm 100% for drug screening - when there's a valid concern, i.e. people who hold the lives of other people in their hands. (policemen, firemen, bus drivers, pilots, engineers (choo-choo train), heavy construction operators, etc.)

Not gonna argue here.

What if you're in a finance position where you could move money around to help support your coke habit?

 

[dartworth]

Originally posted by: swbsam
Working at a respectable company and knowing a good amount of people here (not high school students), I'd say 50% of this organization abuse or has abused some illegal substance.

We'd lose 1/2 of our workforce if they did drug tests here!

what do you consider "abuse"?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler

Originally posted by: MadAmos
Try working where I do the company has an on site contractor for drug testing and they test all new hires and any badged workers are added to the random pool that tests 10% of the workforce monthly. If a supervisor suspects drug or alcohol use they will pull your access until a neg drug test is confirmed. All testing includes breathalyzer and urine testing and they will also request a hair sample yearly. You have the right to refuse but a refusal will be treated the same as a positive test and access will be revoked, and you will be escorted off site by two armed responders.

with that kind of commitment to drug testing, i can only imagine that is the tip of the iceberg as far as how concerned your employer is regarding its employees.

I love how you equate drug testing to a bad employer.

that sentence is a bit awkward, but i was trying to phrase it to avoid suggesting that. and, i think it's a bit of a stretch on your part.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: waggy

2) i disagree. i wouldnt want my employees who are drug abusers. just for the off chance they come into work high and cause damages to either work stuff or someones property.

What about employees who come to work tired? Are you going to police how much sleep we get?

Or how about what food we eat? If we don't get enough protein for breakfast, we might get hungry before lunch and damage our "work stuff." Should we have random breakfast tests?

Or what about having emotions? "Oh shit, you pissed positive twice in a row for having your girlfriend break up with you recently, you might get distracted and break something. YOU'RE FIRED ASSHOLE!"

:roll:

Random drug testing is a logically-bankrupt solution for a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.

I give my employer access to my time and my skills. My body fluids are my own fucking business unless you're paying enough to warrant that intrusion on top of the work I do.

I wouldn't piss hot, but I'd never support random drug testing for any profession. If you're worried about liability, how about buying insurance instead of treating all your employees as suspects?

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: waggy

2) i disagree. i wouldnt want my employees who are drug abusers. just for the off chance they come into work high and cause damages to either work stuff or someones property.

What about employees who come to work tired? Are you going to police how much sleep we get?

Or how about what food we eat? If we don't get enough protein for breakfast, we might get hungry before lunch and damage our "work stuff." Should we have random breakfast tests?

Or what about having emotions? "Oh shit, you pissed positive twice in a row for having your girlfriend break up with you recently, you might get distracted and break something. YOU'RE FIRED ASSHOLE!"

:roll:

Random drug testing is a logically-bankrupt solution for a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.

I give my employer access to my time and my skills. My body fluids are my own fucking business unless you're paying enough to warrant that intrusion on top of the work I do.

I wouldn't piss hot, but I'd never support random drug testing for any profession. If you're worried about liability, how about buying insurance instead of treating all your employees as suspects?

You do realize there is more than just how you perform your job at stake for your employer, right? They (typically) carry your health insurance. Hell some employers are doing things now to dissuade people from smoking (cigs) just because of the associated health care risks.

 

[MadAmos]

IMHO random testing is not BS, all company's have a responsibility to provide a safe and secure work place. Any one who is impaired can and much more likely will make an error weather that error is transposing a couple numbers in a spreadsheet, or as in the case where I work an operator that misaligns a valve or switch putting billions of dollars and public safety at risk. All errors have consequence and a root cause and drug/alcohol use is just one way that is used to minimize unnecessary errors. The FFD (Fitness for work) program at work also addresses fatigued workers and those with personal stress in their lives as a hazard to safety and strict work hour limits and self/peer review are important tools minimizing in these. The bottom line is every day people fail random tests ( that they are fully aware they are subject to), If there was no testing would there more that currently either limit or do not use at all that might start and safety would suffer. After all many jobs that are taken for granted have dangers associated with them Mickyd's has hot grills and oil and many jobs involve driving and machinery or even a flight of stairs.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: Ns1

And, I don't think there's any reason whatsoever to screen people working in finance. I'm 100% for drug screening - when there's a valid concern, i.e. people who hold the lives of other people in their hands. (policemen, firemen, bus drivers, pilots, engineers (choo-choo train), heavy construction operators, etc.)

Not gonna argue here.

What if you're in a finance position where you could move money around to help support your coke habit?

3 words, separation of duty.


You don't need to be a druggie to be a fraud, just greedy (ref: accounting scandals of 1999 - 2003)

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: TallBill
I took about 11 drug tests in just under 4 years with the Army. Don't use drugs and you won't piss hot, simple as that. If this is an issue for you, don't work for a company that drug tests.

What if they outlawed something you do enjoy?

Uuuhhhhhh, McFly, if that "something" happened to be very illegal, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Now I completely disagree with employers testing for smoking and other perfectly legal substances, unless it somehow has a direct bearing on the job requirements.

The logical inference being that if something were made illegal, it would have been legal at the point you enjoyed it... Christ... Nevermind, I'm starting to understand how people can be for outlawing things they don't like - the people who feel this way are simply the world's Stupids.

"I love my free country, which is free, meaning you can do whatever you like. Except women can't have a certain medical procedure done. And you can't marry someone who's the same gender as you. And you can't put chemicals in your body in the privacy of your own home. Because I don't like those things."

The hypocrisy of Stupids is incredible. It's finally coming around to bite them in the ass (nanny state) and ironically they're too stupid to see it.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: waggy

2) i disagree. i wouldnt want my employees who are drug abusers. just for the off chance they come into work high and cause damages to either work stuff or someones property.

What about employees who come to work tired? Are you going to police how much sleep we get?

Or how about what food we eat? If we don't get enough protein for breakfast, we might get hungry before lunch and damage our "work stuff." Should we have random breakfast tests?

Or what about having emotions? "Oh shit, you pissed positive twice in a row for having your girlfriend break up with you recently, you might get distracted and break something. YOU'RE FIRED ASSHOLE!"

:roll:

Random drug testing is a logically-bankrupt solution for a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.

I give my employer access to my time and my skills. My body fluids are my own fucking business unless you're paying enough to warrant that intrusion on top of the work I do.

I wouldn't piss hot, but I'd never support random drug testing for any profession. If you're worried about liability, how about buying insurance instead of treating all your employees as suspects?

You do realize there is more than just how you perform your job at stake for your employer, right? They (typically) carry your health insurance. Hell some employers are doing things now to dissuade people from smoking (cigs) just because of the associated health care risks.

Do you not understand how health insurance works? If I go to the hospital in a helicopter, it doesn't cost my employer a single dime more than if I never see my doctor.

Even if that argument were true, it is not a logical response, because not getting enough sleep, not eating properly, or being depressed are all directly related to physical health, but you'd never think of testing for those things. Or how about testing for playing sports? You're more likely to get injured than sitting at home. Maybe we should fire people for surfing, or driving cars, or putting up Christmas lights. Using cell phones might cause cancer... better fire folks for that, too.

This isn't just a slippery slope, because there's plenty of other personal activities we do every day that are far more dangerous than getting high that we overlook without thinking about it, because they just really aren't all that risky to the company. A slippery slope requires you to start at the top of the slope. With drug testing, you're already starting at the bottom of the morality hill, so there's nothing to slide down.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Chryso
What we also need is random alcohol.

i can arrange that.

Good man... where is my beer?

Drug tests

 

[EMPshockwave82]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: waggy

2) i disagree. i wouldnt want my employees who are drug abusers. just for the off chance they come into work high and cause damages to either work stuff or someones property.

What about employees who come to work tired? Are you going to police how much sleep we get?

Or how about what food we eat? If we don't get enough protein for breakfast, we might get hungry before lunch and damage our "work stuff." Should we have random breakfast tests?

Or what about having emotions? "Oh shit, you pissed positive twice in a row for having your girlfriend break up with you recently, you might get distracted and break something. YOU'RE FIRED ASSHOLE!"

:roll:

Random drug testing is a logically-bankrupt solution for a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.

I give my employer access to my time and my skills. My body fluids are my own fucking business unless you're paying enough to warrant that intrusion on top of the work I do.

I wouldn't piss hot, but I'd never support random drug testing for any profession. If you're worried about liability, how about buying insurance instead of treating all your employees as suspects?

You're right. We shouldn't randomly drug test truck drivers or ship captains to attempt at preventing accidents like oil spills or massive collisions. We should just pay rediculous amounts of money for insurance that we wouldnt have to pay otherwise.

When you are at work you represent that company. If you mess up in the public eye they don't know your name personally but the public remembers the name of the company.

Your bodily fluids are your business unless they have the ability to tell if you are fit for duty or abusing chemical substances within a timeframe that could have an effect on your work safety.

 

[thomsbrain]

Also, I just gotta laugh that the same folks who rush to defend invasion of of employees' bodies and personal time are mostly the same folks who claim to be "conservatives." They're happy to give all the blood and piss Authority wants, just so long as they get to keep their guns! For people who claim to hate others telling them what to do, they sure are happy to bend over and take it up the ass.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Requiring the signing of that piece of paper is a violation of privacy.

:Q

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: waggy

2) i disagree. i wouldnt want my employees who are drug abusers. just for the off chance they come into work high and cause damages to either work stuff or someones property.

What about employees who come to work tired? Are you going to police how much sleep we get?

Or how about what food we eat? If we don't get enough protein for breakfast, we might get hungry before lunch and damage our "work stuff." Should we have random breakfast tests?

Or what about having emotions? "Oh shit, you pissed positive twice in a row for having your girlfriend break up with you recently, you might get distracted and break something. YOU'RE FIRED ASSHOLE!"

:roll:

Random drug testing is a logically-bankrupt solution for a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.

I give my employer access to my time and my skills. My body fluids are my own fucking business unless you're paying enough to warrant that intrusion on top of the work I do.

I wouldn't piss hot, but I'd never support random drug testing for any profession. If you're worried about liability, how about buying insurance instead of treating all your employees as suspects?

You're right. We shouldn't randomly drug test truck drivers or ship captains to attempt at preventing accidents like oil spills or massive collisions. We should just pay rediculous amounts of money for insurance that we wouldnt have to pay otherwise.

When you are at work you represent that company. If you mess up in the public eye they don't know your name personally but the public remembers the name of the company.

Your bodily fluids are your business unless they have the ability to tell if you are fit for duty or abusing chemical substances within a timeframe that could have an effect on your work safety.

That is fine when you start paying workers for not getting high 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Remember the last 128 hours of the week are at time and a half.

 

[EMPshockwave82]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Requiring the signing of that piece of paper is a violation of privacy.

:Q

Yea... that was probably the dumbest comment I saw in this entire thread. Most people attempted to come up with a valid argument. This guy didnt even try.

 

[MadAmos]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: waggy

2) i disagree. i wouldnt want my employees who are drug abusers. just for the off chance they come into work high and cause damages to either work stuff or someones property.

What about employees who come to work tired? Are you going to police how much sleep we get?

Or how about what food we eat? If we don't get enough protein for breakfast, we might get hungry before lunch and damage our "work stuff." Should we have random breakfast tests?

Or what about having emotions? "Oh shit, you pissed positive twice in a row for having your girlfriend break up with you recently, you might get distracted and break something. YOU'RE FIRED ASSHOLE!"

:roll:

Random drug testing is a logically-bankrupt solution for a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.

I give my employer access to my time and my skills. My body fluids are my own fucking business unless you're paying enough to warrant that intrusion on top of the work I do.

I wouldn't piss hot, but I'd never support random drug testing for any profession. If you're worried about liability, how about buying insurance instead of treating all your employees as suspects?

Yes where I work you can and will be sent home if you show signs of fatigue.
Also if you have any personal issue that has the potential to affect your mental state you are required to report yourself "unfit for duty" or if you suspect a co worker has a problem you report it, yes we have full time counselors available on site.
I am required to have a periodic psychiatric evaluation and interview with the company shrink.
All these things are at company expense and on company time, yes it is a good paying job and for me it is "enough" to justify this, but anyone who doesn't think so is welcome to work elsewhere.
As far as insurance how much insurance do you need when 10's of thousands of lives are potentially at risk of loosing their homes, property and even their lives?

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
You're right. We shouldn't randomly drug test truck drivers or ship captains to attempt at preventing accidents like oil spills or massive collisions. We should just pay rediculous amounts of money for insurance that we wouldnt have to pay otherwise.

When you are at work you represent that company. If you mess up in the public eye they don't know your name personally but the public remembers the name of the company.

Your bodily fluids are your business unless they have the ability to tell if you are fit for duty or abusing chemical substances within a timeframe that could have an effect on your work safety.

AGAIN, my state of mind, what I ate for breakfast, or my interpersonal relationships have just as much effect on my job performance as whether or not I smoked a joint two days ago. A great example is a California politician who totaled her state-owned SUV because she was upset. There was a huge outcry about it. But nowhere in that outcry were calls for random psychological testing on state jobs. According to your logic, it is perfectly acceptable to test employees for ANYTHING that could affect job performance.

We have words for that: Communism, fascism, etc. Take your pick. All heil!

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: buck
Our current president has done more coke than %95 of the people on ATOT.

Obama has done coke?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
1. These tests aren't random - they pick people who they suspect are users.
2. The tests shouldn't exist in the first place - they're trying to dictate how you live your life. As long as you don't come into work high or whatever, it shouldn't be a problem.

1) i agree. they just don't do random test that often.

2) i disagree. i wouldnt want my employees who are drug abusers. just for the off chance they come into work high and cause damages to either work stuff or someones property.

drug abusers, yes.
drug users, no.

abuse /= use.

There are certain positions where I certainly agree that screening for even moderate drug use would be necessary, but for the majority of jobs it only makes sense to punish the abusers, not the casual or moderate users who have never worked while high or intoxicated.

 

[EMPshockwave82]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: waggy

2) i disagree. i wouldnt want my employees who are drug abusers. just for the off chance they come into work high and cause damages to either work stuff or someones property.

What about employees who come to work tired? Are you going to police how much sleep we get?

Or how about what food we eat? If we don't get enough protein for breakfast, we might get hungry before lunch and damage our "work stuff." Should we have random breakfast tests?

Or what about having emotions? "Oh shit, you pissed positive twice in a row for having your girlfriend break up with you recently, you might get distracted and break something. YOU'RE FIRED ASSHOLE!"

:roll:

Random drug testing is a logically-bankrupt solution for a problem that doesn't exist in the first place.

I give my employer access to my time and my skills. My body fluids are my own fucking business unless you're paying enough to warrant that intrusion on top of the work I do.

I wouldn't piss hot, but I'd never support random drug testing for any profession. If you're worried about liability, how about buying insurance instead of treating all your employees as suspects?

You're right. We shouldn't randomly drug test truck drivers or ship captains to attempt at preventing accidents like oil spills or massive collisions. We should just pay rediculous amounts of money for insurance that we wouldnt have to pay otherwise.

When you are at work you represent that company. If you mess up in the public eye they don't know your name personally but the public remembers the name of the company.

Your bodily fluids are your business unless they have the ability to tell if you are fit for duty or abusing chemical substances within a timeframe that could have an effect on your work safety.

That is fine when you start paying workers for not getting high 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Remember the last 128 hours of the week are at time and a half.

There goes that entitlement thing again. If you dont like it then you should start looking for work with another company. You are not entitled to a job anywhere and if you don't like getting paid the amount of money you are making under the terms of being drug tested then leave.

My company randomly tests. The people that are being randomly tested make about 80k on average. I know this isnt the case everywhere but the job is a safety sensitive position and the employees are on call 24x7.

If you don't like your company's drug testing policy please quit your job. The origin of this thread was the fact that a well paid employee was mad at the company for coming up hot in a piss test and not angry at himself even though he was told he would be tested again within 60 days.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: MadAmos

Yes where I work you can and will be sent home if you show signs of fatigue.
Also if you have any personal issue that has the potential to affect your mental state you are required to report yourself "unfit for duty" or if you suspect a co worker has a problem you report it, yes we have full time counselors available on site.
I am required to have a periodic psychiatric evaluation and interview with the company shrink.
All these things are at company expense and on company time, yes it is a good paying job and for me it is "enough" to justify this, but anyone who doesn't think so is welcome to work elsewhere.
As far as insurance how much insurance do you need when 10's of thousands of lives are potentially at risk of loosing their homes, property and even their lives?

Unless you're in the military, where you have accepted total and complete submission to authority in all aspects of your life in order to serve your country, I hope your wages are worth selling your entire life.