Welfare Drug Testing (NRR)
- Thread starter Rockadelic
- Start date
Brian said:Bon Vivant said:Brian said:FrankieMeltzer said:Brian said:but no let's go pass more laws that make it harder to do business and see unemployment go up even further.
Um, yeah, that's what's going on these days. Sure. You've got the zeitgeist all figured out.you're the one who decided to strawman like a muthafuckah and bring up some mythical workplace that is so unsafe but people were compelled to work there for some reason
It's not mythical. Especially not in this economy. Frankie brought up a great point about the coal mines in Kentucky. People cant' just "choose" not to work there. They need the money, they have to eat, they have families to support. The coal mine is the only game in town.is there something about this magical coal mine that prevents people from seeking employment outside of kentucky?
It's not that the coal mine is magical. It's that there is a lack of money. Gas costs money. Lodging costs money. Food costs money. Also, good luck getting time off to look for a job out of state. If you've never lived paycheck to paycheck, you should be thankful. Especially if you have a family to take care of.
Um, yeah, that's what's going on these days. Sure. You've got the zeitgeist all figured out.you're the one who decided to strawman like a muthafuckah and bring up some mythical workplace that is so unsafe but people were compelled to work there for some reason
It's not mythical. Especially not in this economy. Frankie brought up a great point about the coal mines in Kentucky. People cant' just "choose" not to work there. They need the money, they have to eat, they have families to support. The coal mine is the only game in town.is there something about this magical coal mine that prevents people from seeking employment outside of kentucky?
It's not that the coal mine is magical. It's that there is a lack of money. Gas costs money. Lodging costs money. Food costs money. Also, good luck getting time off to look for a job out of state. If you've never lived paycheck to paycheck, you should be thankful. Especially if you have a family to take care of.
Um, yeah, that's what's going on these days. Sure. You've got the zeitgeist all figured out.you're the one who decided to strawman like a muthafuckah and bring up some mythical workplace that is so unsafe but people were compelled to work there for some reason
It's not mythical. Especially not in this economy. Frankie brought up a great point about the coal mines in Kentucky. People cant' just "choose" not to work there. They need the money, they have to eat, they have families to support. The coal mine is the only game in town.is there something about this magical coal mine that prevents people from seeking employment outside of kentucky?
It's not that the coal mine that's magical. It's lack of money. Gas costs money. Lodging costs money. Food costs money. Also, good luck getting time off to look for a job out of state. If you've never lived paycheck to paycheck, you should be thankful. Especially if you have a family to take care of.living paycheck to paycheck = living outside of your means
Um, yeah, that's what's going on these days. Sure. You've got the zeitgeist all figured out.you're the one who decided to strawman like a muthafuckah and bring up some mythical workplace that is so unsafe but people were compelled to work there for some reason
It's not mythical. Especially not in this economy. Frankie brought up a great point about the coal mines in Kentucky. People cant' just "choose" not to work there. They need the money, they have to eat, they have families to support. The coal mine is the only game in town.is there something about this magical coal mine that prevents people from seeking employment outside of kentucky?
It's not that the coal mine that's magical. It's lack of money. Gas costs money. Lodging costs money. Food costs money. Also, good luck getting time off to look for a job out of state. If you've never lived paycheck to paycheck, you should be thankful. Especially if you have a family to take care of.living paycheck to paycheck = living outside of your means
I think he is doing performance art.
FrankieMeltzer said:Rockadelic said:FrankieMeltzer said:But if a little humiliation happens along the way, that's a bonus.
R*ch, you might work for a company that treats its employees well, but of course you're aware that there are many companies out there that behave very differently. There's a management trend out there that looks on employees as a necessary enemy. It's a growing trend, not a shrinking one.
By enemy you mean like these guys?
http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-storm-wash-state-port-damage-rr-144921214.html
It's good to see push back once in a while.
But yeah, an example like that invalidates my entire position. Obviously.
By the way, you didn't respond when I asked if you were being tested. I can only assume there's a management exemption.
Which makes me think the "safety" argument is not the real concern there.
My company tests pre-hire and has a "random" test protocol in place that is rarely used.
Thirty one years ago when I was hired at entry level I was tested......when they hire my replacement at a management level they will be tested too.
R*ch, you might work for a company that treats its employees well, but of course you're aware that there are many companies out there that behave very differently. There's a management trend out there that looks on employees as a necessary enemy. It's a growing trend, not a shrinking one.
By enemy you mean like these guys?
http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-storm-wash-state-port-damage-rr-144921214.html
It's good to see push back once in a while.
But yeah, an example like that invalidates my entire position. Obviously.
By the way, you didn't respond when I asked if you were being tested. I can only assume there's a management exemption.
Which makes me think the "safety" argument is not the real concern there.
My company tests pre-hire and has a "random" test protocol in place that is rarely used.
Thirty one years ago when I was hired at entry level I was tested......when they hire my replacement at a management level they will be tested too.
Rockadelic said:
...
BUT
In a scenario where a tragedy does happen at the workplace one of the first things that's gonna happen is the person who caused it is going to be tested to see if they are under the influence of something. The company is going to be sued as they have the deepest pockets. And the company is going to do everything in their power to minimize their liability. That's going to include terminating anyone who doesn't follow safety procedures, visually monitoring their employees for fatigue and alcohol use, and testing up front for drugs.
If it didn't benefit the big bad corporation in some monetary way they would not be spending the millions of dollars on drug testing that they do.....they are certainly not doing it to simply humiliate or insult the potential employee.
I would give the employer every right to ensure that workers come in sober and don't drink or do drugs on the job. If I apply for a job, I want to sell my time from 9-5 and the employer should have every right to make sure I'm not under the influence of anything and this shoud include prescription medication like Oxy.
BUT
Whatever I do on my own private time os none of my employers business. I don't think the employer should have the right to scan my body for traces of substances consumed outside of my work hours. Give me a breathalizer when I come in in the morning or when I come back from my lunch break, check if I smell of weed whatever you can do to see if I might be under the influence of whatever but whatever I did on Friday or Saturday night is none of your business. And to have some corporation tell me to go piss in a cup would just violate my dignity.
...
BUT
In a scenario where a tragedy does happen at the workplace one of the first things that's gonna happen is the person who caused it is going to be tested to see if they are under the influence of something. The company is going to be sued as they have the deepest pockets. And the company is going to do everything in their power to minimize their liability. That's going to include terminating anyone who doesn't follow safety procedures, visually monitoring their employees for fatigue and alcohol use, and testing up front for drugs.
If it didn't benefit the big bad corporation in some monetary way they would not be spending the millions of dollars on drug testing that they do.....they are certainly not doing it to simply humiliate or insult the potential employee.
I would give the employer every right to ensure that workers come in sober and don't drink or do drugs on the job. If I apply for a job, I want to sell my time from 9-5 and the employer should have every right to make sure I'm not under the influence of anything and this shoud include prescription medication like Oxy.
BUT
Whatever I do on my own private time os none of my employers business. I don't think the employer should have the right to scan my body for traces of substances consumed outside of my work hours. Give me a breathalizer when I come in in the morning or when I come back from my lunch break, check if I smell of weed whatever you can do to see if I might be under the influence of whatever but whatever I did on Friday or Saturday night is none of your business. And to have some corporation tell me to go piss in a cup would just violate my dignity.
Rockadelic said:FrankieMeltzer said:Rockadelic said:FrankieMeltzer said:But if a little humiliation happens along the way, that's a bonus.
R*ch, you might work for a company that treats its employees well, but of course you're aware that there are many companies out there that behave very differently. There's a management trend out there that looks on employees as a necessary enemy. It's a growing trend, not a shrinking one.
By enemy you mean like these guys?
http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-storm-wash-state-port-damage-rr-144921214.html
It's good to see push back once in a while.
But yeah, an example like that invalidates my entire position. Obviously.
By the way, you didn't respond when I asked if you were being tested. I can only assume there's a management exemption.
Which makes me think the "safety" argument is not the real concern there.
My company tests pre-hire and has a "random" test protocol in place that is rarely used.
Thirty one years ago when I was hired at entry level I was tested......when they hire my replacement at a management level they will be tested too.did you have the hair back then
R*ch, you might work for a company that treats its employees well, but of course you're aware that there are many companies out there that behave very differently. There's a management trend out there that looks on employees as a necessary enemy. It's a growing trend, not a shrinking one.
By enemy you mean like these guys?
http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-storm-wash-state-port-damage-rr-144921214.html
It's good to see push back once in a while.
But yeah, an example like that invalidates my entire position. Obviously.
By the way, you didn't respond when I asked if you were being tested. I can only assume there's a management exemption.
Which makes me think the "safety" argument is not the real concern there.
My company tests pre-hire and has a "random" test protocol in place that is rarely used.
Thirty one years ago when I was hired at entry level I was tested......when they hire my replacement at a management level they will be tested too.did you have the hair back then
Um, yeah, that's what's going on these days. Sure. You've got the zeitgeist all figured out.you're the one who decided to strawman like a muthafuckah and bring up some mythical workplace that is so unsafe but people were compelled to work there for some reason
It's not mythical. Especially not in this economy. Frankie brought up a great point about the coal mines in Kentucky. People cant' just "choose" not to work there. They need the money, they have to eat, they have families to support. The coal mine is the only game in town.is there something about this magical coal mine that prevents people from seeking employment outside of kentucky?
It's not that the coal mine that's magical. It's lack of money. Gas costs money. Lodging costs money. Food costs money. Also, good luck getting time off to look for a job out of state. If you've never lived paycheck to paycheck, you should be thankful. Especially if you have a family to take care of.living paycheck to paycheck = living outside of your means
oh good lord...go fuck yourself with that insightful statement.
Brian said:Rockadelic said:FrankieMeltzer said:Rockadelic said:FrankieMeltzer said:But if a little humiliation happens along the way, that's a bonus.
R*ch, you might work for a company that treats its employees well, but of course you're aware that there are many companies out there that behave very differently. There's a management trend out there that looks on employees as a necessary enemy. It's a growing trend, not a shrinking one.
By enemy you mean like these guys?
http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-storm-wash-state-port-damage-rr-144921214.html
It's good to see push back once in a while.
But yeah, an example like that invalidates my entire position. Obviously.
By the way, you didn't respond when I asked if you were being tested. I can only assume there's a management exemption.
Which makes me think the "safety" argument is not the real concern there.
My company tests pre-hire and has a "random" test protocol in place that is rarely used.
Thirty one years ago when I was hired at entry level I was tested......when they hire my replacement at a management level they will be tested too.did you have the hair back then
Good question....
I cut my hair for the first time in 10 years just before my interview.
After I was hired I asked if it would have changed their decision if I had long hair.
They said it wouldn't have.
I know better.
R*ch, you might work for a company that treats its employees well, but of course you're aware that there are many companies out there that behave very differently. There's a management trend out there that looks on employees as a necessary enemy. It's a growing trend, not a shrinking one.
By enemy you mean like these guys?
http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-storm-wash-state-port-damage-rr-144921214.html
It's good to see push back once in a while.
But yeah, an example like that invalidates my entire position. Obviously.
By the way, you didn't respond when I asked if you were being tested. I can only assume there's a management exemption.
Which makes me think the "safety" argument is not the real concern there.
My company tests pre-hire and has a "random" test protocol in place that is rarely used.
Thirty one years ago when I was hired at entry level I was tested......when they hire my replacement at a management level they will be tested too.did you have the hair back then
Good question....
I cut my hair for the first time in 10 years just before my interview.
After I was hired I asked if it would have changed their decision if I had long hair.
They said it wouldn't have.
I know better.
batmon said
o u feel like a criminal when u go thru an airport check?
Not like a criminal but I unexpectedly felt quite violated the other week after going through one of those new body scanners when this security dude juggled my nutsack like a pair of Chinese medicine balls... first time I got this special treatment, I guess the novelty will eventually wear off.
o u feel like a criminal when u go thru an airport check?Not like a criminal but I unexpectedly felt quite violated the other week after going through one of those new body scanners when this security dude juggled my nutsack like a pair of Chinese medicine balls... first time I got this special treatment, I guess the novelty will eventually wear off.
Let's talk some real talk.
In a time when Companies/Corporations are cutting every economic corner they are not spending money drug testing potential employees just for the hell of it or for any nefarious reasons.
They are doing it because their lawyers are telling them the expense justifies the potential liabilities.
Everyone applying for that job not only knows they will be tested, they know when the test will take place.
If you smoke weed, have a weeks notice and test positive on a drug screen you are either an idiot or you can't go a few days without getting stoned(or you just don't want the job).
Personally I wouldn't hire you, not because you smoke weed, but because of one of the three above reasons.
If you use other drugs besides weed there is no question you will be viewed as a liability...by ANYONE.
In a time when Companies/Corporations are cutting every economic corner they are not spending money drug testing potential employees just for the hell of it or for any nefarious reasons.
They are doing it because their lawyers are telling them the expense justifies the potential liabilities.
Everyone applying for that job not only knows they will be tested, they know when the test will take place.
If you smoke weed, have a weeks notice and test positive on a drug screen you are either an idiot or you can't go a few days without getting stoned(or you just don't want the job).
Personally I wouldn't hire you, not because you smoke weed, but because of one of the three above reasons.
If you use other drugs besides weed there is no question you will be viewed as a liability...by ANYONE.
Rockadelic said:Let's talk some real talk.
In a time when Companies/Corporations are cutting every economic corner they are not spending money drug testing potential employees just for the hell of it or for any nefarious reasons.
They are doing it because their lawyers are telling them the expense justifies the potential liabilities.
It's well proven that drug testing in large companies saves money - a lot of it.
Google "drug testing insurance premiums" or some variation thereof and see what you find.
I don't see how a publicly traded company can get around it at this point.
The idea that companies do it "because they can" is naive at best.
In a time when Companies/Corporations are cutting every economic corner they are not spending money drug testing potential employees just for the hell of it or for any nefarious reasons.
They are doing it because their lawyers are telling them the expense justifies the potential liabilities.
It's well proven that drug testing in large companies saves money - a lot of it.
Google "drug testing insurance premiums" or some variation thereof and see what you find.
I don't see how a publicly traded company can get around it at this point.
The idea that companies do it "because they can" is naive at best.
FrankieMeltzer said:
If the test isn't being used on a regular basis I'm still skeptical about the safety rationale. And it makes the argument about limiting liability weak, also.
The random drug testing is used, just not very often.
At my place If you work in a position where safety and liability is a big issue you have been tested every 24-36 months.
If a manager has reason to suspect you are drinking or using on the job they can send you out to be tested that day.
Based on conversations with my HR folks I'd say that about 33% of all applicants don't pass either the background or drug test phase.
It's more of a preventive measure than a curative one.
If the test isn't being used on a regular basis I'm still skeptical about the safety rationale. And it makes the argument about limiting liability weak, also.
The random drug testing is used, just not very often.
At my place If you work in a position where safety and liability is a big issue you have been tested every 24-36 months.
If a manager has reason to suspect you are drinking or using on the job they can send you out to be tested that day.
Based on conversations with my HR folks I'd say that about 33% of all applicants don't pass either the background or drug test phase.
It's more of a preventive measure than a curative one.
I work for one of , if not the biggest corporations in the world in the field I work in...their employee numbers are in the 6-digits, pretty big. I have no illusions about my employer, I know they don't care about me, I know the moment my position/department somehow effects the bottom line in a negative way, Im gone...regardless of how well I do my job. I also know the corporation I work for does a lot of shady, illegal shit as far as laws pertaining to the regulation and oversight of my field. My job requires drug testing. I have only been tested once in my 3 years there and I cheated on it in order to pass. I do not feel bad about cheating this company, at all. I would go get another job but that is a difficult thing to do right now obviously and my supervisors like me and they think I do a great job...for them, the human beings I personally know and have to work with everyday, I will work and do the best job I can do, but as far as the corporation as a whole, I could care less about lying to some monkey in a suit at corporate. Ive been told I should whistleblow the shady shit I know, but that would mean our facility being shut down, which would mean 100s of people would lose their job, so I don't. So I just work, take their money and refuse to let them dictate how I live my life...so if another drug test comes my way, I will cheat like a motherfucker again to pass it. As soon as a better job comes along, I will take it, but right now the pay is fine and the time off is ample, so I stay. But fuck 'em. I don't owe them anything. I give my time, they give me money...I refuse to feel "privileged" that they let me work for them, I refuse to be "thankful" or feel "lucky" they give me a check every 2 weeks...why should I?
Brian said:if performance art = advocating personal responsibility then yes, i am a fucking artist supreme
Making statements that "living paycheck to paycheck = living outside one's means" is not advocating personal responsibility, IMO. We can disagree on agreeing, it's cool.
Making statements that "living paycheck to paycheck = living outside one's means" is not advocating personal responsibility, IMO. We can disagree on agreeing, it's cool.
jjfad027 said:I haven't taken a drug test in 10 years but I remember them being quite easy to pass
