[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Random Drug Testing (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 1/8/2003 12:27:54 AM EDT
|
When I arrived at work today, I was told my number had come up for a random drug test, so I had to drive down to the clinic and pee in a bottle. My job is considered "safety sensitive," and random drug testing is mandatory due to a federal law that affects transportation workers, i.e. airlines, railroads, public transit, etc. IMHO, I don't mind the testing, because I don't want to have my life endangered by a druggie on the job. I knew several guys who got fired for failing a random drug test, and there is no second chance. When you're gone, you're gone, and neither the company nor the union wants you back. So what do you guys think about random drug testing? Good idea or invasion of privacy? |
|
I work in the health care industry. I wish they would conduct more random drug screening. I'd hate for one of the kids to end up with an improper med. dosage due to a fellow paramedic or nurse not being properly focused. Sometimes you have to act quickly in the ER - so everyone needs to be sharp and on their toes! |
|
Bring it. I don't care for drugs (whiskey excepted). Every person I know who use illegal let it effect things in a negative way. My friend with his leg broken in three places is a great example. At work, I would hate to get smooshed 'cause somebody wasn't paying attention. |
|
I work at a hospital pharmacy. Seems people in our department get "randomly" selected for drug tests fairly often. They even make us take a breathalizer test. I have no problems with it. USPC40 [img]photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=476[/img] [url=www.nra.org][b][red]NRA[/red][/url] [url=www.nra.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][b][red]GOA[/red] [/url] [url=www.gunowners.org][blue]Life Member[/blue][/url] [url=www.saf.org][red]SAF[/red][/url] [url=www.saf.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][red]SAS[/red][/url] [url=sas-aim.org][blue]Supporter[/blue][/b][/url] |
|
I'm for it. That being said,many years ago I knew several people in management positions that did drugs and somehow never had to take the test (yes I was one of them). Those days are long gone for me. Through the years I've seen a lot of lives get ruined from drugs and have I have become an Anti on this subject. I own a construction company and I wont have a drug user or a drunk work for me. If a guy smokes a joint on vacation or gets drunk on a special occasion it's a different situation than a guy who gets high or drunk the night before work. |
|
Unfortunately, It's a necessary evil in some cases. However, If someone is under the influence at work and performing poorly, someone would take notice before long. But, say, if you show up to work sober, pickup a loaded semi and drive all day without supervision/human contact...you could definately get away with smoking dope on the job...not a good thing....of course, you could be drinking liquor under the same circumstances, which I think would be worse, and never get caught by a pee test.... or maybe Im full of shit? -HS |
|
Quoted: I work in the health care industry. I wish they would conduct more random drug screening. I'd hate for one of the kids to end up with an improper med. dosage due to a fellow paramedic or nurse not being properly focused. Sometimes you have to act quickly in the ER - so everyone needs to be sharp and on their toes! Not to be picky, however, since I'm in healthcare as well, doctors aren't immune to addiction, as in any profession. Long hours (ridiculous residency hours mostly contribute to this), phase shift problems, access and knowledge, among others contribute to a higher than expected rate of physician dependency. |
|
Anyone considering submitting to random drug testing should read this book as the false positive rate on urinalisis was not too encouraging to begin with and has gotten worse w/ the passing of time. [img]http://lookinside-images.amazon.com/Qffs+v35leolzEser5454uKLIRTJAnOH3AFcRLpwCgPfzqxAfdVIoYagO1h90XlbZ4xEaMUPUXM=[/img] Mike |
|
If it doesn't affect their job performance, then I don't see what the problem is. However, if they're going to be testing for drug use, they should test for alcohol also. More people are killed by drunk drivers than people smoking weed. Personally, I'm not a big fan of either. Especially alcohol. Why someone would want to wake up the next morning trying to figure out how they got ran over by a mack truck and where that cat went that took a dump in their mouth I'll never understand. |
|
Don't have an issue with preventing drug use on the job, but random testing could have some major pit falls. Having worked as a lab tech doing the tests, we used 90 test tube racks. The tubes were labeled and you used a pasteur pipet to insert the samples into the reagent. One missed drop and you get the samples mixed. I had a friend who failed the test and was promptly fired with loss of benifits after five years on the job. He was not a drug user and appealed to his work place. No dice, it's the policy. Knowing my background, he asked my opinion. I promptly told him to contact his attourney, retest, and have the attourney submit the results. He tested negative and got his job back. The company found that the service they retained had a 5% error rate and hired a new company. Meanwhile, my friend was out one weeks work, $600 out of his pocket, and almost had his reputation ruined. Do you really like the idea of having your future in the hands of a young minimal paid lab tech or a company that does thousands of these tests? |
|
I don't have any problem with the concept, especially since employers are required to notify you before employment. I work in law enforcement, and think that we ought to be tested. I do have problem with the application, though. Locally, the program is run poorly. I got called in for a random alcohol screening. Makes sense to do this; you want to make sure employees aren't showing up at work drunk and driving government vehicles while intoxicated or impaired. The problem was that it was on my day off (HR forgot that cops typically work weekends, and my "weekend" was during the middle of the normal week). Where is the sense in that? Drug screens are mandatory for accidents as well. I had to wait four hours at the ER once for the drug screen guy to get paged out. What kind of accident was I in? Somebody I arrested had and old cut on his hand that opened up, and he got a drop of blood on my arm. Blood exposures are an occupational hazard, and six cops across the country died last year of infectious diseases they got at work. I had to go the hospital to get a baseline blood screen for diseases, but having drug screen at the same time didn't make any sense. The worst case was one of my supervisors. Off-duty, he was doing a motorcycle escort and got into a bad wreck, shattering his collarbone. He was out for several months recovering and on light duty. On his second night back on full duty, he stopped a DWI suspect. He was getting out of his patrol car when the drunk backed into him. The car door slammed on him, breaking his collarbone again. The HR folks decided to treat the incident as an "accident" even though he was not operating the vehicle at the time and it technically was not motor vehicle collision that the officer was involved in. It took several hours for the urinalysis guy to show up. Until the urinalysis guy showed up, they would not allow the supervisor to have any painkillers, and he was in some severe pain. What a load of crap. |
|
Quoted: If it doesn't affect their job performance, then I don't see what the problem is. However, if they're going to be testing for drug use, they should test for alcohol also. More people are killed by drunk drivers than people smoking weed. Personally, I'm not a big fan of either. Especially alcohol. Why someone would want to wake up the next morning trying to figure out how they got ran over by a mack truck and where that cat went that took a dump in their mouth I'll never understand. Alcohol is relatively easy to detect. How do you know if someone had MJ 10 minutes ago? Or Cocaine? Or Meth? You probably don't unless they are SKY high. Not to mention prescription meds. Also when they test peoples blood for THC, they will get a number back. It means next to nothing, unless you are only interested in whether there is evidnce of MJ use yes/no. Mr-Wilson I'm sure that the hippie turned author writes a very compelling book. Do you suppose he had an axe to grind, in writing that book? Lots of people can write about lots of things, and sound very logical and well reasoned. That doesn't mean they are. |
|
Any kind of product that makes you unsafe is bad at work Pot,alchol,cold meds,pain killers, ect . If you have an accident here we send you for a sample. Random drug is bullshit, if you look stone your boss should be allowed to send you for a sample. I have nothing to hide but I will not do the randon testing. For just cause hell yes but random never. |
|
... For years we had random tests and from time to time they'd snag someone. Personally, the only thing that spooks me are the horror stories we've all heard about false positives. ... Ironically, a small group of ex-military folks on site lobbied hard against the invasion of privacy and actually had the policy overturned for our facility, setting a precedence in the Defense Contractor industry. We now only perform the Whiz-Quiz "for cause". ... New hires still need to prove their innocence. |
| We are subject to it.......it is o-k in the respect that it can provide evidence for dismissal.....if there IS a undesirable employee.......It is`nt a problem for me personally......BUT...I do feel it is a infringement of personal rights.......for one thing....it is only singeling out the drivers......as far as the actual drug culture....they are untouched.....and the daily use of alchohol goes on and on.....if the person does not posses a cdl he`s out......the facility is only concerned with complying with the federal mandate........no big deal actually...but a pain in the ass...they DID wash out one "bad egg"....which was a good thing ....so??? |
|
It sure would make parenting in this country a lot easier if the government could start instituting this in the schools, "it takes a village", right?. The earlier we can teach people that rights are really only privileges earned by blindly following the direction of their superiors, the better off this country will be. There are lobbying groups that want to start urinalysis programs for third graders, and why not? If you get kids used to something early, they generally will begin to accept it as a fact of life - they become much easier to deal with, their minds more malleable. And this 5% false hit rate be damned - if I'm a manager and I can be 95% sure that my people aren't smoking dope on the weekends then it's worth the prospect of ruining a few people's careers forever as long as I don't have to deal them and their problems face-to-face. Sure, sure, a few dopers might be able to sneak by the immuno-essay machine's keen eye - but what do I care? This isn't about saving people's lives - it's about keeping the insurance companies happy. |
|
i don't have a problem with an initial for hire screen. I do have a problem with random checks without cuase after that. I also have a problem with having to be retested as a vendor. For example with ibm i had 6 piss tests and 3 hair tests done within a 4 week period last year for various accounts. There is no reason they should not have been abale to accept the first one. None of these were for high security or high risk positions. In this case i feel it WAS an invasion of privacy. |
|
from OLY: [b]Mr-Wilson I'm sure that the hippie turned author writes a very compelling book. Do you suppose he had an axe to grind, in writing that book? Lots of people can write about lots of things, and sound very logical and well reasoned. That doesn't mean they are.[/b] Abbie for certain had an axe to grind, as the quintessential anti-estabishment guru of the 60s and 70s he most certainly felt that drug testing was a violation of our 4th ammendment rights. I tend to agree w/ him (you'll note I made no personal comments as to my position earlier, if I'm operating machinery on which others lives depend then I think there's a necessity for drug testing, however random is a different story IMHO). The book shown provides the reader with details of false positives and ways to circumvent drug testing procedures...... these things work as I have been tested on several occasions and NEVER have they gotten my urine, they have always gotten clean urine, which was what they wanted in the first place. No-one violates my civil rights without my not fighting back and BTW I don't operate anything heavier than this keyboard or my calculator so if I'm stoned, drunk or whatever [b]ON MY OWN TIME[/b] it's nobody's business but my own. The book shown above will empower others with the knowledge to do the same, that is, to make your own choice of how best to deal with this issue, which was the reason for my post to begin with. Hope this help ya, which is my principle reason for posting to begin with, knowledge is power, use it or lose it, Mike |
|
Quoted: No-one violates my civil rights without my not fighting back and BTW I don't operate anything heavier than this keyboard or my calculator so if I'm stoned, drunk or whatever [b]ON MY OWN TIME[/b] it's nobody's business but my own. Go and shout it from the mountain top my brother! |
| My dad's company does random drug testing.. I had to piss in a cup monday morning.. doesn't bother me any.. but to be funny I have a sticker on my hardhat that says "Drug tests Piss me off" [:D] I've seen many people get fired for being drunk or on drugs and knew a few of them personally.. their loss |
|
The Constitution protects you from governmental intrusion. It doesn't protect you from another citizen, neighbor, employer etc. "They never got my unrine". Wow we carry around other people's urine? I'm sure that isn't because of addiction. Technically if you are under the influence at work, it's not your time, you sold that time to your employer. As far as testing, I would think the first thing to do after a positive test, esp for THC, would be to re-test another sample. |
| the last seven years i have been subject to random hair testing in a company with around 1000 employees (steel mill) i have been picked TWICE and have known of only one false positive and he was tested again (always tested twice if positive) and got his job back with back pay. it's a dangerous job and you dont want a crank head flying a 80-100 ton ladle full of molten steel over head when your on the ground. neccesary evil, yes. |
|
I was supposed to put URINE in the cup? Oh, man... Seriously, my small engineering company has no such provisions, but when we go into various plants and facilities to work, we are technically subject to their rules. If they ask one of my guys to pee in a cup, he can either do it or leave the site, basically. There have been places where I have wanted to leave a stool sample on the front door, though. |
|
A valid drug test I don't have a problem with. Now the stupid tests that are used I have a problem with. What difference does it make if I smoked some pot last weekend, that does not affect my job ability today by any means. That would be like having a beer on Saturday night but it shows up on a alcohol test Monday morning. But I think people in the transportation industry, politics, and law enforcement should be tested quite often. |
|
I'm shocked. I can't believe you guys. You want your second amendment rights protected, you don't want someone coming into your house without a [i]legitimate[/i] warrant, but you would let someone take a bodily fluid from you. I have never used an illegal substance in my life, and don't even drink, but I DO NOT SUPPORT HAVING YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY VIOLATED by the gov't or private industry. I didn't think my (clean) blood would be boiling on my 1000th post![:)] [b]GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT[/b] - what a great concept. Almost as good as the traffic ticket; Give me your driver's license or pay up! Used to be, in some states, they give you the ticket with a court date or the address to send in your money if you didn't want to contest and that was it. My how things have changed. That said, I believe a private company employee, or gov't employee could be subject to a test IF there is EVIDENCE that he is using. Nobody wants drug abusers working in especially sensitive jobs. |
|
The drug testing policy at my company has been changed over the years, while maintaining compliance with federal law. For example, they used to take one sample and only do a retest if it came back positive, then they changed the procedure to split the samples if the person being tested asked for it, and now they always split the samples and send them to two separate labs. If both come back positive, you're SOL. If one comes back positive and the other negative, you go back for a retest. Current procedure eliminates people getting fired for false positives. natez, I agree that what happened to your supervisor was BS. At my company the policy used to be to always send anyone involved in an "accident" for a 10-58 (drug/alcohol screen), but now it's up to the supervisor's discretion. If I get hit up for a random test, it can be either a drug screen, or a drug and alcohol screen. I've been randomly tested maybe eight or ten times, but always for drugs, never for alcohol. The "alcohol" box is always unchecked on the form. They leave it up to the supervisor to determine if he thinks the one being tested has been drinking. I've only seen one guy fired for drinking on the job. He worked third shift and couldn't restrain himself from drinking at home in the evenings before he went to work. They gave him a few chances but he failed. One more thing, the company has an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and if an employee goes to them and admits he has a drug or alcohol problem, they'll work with him/her to get rehab, and they can keep their job. But, if you get busted on a drug/alcohol test before going to EAP, you're out the door. |
|
I have a good one for you. A guy at work was sent for a random drug test a few years ago. He tested positive for a trace amount of opiates. The lab doctor called the guy at home and asked if he had eaten anything with poppy seeds recently. The guy said no. The doctor asked him to make sure. He said to look around the kitchen to make sure he didn't have any bread or anything else with poppy seeds. The guy still said no. So the lab informed the company and the guy was fired. A few days later the guy says he had been mistaken. He found a loaf of bread that had poppy seeds on it, and says he wants to come back to work. But by now the ball has already started rolling. He came back to work after missing about a week. He wanted back pay but the company took the position that he had been given a chance to come clean about the poppy seeds and he blew it, so he did not get back pay, but he got his job back. Fast forward to 2001, the same guy gets sent for a random drug screen. This time he tested positive for codeine. The lab doctor again called him at home and asked if he was on any prescription medication with codeine in it. The guy says no. He gets fired (again). So then the guy changes his story and says he is on medication with codeine in it. He arranges a meeting with my manager and brings the medication for proof. Small problem... the prescription was written to his mother, not him, so he had been taking a medication not prescribed to him. Bad news. That's a no-no. Not only that, the company requires employees taking any medication that might be detrimental to work performance to inform the company. No big deal, just show the supervisor where it says on the bottle "do not operate heavy machinery," "may cause drowsiness," etc. So the guy was taking medication not prescribed to him and had not informed the company that he was taking it. He was fired and this time he didn't get his job back. Would it make a difference if I mentioned at this point that the guy was from Iran? He was a dyed-in-the-wool Muslim, and I had differences with him in the past, before 9/11. After 9/11 he pissed off a bunch of people by trying to justify terrorism. I say good riddance. |
|
Well, I think that drug testing to a point is a good thing for certain jobs, like LEOs, pilots, ATC, FF, truck drivers, and so on. However, testing Joe who-ever who sits at a desk all day or works the register at target shouldn't be tested. Say Joe sits home on the weekend and smokes a bag of grass. Then, all week, he works all day and comes home and goes to sleep. He performs his job beyond expectations. But, since a company makes joe take a test, he gets fired. I don't support that at all. The way I look at it, what you do on your own time is your own thing, not your employers. My .02 |
| i have worked for companies that you had to sign a waiver agreeing to a random drug test if requested but had no policy in place. i also worked for a company that started testing out of the blue, fired a bunch of people and had to pay a shit load of money to former employees for wrongful dismissal.all of us mgrs. got to put in alot of ot to cover for missing people.. i have been tested hundreds of times and never had a false posi. i don't do drugs and i don't like working with people that do.. now i work with people i give drugs to;patients.we nurses count all meds in our units befor and after our shift cross ref. with amout disp. walla no missing drugs,but we still get tested for other drugs and the ones we are responsible for....im clean are you? |
|
Quoted: so if I'm stoned, drunk or whatever [b]ON MY OWN TIME[/b] it's nobody's business but my own. Ditto! I can't believe how many of y'all are for random drug testing or simply don't care.....wait until employers start testing your hands for gun powder residue or telling you that you can't have guns if you work for them....simply put if you are off the clock you are off the clock and what you do in your own home is YOUR business......Being able to destort your brain is your right as long as you don't bother me |
|
Screw that. Random or voluntary. You submit to this today, tomorrow they will start shoving an endoscope up your rear to check for drugs. Who knows, you marys just might enjoy that. They tried to pull this random crap on me once before and I told them NO!. The so called computerized random sampling group was suppose to be 25 percent of 500+ personnel. It turned out to be biased like a mofo. It was pretty obvious to those who ended up submitting to this crap that the process was far from random. The entire personnel group of 15 from my office ended up being pick for a drug test, all within the span of 3 days. Random huh? I guess it is statistically possible. Yeah right! The outcome of my protest... they backed off and have left me alone ever since. I have to mention that I work around a bunch of chicken $hit managers and I am in a positon to tell them to shove it. Ever since then, I am a hero to some and dispised by others. My feelings about this... it is nice to know where they all stand. Now... where did I put that doobie? |
|
i think that the only thing i HAVE to do for my job is to do the best that i can,remain current, and show up unimpaired for the days work. testing, in no way,manner,shape,or form.....shows a level of IMPAIRMENT. all that testing does is to show that you have trace residuals of detectable amounts of the targetted substances. pot can stay in your system up to 30 days. you go on vacation and get stoned, two weeks later you do the random thing at work and you might just not have a job anymore,even though you are long past when you were "under the influence". as long as i show up unimpaired, how ever wrecked i got, ON MY OWN TIME,is none of anyone elses business. i also think that that you shouldn't be COMPELLED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE AGAINST YOURSELF. yet providing a piss or hair sample does just that. if they had an "impairment test", i might not have a problem with that as that is your obligation to be unimpaired on the job. there's a time and place for everything. i ,on occasion, still enjoy a little happy stick, but i know to be squared away to meet my obligations in life. |
|
We just started a random policy last year. In the meeting we went over the numbers. A person could have up to 2 beers right before work and pass the test. A person could smoke weed 3 weeks prior and fail the test. The point brought up was that one is illegal(pot) and one isn't(alcohol). I thought the issue was being under the influence not being illegal. Illegal on company time or property is one thing, Labor Day weekend at a party is another. Now all of a sudden the employer is policing what we can do on our off hours? Gee, I can't see this getting out of control. I'm sure that the govt/insurance cos/industry would never adapt the "give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile" philosophy. Besides the random, you've got reasonable suspicion"your eyes are bloodshot, go get tested", and when accidents occur. If they suspect you're on drugs, you go get tested. Let's see, you think that I'm too high to work, so you have me get in my car, and drive to the testing facility. But, I clocked out first, so you're in the clear. Yes, your honor, I was told that if I didn't leave work immediately and get tested, I'd be fired. As far as the test itself, they should develop a test that says whether you're under the influence, not whether there's a trace in your body from weeks ago. I base this strictly on the fact that they're trying to give employers the ability to act as police, when it's not their job. They're giving my boss the ability to conduct a criminal investigation for a crime that can't be proven that occurred on his time/property. In other words, it's none of his damn business. Neither is my choice of religion, my 2nd amend rights, what I watch on t.v., or any other hang-ups that he(or the govt) may not agree with. As long as I show up to work ,do my job, and I'm straight while I'm there; that's all that should concern him. Don't expect to pay me for 8 and control me for 24. Well, enough of that long-assed rant. No, I don't want to work along side people that are wasted. I have a CDL, so I've been getting tested for years. I just got got tested twice in one week! Once for the CDL, once for getting hurt at work. I told my boss that I didn't agree with the policy because it seemed more like a test of illegal activity as opposed to under-the-influence activity. That being said, I told him that if we're going to do it, do it right. Test EACH one of us EVERY morning. He said that would be too expensive. I said that you can't put a price on safety, and isn't that what this is all about? He didn't see the humor. |
|
In my opinion marijuana should be legalized buts that just my opinion. Oh, I do not smoke dope or use any other illegal drug, multiple urine tests with attest to that. The problem with urinalysis fro MJ is that it doesn't matter if you are straight right then or not. A night at the Jimmy Buffet concert and you will show positive in the AM with out a sinlge toke on your part. Thats like getting busted for the cocaine residue on the $20 bill in your wallet. Treat it like alcohol, if there is an incident that might have been cause/exaggerated by it then test, otherwise leave it alone. |
|
So what do you guys think about random drug testing? Good idea or invasion of privacy? It is a great American scam, promoted by people who used to be in government but figured out how to get hugely wealthy through the drug hysteria. The first question is whether it actually does what it attempts to do -- reduce problems with drug abuse at work. The answer to that is probably no. That is, there isn't any clear evidence that it does, and there is some evidence that companies that do drug testing have lower productivity than companies that don't. (The most likely explanation for that is simply that they get less valuable employees because anyone with any mind of their own is probably going to object to having someone want their urine. You also have to ask serious questions about any company where the management is so terrible that they can't tell when an employee is too impaired to work.) Why wouldn't it work? The first reason is that by far the majority of drug-related problems on the job are related to one specific drug -- alcohol. Unfortunately, alcohol is not likely to be detected because it passes out of the system so quickly. You can speed the weekend blitzed on alcohol and be in no shape to drive a forklift on Monday morning, but you will still test clean. Likewise with heroin, meth, LSD, etc. The only drug that stays in the body for very long is marijuana which, oddly enough, is the drug that causes the least problems. If someone smoked a joint a week ago, they may very well test positive, even though (at that point) it has no more effect on their behavior than drinking a glass of beer a week ago. If you want to have your fun and still test clean then the message is clear -- stick to the really nasty drugs. I can understand everyone's sentiments in wanting to keep the work place safe, but drug testing is like stamping your feet to keep the tigers away. It's a fraud and always has been. And that's not to mention the problems with false positives. (Don't tell me it was a false positive. That's what all you druggies say.) And it is not to mention all the problems they have had with labs not even doing the tests and just making up the results. One friend of mine recently took a drug test for a new job and, shortly after, received a call from the lab. They had detected THC and something else they said (they didn't say what the "something else" was) but that they would do my friend a favor and give him another test if he would show up with 150 bucks. I told my friend to make a complaint to the employer and have the lab fired from doing business with them but, with the current hysteria, that probably won't affect their ability to get business. If you want to avoid a drug test (just because it is pretty insulting to have someone demand that you produce urine) tell them that it is against your religion. According to your minister, it is sinful to distribute your bodily fluids except in cases of legitimate medical need -- and drug testing isn't a legitimate medical need. If they then ask you "What religion is that?" they have already violated the law. If they refuse you employment because of your religious beliefs then they have also violated the law. Note: If they ask you to sign a paper agreeing to a drug test at the time of the application, just tell them that you signed it before you talked to your minister. By the time they call you back, they are offering you the job subject only to the drug test, so the only issue remaining is the drug test versus your religion. If they then deny you employment, get a lawyer and live off of what you will win. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: so if I'm stoned, drunk or whatever [b]ON MY OWN TIME[/b] it's nobody's business but my own. Ditto! I can't believe how many of y'all are for random drug testing or simply don't care.....wait until employers start testing your hands for gun powder residue or telling you that you can't have guns if you work for them....simply put if you are off the clock you are off the clock and what you do in your own home is YOUR business......Being able to destort your brain is your right as long as you don't bother me I agree here. Also, what scares the hell out of me is fear of getting a false positive. I'm clean and sobor, but they ain't gonna believe me if I get a false positive. If that happens, I'm screwed. |
|
If you don't want to take the drug test then quit. Your employer can't force you to do anything that you don't want to do, you always have the option of quitting. I don't understand the "I shouldn't have to do what my employer says for me to do" mentality. [red][i]Please pay no attention to this if you are in a union, it does not pertain to you[/i][/red] For example, I tell you to come over to my house and I'll give you $10. You come over, but I tell you before you can come in that you have to take your shoes off. Now, you have the option of taking off your shoes or leaving. I can't force you to take off your shoes but you can't force me to allow you to come in with them on. If you want the $10 you take your shoes off, if you don't then you are free to leave without the $10. [b]It really is that simple.[/b] |
|
Quoted: If you don't want to take the drug test then quit. Your employer can't force you to do anything that you don't want to do, you always have the option of quitting. I don't understand the "I shouldn't have to do what my employer says for me to do" mentality. [red][i]Please pay no attention to this if you are in a union, it does not pertain to you[/i][/red] Because the employer is my boss who hired me for eight hours a day. The employer is not my mother who is responsible for me 24 hours a day. As long as I show up able to do the job, what is the employer's beef? And, if he can't tell I am falling out of my chair drunk, then how lousy a manager is he? For example, I tell you to come over to my house and I'll give you $10. You come over, but I tell you before you can come in that you have to take your shoes off. Now, you have the option of taking off your shoes or leaving. I can't force you to take off your shoes but you can't force me to allow you to come in with them on. If you want the $10 you take your shoes off, if you don't then you are free to leave without the $10. [b]It really is that simple.[/b] No, it isn't. We are talking about employment here, where people actually earn a living, not some casual visit to someone else's house. And people should be protected from arbitrary and really meaningless barriers to them getting honest work. But, do you have any evidence that drug testing actually reduces drug-related problems on the job? I have asked a lot of people and no one has come up with any such evidence so far. |
|
then there's the guy who hurt his elbow and the MD wanted a urine sample. His wife had heard he was injures and met him at the hospital with their daughter and the family dog. The guy was so disgusted with having to give a UA for a sore elbow, he had his wife, daughter, and dog pee in the bottle and for good measure, he masturbated into it, shook it up and turned it in. The next day, the MD called and told him 1.Your puppy has worms. 2.Your daughter is pregnant. 3 Your wife has the clap. And 4. You ain't gonna get over that sore elbow if you keep jacking off. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: If you don't want to take the drug test then quit. Your employer can't force you to do anything that you don't want to do, you always have the option of quitting. I don't understand the "I shouldn't have to do what my employer says for me to do" mentality. [red][i]Please pay no attention to this if you are in a union, it does not pertain to you[/i][/red] Because the employer is my boss who hired me for eight hours a day. The employer is not my mother who is responsible for me 24 hours a day. As long as I show up able to do the job, what is the employer's beef? And, if he can't tell I am falling out of my chair drunk, then how lousy a manager is he? So, for eight hours a day you are technically an asset to your company just like a copy machine, something there to do work. For those eight hours a day you serve as an asset to your company, they do not want any drugs or alcohol in your system. If you can't abide by this rule then you should find another employer. Otherwise, keep drugs and alcohol out of your system while you are at work and if you do this then the drug test shouldn't be a problem. If you could go out and drink and do drugs on the weekend and have them completely out of your system by the time you go back to work then there wouldn't be a problem, but since you can't, either quit sparkin the L or look for another job. For example, I tell you to come over to my house and I'll give you $10. You come over, but I tell you before you can come in that you have to take your shoes off. Now, you have the option of taking off your shoes or leaving. I can't force you to take off your shoes but you can't force me to allow you to come in with them on. If you want the $10 you take your shoes off, if you don't then you are free to leave without the $10. [b]It really is that simple.[/b] No, it isn't. We are talking about employment here, where people actually earn a living, not some casual visit to someone else's house. And people should be protected from arbitrary and really meaningless barriers to them getting honest work. But, do you have any evidence that drug testing actually reduces drug-related problems on the job? I have asked a lot of people and no one has come up with any such evidence so far. That's what you aren't understanding, the evidence doesn't matter. Your employer has the right to make rules, and no matter how stupid you think they are, as long as it isn't illegal you are obligated to follow them or face the consequences. There are tons of jobs where workers are required to wear ties. Do you think that makes them safer or perform their job better? In reality it doesn't matter, they do it because their boss told them too, which is what this whole thing boils down to. You do what your boss says or you get fired. [b]Now, if you want my personal opinion on drug tests....I think they are fucking stupid. I've got friends that go out and smoke weed, snort all kinds of stuff and drink themselves into a stupor on the weekends, but come Monday morning they are just another normal productive member of society. They aren't crackheads, they're recreational drug users that really value their recreation. If you didn't know them well enough you would think they were just normal kids. I don't think that drug tests give much of an advantage to companies at all. I agree that your supervisor should be the one to decide if you are doing your job well or not. But I'm also of the mindset that if your boss tells you to do something that is not completely unreasonable or harmful, that you should do it, since you do work for them.[/b] |
|
Quoted: Then there are the people who lost their jobs because of false positives, lab screw-ups, etc. But that's not so funny. There are people who lose their job everyday for things that aren't their fault. I've seen guys get laid off because they made a bad impression on the wrong person when they first started and it later led to their demise later on even though it wasn't their fault. What do you suggest, banning firing people? |
|
My employer hasn't done random testing on us ... yet !! Probably because the stock is in the tank !! But screw them if they want to test us. It is no sweat to me but just a waste of money. BOTTOM LINE... IT'S A SAD DAY WHEN WE HAD TO RESORT TO RANDOM DRUG TESTING. MAKES ME THINK ABOUT GOING OUT & BLOW AWAY SOME DEALERS !!! |