• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

My Son is embarrassed

#23
Unrepresented said:
"Sorry, I had trouble catching it in the cup. I figured this was the next best place."

+1. Bodily fluid testing should be limited to doctors' offices and legal matters. It's ridiculous what we allow employers to get away with these days.
Click to expand...

Allow?! The company hire who they see fit. It's not (curreny) your human right to do illegal drugs.. Not to mention any prescription drugs that could effect you while your operating machinery..

Seriously??

And I do not know of a job that doesn't do drug tests. I had to take a hair folical test. Safety is a really big deal.
 
#24
Tony Flow MMMM said:
Allow?! The company hire who they see fit. It's not (curreny) your human right to do illegal drugs.. Not to mention any prescription drugs that could effect you while your operating machinery..

Seriously??

And I do not know of a job that doesn't do drug tests. I had to take a hair folical test. Safety is a really big deal.
Click to expand...

Yes. Seriously.

Employers or prospective employers shouldn't be allowed to demand bodily fluids from us any more than they should be allowed to tap my phone calls, put a GPS on my personal vehicle, have access to my social network accounts, or any other violation of my privacy, all of which could certainly be argued are "for safety." If I'm not fit to perform a job function, than that should be clear by my work record, not the contents of my urine.

If a court needs a warrant to get it, why should my boss or my potential boss be allowed to take it or deny me employment?
 
#26
Unrepresented said:
Yes. Seriously.

Employers or prospective employers shouldn't be allowed to demand bodily fluids from us any more than they should be allowed to tap my phone calls, put a GPS on my personal vehicle, have access to my social network accounts, or any other violation of my privacy, all of which could certainly be argued are "for safety." If I'm not fit to perform a job function, than that should be clear by my work record, not the contents of my urine.

If a court needs a warrant to get it, why should my boss or my potential boss be allowed to take it or deny me employment?
Click to expand...

Lol because your going to an employer who does not HAVE to hire you and your an employee who doesn't have to take the job. Also lets remember he is applying for a job he has no work record with the company. It's employment at will. By the way nobody is taking it against your will your putting it in the cup. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. Oh wait they want a urine sample too? Shucks.

Seriously why do you think 90% of employers want it? Do you think there just out there to be dicks? Their judging you just like I'm judged for not having a price if paper that says I know how to sit in a classroom(degree) yet I can do the job better than anybody with it.

You really think that's how they get their jollies? "We really need people but lets turn 1/2 of them away." Not to mention law suits when you injure somebody, the drugs had no influence it it, yet they were in your system. Guess who's getting sued?
 
#27
Unrepresented said:
Yes. Seriously.

Employers or prospective employers shouldn't be allowed to demand bodily fluids from us any more than they should be allowed to tap my phone calls, put a GPS on my personal vehicle, have access to my social network accounts, or any other violation of my privacy, all of which could certainly be argued are "for safety." If I'm not fit to perform a job function, than that should be clear by my work record, not the contents of my urine.

If a court needs a warrant to get it, why should my boss or my potential boss be allowed to take it or deny me employment?
Click to expand...

And theirs a difference between BS "safety" and dropping thousands of pounds of material on somebody. I have seen people operate machinery under influences. LUCKILY they didn't get themself.
 
#28
Tony Flow MMMM said:
Lol because your going to an employer who does not HAVE to hire you and your an employee who doesn't have to take the job. Also lets remember he is applying for a job he has no work record with the company. It's employment at will. By the way nobody is taking it against your will your putting it in the cup. Don't like it? Go somewhere else. Oh wait they want a urine sample too? Shucks.

Seriously why do you think 90% of employers want it? Do you think there just out there to be dicks? Their judging you just like I'm judged for not having a price if paper that says I know how to sit in a classroom(degree) yet I can do the job better than anybody with it.

You really think that's how they get their jollies? "We really need people but lets turn 1/2 of them away." Not to mention law suits when you injure somebody, the drugs had no influence it it, yet they were in your system. Guess who's getting sued?
Click to expand...
Because of the imbalance of power between employer and employee, employees will undercut themselves in any manner to maintain a roof over their heads or food on their dinner plates.

Things like minimum wage, or paid overtime, workman's comp, or unemployment would be gone if employers had the ability to do so, and employees scared of losing their paycheck would undoubtedly trade them away in a heartbeat if we allowed them to-- that's why there are laws protecting those rights.

I don't believe that employers "get their jollies" from it, but I certainly think it's intrusive and unjustified for anyone in the private sector to be able to coerce us into giving away samples of our bodily fluids for something as fundamental in our society as employment.
 
#29
Unrepresented said:
Because of the imbalance of power between employer and employee, employees will undercut themselves in any manner to maintain a roof over their heads or food on their dinner plates.

Things like minimum wage, or paid overtime, workman's comp, or unemployment would be gone if employers had the ability to do so, and employees scared of losing their paycheck would undoubtedly trade them away in a heartbeat if we allowed them to-- that's why there are laws protecting those rights.

I don't believe that employers "get their jollies" from it, but I certainly think it's intrusive and unjustified for anyone in the private sector to be able to coerce us into giving away samples of our bodily fluids for something as fundamental in our society as employment.
Click to expand...

I see what your saying I'm with you on the whole company greed, fight the man. They would take away overtime minimum wage, ect if they could. Duh

I just don't follow with the whole drug test deal. If it didn't matter, employers wouldn't turn away employees Especially when they really need them. Truth is it does matter. I'm not anti drug, but I do know who I'd want to hire if I was an employer. Someone who has the better chance of being a good worker and protecting my ass.
 
#30
Tony Flow MMMM said:
And theirs a difference between BS "safety" and dropping thousands of pounds of material on somebody. I have seen people operate machinery under influences. LUCKILY they didn't get themself.
Click to expand...
Please explain to me how pre-employment drug screening prevents someone from operating machinery under the influence.

There is a logical disconnect between performing a temporary screening and assuming that state is one of permanency.
 
#31
Unrepresented said:
Please explain to me how pre-employment drug screening prevents someone from operating machinery under the influence.

There is a logical disconnect between performing a temporary screening and assuming that state is one of permanency.
Click to expand...

That's the Job of random drug screens. You have to be clean to get in and clean there after if you value your employment. And if you mess up, you get drug tested. I had a friend fired who took a random, but was on recently prescribed medicine and didn't tell their employer.
 
#32
Tony Flow MMMM said:
I see what your saying I'm with you on the whole company greed, fight the man. They would take away overtime minimum wage, ect if they could. Duh

I just don't follow with the whole drug test deal. If it didn't matter, employers wouldn't turn away employees Especially when they really need them. Truth is it does matter. I'm not anti drug, but I do know who I'd want to hire if I was an employer. Someone who has the better chance of being a good worker and protecting my ass.
Click to expand...
I don't blame employers for wanting the best employees. I do realize there are limits to what workers should have to tolerate, and it seems as if testing employees' bodily fluids has gone from something limited to high risk occupations to something much more widespread.

If an employee is performing their duty unsafely, then document it and fire them accordingly. I have no issue with that. My concern is the ubiquity of this privacy violation.
 
#33
Tony Flow MMMM said:
That's the Job of random drug screens. You have to be clean to get in and clean there after if you value your employment. And if you mess up, you get drug tested. I had a friend fired who took a random, but was on recently prescribed medicine and didn't tell their employer.
Click to expand...
Yes, random drug screens are even more invasive. Why not just go the extra step and have all employees required to wear ankle monitoring bracelets that detect alcohol in our perspiration? It's good enough for parolees, it should be fine for the rest of us working stiffs, right?
 
#34
Unrepresented said:
I don't blame employers for wanting the best employees. I do realize there are limits to what workers should have to tolerate, and it seems as if testing employees' bodily fluids has gone from something limited to high risk occupations to something much more widespread.

If an employee is performing their duty unsafely, then document it and fire them accordingly. I have no issue with that. My concern is the ubiquity of this privacy violation.
Click to expand...

It's all about accident prevention. I guess used to it. Safety is a big factor where I work. If someone comes into work influenced drops something from 100ft up and kills me.... I'd be a very unhappy dead person. Maybe the drugs had nothing to with it. BUT MAYBE if that person wouldn't have been under the influence it would have never happened. That would devastate my wife.
 
#35
Unrepresented said:
Yes, random drug screens are even more invasive. Why not just go the extra step and have all employees required to wear ankle monitoring bracelets that detect alcohol in our perspiration? It's good enough for parolees, it should be fine for the rest of us working stiffs, right?
Click to expand...

I'm cool with it. I understand it, I'm thankful for it. Now WITHOUT getting into it do you feel the same about gun control, I'm just curious. Better yet PM me if you don't mind.
 
#37
Tony Flow MMMM said:
I'm not anti drug, but I do know who I'd want to hire if I was an employer. Someone who has the better chance of being a good worker and protecting my ass.
Click to expand...

I doubt I'd pass a drug test and I'm a hell of a lot better at my job than anybody else we've ever hired (and later, fired).


They should employ people based on their ability to do the job, not what they do in their own time. If they demonstrate that they are unable to perform the job safely and as required, replace them with somebody else. If they ever come into work under the influence, replace them with somebody else, but if you can't find any reason to fire them, why would you?

Oh, that right, because they peed in a cup and the results came back positive. Despite the fact that until said peeing in cup they were a perfectly capable employee.



To me it's like firing an employee because they ride a motorbike, or surf in their free time. As far as the employer is aware they're a perfectly capable employee, and then suddenly they see them out with a surfboard and bam, fired. If their recreational activities are somehow impacting on their job performance, by all means, take action. But otherwise? **** off.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back