Would you/do you submit to drug tests at work?

[1958Bassman]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

sure it can....state by state...BUT

i agree i am in the minority and it will be an uphill battle.

what will actually happen, is that as more and more states legalize, some kind of comprise will be reached or the testing companies will come up with a test such as i proposed and this all will become moot.

But, someone has the right to move to a place where it's legal. Whether they have the means is another matter. Forcing others to accept this change isn't based on a "right", it would be based on an opinion. If someone has a fundamental reason to not want drug users in their company, nobody should be able to force them to hire the people in question. If someone who uses drugs has a fundamental reason to refuse, they have the right to pursue employment elsewhere but this is a private venture screening something, not the government knocking on everybody's door to force people to submit to this test. THAT would be a problem.

FWIW, I think medicinal and industrial use for marijuana and hemp, respectively, should be allowed.

[Floyd Eye]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

yep, agree...but let's be consistent....

however you treat drinkers...that's how i want pot smokers treated.

Then you have a lot of work to do. It will be a hell of a lot harder than repealing prohibition so you better get after it. Personally, I have no issue with legalizing it. It doesn't mean enough to me to fight for it however.

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

Then you have a lot of work to do. It will be a hell of a lot harder than repealing prohibition so you better get after it. Personally, I have no issue with legalizing it. It doesn't mean enough to me to fight for it however.

amen, brother...it's already been a lot harder...and in place a lot longer than prohibition.

although i have hopes given that some states have started to move on it.

as far as ME getting on it...not on your life...i'm 57 now and have more important things to do with my life...maybe i'll just have the money to go to amsterdam sometime...

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

They have the right to seek employment elsewhere. Who gave you this stupid idea that your employer owes you anything other than the paycheck you earn? People don't start businesses because they feel the need to take care of whiners who feel that they are entitled to **** they didn't earn.

Uh, something called laws?

[1958Bassman]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

and that goes equally for drinkers as well as pot somokers...as i have said, i have not smoked pot in 20 years although i do have a beer several times a week.

smoking or drinking is not a right, but a privilige...at least drinking is right now...smoking pot is still a crime in most states.

i am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of treating drinkers (who use the more dangerous drug) differently from pot smokers (who use the less dangerous drug)

can YOU justify that distinction...besides using the red herring of "well, one is illegal and the other is not"...because we have already determined that laws can and do change and further, are sometimes made on very flimsy bases, not on anything that makes sense.

You're right- it's hard to treat drinkers the same, specifically because it IS legal. Do I think alcohol does much good, not anymore. Oh, sure, it has "helped ugly people get laid for hundreds of years", but it has ruined far too many lives. Wisconsin has a huge problem with repeat DUI offenders- some with 5-12 offenses. THEY'RE STILL OUT HERE! The courts and lawmakers don't have the balls to take much of a stand on this and the judges are too willing to slap them on the wrist and call it a day. I know people with more than one DUI, although I'm not aware that any repeated soon after the previous one. ALL of them would be considered 'alcoholic'. Friends, acquaintances, or not- I think they should have stopped drinking before the last time. They're "functional" alcoholics, but I have known some who lost just about everything.

[Unrepresented]

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

Wal-Mart is not a representative government. They don't owe you jack. If you agree to their terms and accept them upon employment, fine.

They do owe their workers certainly state and federally mandated things. In addition to that we should add legislation to protect workers privacy.

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

Otherwise go find somewhere else to work. I notice a lot of people bitching about Wal-Mart, yet they seem to have little trouble finding employees.

I only used the name because the post I was quoting used the name.

Yes, they have probably maintain relatively full payrolls. People need to put food on the table. North Korea has citizens too. That doesn't make them a particularly desirable place to be either.

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

Companies are not created simply because people need jobs and it is NOT any employer's job to hold your hand as you walk through life.

I'm arguing that my employer should be handling less parts of my body.

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

Half of you people sound like spoiled teenagers. Grow up and join the rest of us in the real world.

I live in the real world. I also realize there's room for improvement in the real world.

[Floyd Eye]

Originally Posted by fdeck

Uh, something called laws?

Please name one single applicable law.

[Floyd Eye]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

amen, brother...it's already been a lot harder...and in place a lot longer than prohibition.

although i have hopes given that some states have started to move on it.

as far as ME getting on it...not on your life...i'm 57 now and have more important things to do with my life...maybe i'll just have the money to go to amsterdam sometime...

My honeymoon was spent in Amsterdam and I have been there twice since. Everything they say about it is true.

[Floyd Eye]

Originally Posted by Unrepresented

They do owe their workers certainly state and federally mandated things. In addition to that we should add legislation to protect workers privacy.

I only used the name because the post I was quoting used the name.

Yes, they have probably maintain relatively full payrolls. People need to put food on the table. North Korea has citizens too. That doesn't make them a particularly desirable place to be either.

I'm arguing that my employer should be handling less parts of my body.

I live in the real world. I also realize there's room for improvement in the real world.

This isn't N. Korea. All you have to be is broke in this country and you will receive a free 2 year college education. In THIS country we are all responsible for our own situation. If you dislike the situation you're in, change it. Go to school, start your own business, go get a better job. No matter what you try to say here, not Wal-Mart or any other company in the US is forcing anyone to work for them and the only thing they owe you is whatever you agreed to when they hired you.

[1958Bassman]

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

but as far as drug testing of employers, insuring that they do not take risks etc...that's just BS

after all, if someone hadn't taken the risk of starting up the business you work for in the first place, there would not now be a job for you to have...WOULD THERE?

I think a company policy stating something should extend to all in management, too. That would be fair. There's already enough "Don't do as I do, do as I say" going on already.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

Please name one single applicable law.

Since you were asking a general question, I'll give a general answer: Labor laws. For instance an employee is generally regarded as having a right to a safe workplace, free of discrimination and harassment. They have a right to collect overtime pay. Etc. Most employers are proud to obey these laws. We are talking about a very small minority of employers, probably mom-and-pop businesses, who feel that these laws are objectionable.

I don't know the laws related to drug testing, and there might not be any statutes on the books, but I'm willing to bet that if your business screws up its drug testing program, you could face a substantial liability. Other methods of worker screening are regulated, such as polygraph testing. Some methods are considered to be suspect, such as asking an applicant if they have been arrested.

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

They have the right to seek employment elsewhere. Who gave you this stupid idea that your employer owes you anything other than the paycheck you earn? People don't start businesses because they feel the need to take care of whiners who feel that they are entitled to **** they didn't earn.

On the flip side, who's to say we owe our employers anything other than our skills during the hours we're set to work for them? Why do they deserve our urine to test for things we do on our own time? Can I get a sample of theirs so I better know what they're doing in their own free time so I know if I want to work for them?

Originally Posted by Lonesomedave

yep, agree...but let's be consistent....

however you treat drinkers...that's how i want pot smokers treated.

Exactly. Let's be consistent. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

Wal-Mart is not a representative government. They don't owe you jack. If you agree to their terms and accept them upon employment, fine. Otherwise go find somewhere else to work. I notice a lot of people bitching about Wal-Mart, yet they seem to have little trouble finding employees.

Companies are not created simply because people need jobs and it is NOT any employer's job to hold your hand as you walk through life.

Half of you people sound like spoiled teenagers. Grow up and join the rest of us in the real world.

I love how wanting to protect ones own privacy is somehow being contorted into being entitled and spoiled. Someone sounds like a teenager, and it isn't me.

[Jazz Ad]

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

Please name one single applicable law.

I'm sure you'd love kids to be able to work in a factory for 10 bucks a day, like they did 2 centuries ago, when employers didn't have to bother with stupid social laws.
Like they still do today in so many countries.
What about vacation? Get rid of it. While you're at it, make these lazy employees work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere, it's the same.
Security? Who needs that? Let entrepreneurs save money. Who cares if an employee gets killed? All his fault he should know better.

What about women getting paid as much as men? They are always busy with sick children, when they're not pregnant that is.
Actually, employers should have the right to fire pregnant women like they used to. That or sign a contract saying they're not going to have children. If they don't like it, they can go work elsewhere.
Surely, the world would be so much better if employers didn't have to bother with so many stupid rules.

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

My honeymoon was spent in Amsterdam and I have been there twice since. Everything they say about it is true.

i went there for a short time when i was 24...believe me, i want to go back.

i hope to have enough money to take my son there after he graduates for high school...god, the art museums alone are worth the trip.

and the beer...maybe we could go over to Belgium while we are there....

between the two countries, both the paintings and the the beer , i think, are the greatest in the world, considering how small the relative populations are...

and of course, pot is not frowned upon in Holland...

Originally Posted by 1958Bassman

I think a company policy stating something should extend to all in management, too. That would be fair. There's already enough "Don't do as I do, do as I say" going on already.

what are you going to do about sole proprietorships?...have the owner tested and then divest him of his ownership if he is not clean?..

i think once you start that, you are on a very slippery slope indeed...

corporations are, of course, free to adopt whatever policies they want

[two fingers]

OK, one at a time, shall we? I don't know how to quote, requote, and requote again, so I'll just cut and paste.

"Do your employees get the same ability to drug test you and snoop around your private life as you do to them?"
Nope. But, then again, their name isn't on the sign. Their living doesn't depend on whether or not I smoked a joint last night. All the risk is on me. They DO, however, have the right to mortgage THEIR house, work 60 hours + a week, and sacrifice a few years to build up THEIR business. Then they can drug test whomever they want..... just like me.

"What rights do they have to protect themselves from you?"
That one is easy....... the right to go work somewhere else. I am not forcing a job on anyone. They are free to leave at any time. Besides, they don't need protection from me. I'm not hurting anyone.

"What about the millions of people who lost their livelihood when the economy tanked because select individuals at the top decided to take unnecessary risks? What protections did we have from them? How many of them have been prosecuted and thrown in jail?"
If they did something illegal, they should be thrown in jail. If they haven't been prosecuted, your question should be directed at the current government. If they just made bad business decisions, then that's life. It happens. No system is perfect. While we're on the subject of bad decisions, what about the thousands and THOUSANDS of people who took out home loans they couldn't afford? They caused more of the crash than anyone in my view. Should THEY not have to face some sort of punishment?

"Let me tell ya, the guy in middle management who smokes a doob on Friday night with his buddies after work is much less of a liability or threat to the safety and well-being of both his company and others than the guy at the top."
That's just a silly notion. Are you saying that I am more of a potential risk to my company than any of my employees? Asinine.

"History and laws have shown us that businesses operate on the sole basis to increase shareholder wealth."
The law REQUIRES that a business operates in a manner that increases shareholder wealth. And, again, WE ARE ALL THE SHAREHOLDERS. Every single person who has a 401K, a few shares of one company, or even the tiniest mutual fund account is a shareholder. That means that the VAST MAJORITY of US citizens are shareholders in SOMETHING. And they are not your enemy for wanting a return on their investment.

"Beyond that, they don't care about anyone or anything else. Saying they're people as if it somehow means they'll act morally and not overstep their bounds is asinine. "
ASSUMING that they would sell their mother, or commit any other immoral act just to turn a profit is equally as asinine and just a naive generalization.

" Businesses have constantly pushed the boundaries of what they believe they can get away with at the expense of the well-being of everyday people."
Again, many of their shareholder ARE EVERYDAY PEOPLE. I AM everyday people (thank you Sly). Just because I own a business, that does not mean I am a monster, a robot, or a computer. I am a guy who puts on his pants one leg at a time just like you.

"This is not to say all businesses are evil but that we should be skeptical of any 'rights' they claim when they begin to infringe on the rights of individuals."
Not allowing me to do a thorough background check on perspective employees infringes on MY RIGHTS..... namely the right to protect my interests. Why do yours outweigh mine? Because you aren't wealthy? (Neither am I by the way)

"Apparently some of you guys have zero issues with losing your privacy because of the rights of businesses. Personally, I'm of the belief that individual privacy should be respected until there is reason not to do so."
Again, I am an individual just like you. And businesses are people, who all have rights as well.

You need to grow up. That guy with the pony tail who turned you against "the man" at school never worked in a business a day in his life. His world is a laboratory. He wouldn't last 48 hours in the business world. That is why he teaches at a university. It's a safe environment free from all the dangers and risks of the real world. He wouldn't know real economics if the $16 trillion we owe landed in his back yard.

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

This isn't N. Korea. All you have to be is broke in this country and you will receive a free 2 year college education. In THIS country we are all responsible for our own situation. If you dislike the situation you're in, change it. Go to school, start your own business, go get a better job. No matter what you try to say here, not Wal-Mart or any other company in the US is forcing anyone to work for them and the only thing they owe you is whatever you agreed to when they hired you.

Is that not what we're trying to do? We're trying to change the status quo to reflect a more modern society where something like MJ smoking is beginning to be more readily accepted by people. That starts from sharing ideas and having an adult conversation with people whose argument won't ultimately end up being, "You sound like a bunch of spoiled, whiny teenagers. Conform!" It's funny you also use the patriotic argument, "this is 'MURICA! Not North Korea!" and yet you're being in favor of lessening people's privacy for the gain of businesses. That kinda sounds like fascism to me.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by two fingers

You need to grow up. That guy with the pony tail who turned you against "the man" at school never worked in a business a day in his life. His world is a laboratory. He wouldn't last 48 hours in the business world. That is why he teaches at a university. It's a safe environment free from all the dangers and risks of the real world. He wouldn't know real economics if the $16 trillion we owe landed in his back yard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Ziltoid]

Originally Posted by Jazz Ad

I'm sure you'd love kids to be able to work in a factory for 10 bucks a day, like they did 2 centuries ago, when employers didn't have to bother with stupid social laws.
Like they still do today in so many countries.
What about vacation? Get rid of it. While you're at it, make these lazy employees work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere, it's the same.
Security? Who needs that? Let entrepreneurs save money. Who cares if an employee gets killed? All his fault he should know better.

What about women getting paid as much as men? They are always busy with sick children, when they're not pregnant that is.
Actually, employers should have the right to fire pregnant women like they used to. That or sign a contract saying they're not going to have children. If they don't like it, they can go work elsewhere.
Surely, the world would be so much better if employers didn't have to bother with so many stupid rules.

Silly 'mericans with their weird conception of employment, eh?

[Lonesomedave]

Originally Posted by Jazz Ad

...What about vacation? Get rid of it. While you're at it, make these lazy employees work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere, it's the same....

well, the French certainly know about vacation and how to use it...

that's why their country is in such great financial shape right now....clearly, we should follow the french model in all things related to finance or business...

right?

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by Jazz Ad

I'm sure you'd love kids to be able to work in a factory for 10 bucks a day, like they did 2 centuries ago, when employers didn't have to bother with stupid social laws.
Like they still do today in so many countries.
What about vacation? Get rid of it. While you're at it, make these lazy employees work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day. If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere, it's the same.
Security? Who needs that? Let entrepreneurs save money. Who cares if an employee gets killed? All his fault he should know better.

What about women getting paid as much as men? They are always busy with sick children, when they're not pregnant that is.
Actually, employers should have the right to fire pregnant women like they used to. That or sign a contract saying they're not going to have children. If they don't like it, they can go work elsewhere.
Surely, the world would be so much better if employers didn't have to bother with so many stupid rules.

Bingo.