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

[Floyd Eye]

got to agree...no one has said anyone should be allowed to work intoxicated...why do you guys keep saying this, as if it answers our objections?

can you really not understand that we are not talking about working intoxicated, or do you just want to keep throwing out that red herring?

we are talking about on your own time, not what you do at work.

When I was young I went to work stoned every day. My employers never knew and it is HIGHLY unlikely that my current employers would know. So tell me what effective way do they have to insure that I will not pose a danger to my co-workers and the general public because I came in stoned and cut a 12" gas main with my bucket?

 

[Lonesomedave]

Free speech more than likely falls under the 'inalienable rights' category (Locke's Life, liberty, and pursuit of property - which we later rewrote as 'happiness' in our preamble).

I'm talking about these 'workers rights' that you mentioned. Please explain to me how they were rights taken from someone else.

well, if you want a "right" to be paid a certain wage, then your employer has got to pay that wage, whether you are worth it or not.

if you want a "right" to a month's paid vacation, then the employer has to pay it regardless of whether he would volutarily provide it or not.

if you want the "right" to a home loan regardless of whether it looks like you can repay it or not, then the lander has got to make the home loan or get sued...regardless of whether, in the abstract, he would have made you the loan.

all of these so-called "rights" come at the expense of someone else.

 

[Unrepresented]

in america (so far at least), how you are born is NOT how you will die...it is up to you and you alone to make something of yourself.

Ironically, according to the wikipedia page on social mobility people in Jazz Ad's country of France have a greater amount of "intergenerational elasticity" (ability to NOT be limited to how you were born) than here stateside. Denmark kicks all of our butts in the study, which is a few years old.

those things you call worker's rights are not rights at all...they have been taken from somebody else...RIGHTS are things that can be enjoyed by all people equaly, and the exercise of which by any one person does not diminish the rights of another person to do the same...

the right of FREE SPEECH, for example.

in europe, where this model is not so prevalent, i guess they never got over the idea of being serfs...if you want something more than you have, you have to take it from your lord and master.

we in america (or at least some of us) never succumbed to that model, and i predict we are going to come out of OUR depression before you do...the reason being, our system is not at fault...your system is DEFINITELY at fault.

I don't want to blow your mind, but all liberties are commodities. They're all redistributed into whatever way best keeps the society intact. There's no such thing as a "right" that doesn't diminish the "rights" of others.

 

[Floyd Eye]

well, if you want a "right" to be paid a certain wage, then your employer has got to pay that wage, whether you are worth it or not.

if you want a "right" to a month's paid vacation, then the employer has to pay it regardless of whether he would volutarily provide it or not.

if you want the "right" to a home loan regardless of whether it looks like you can repay it or not, then the lander has got to make the home loan or get sued...regardless of whether, in the abstract, he would have made you the loan.

all of these so-called "rights" come at the expense of someone else.

Agreed. The only "Rights" employees have are clearly defined by the federal government. Unless you are union and calling those rights is more than a little bit of a stretch. Those are actually concessions won by collective bargaining and haven't got anything to do with rights.

You have the right to be protected from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation or disability. You have the right to earn the federal minimum wage. You have the right to a safe workplace.

Those are your rights.

 

[Lonesomedave]

When I was young I went to work stoned every day. My employers never knew and it is HIGHLY unlikely that my current employers would know. So tell me what effective way do they have to insure that I will not pose a danger to my co-workers and the general public because I came in stoned and cut a 12" gas main with my bucket?

i point you to Bama's post several pages back, where he said he did have tests in place for alcohol, and yet a drunk caused him millions in damage.

what way did he have to insure that would not happen...apparently none.

you can't be intoxicated at work...we all agree on that. now, do employers routinely breathalyze every employee every day?

just askin'

tests which test for intoxication right now are ok...those which test for general use are not...in spite of the fact that everyone says they ARE

 

[Floyd Eye]

i point you to Bama's post several pages back, where he said he did have tests in place for alcohol, and yet a drunk caused him millions in damage.

what way did he have to insure that would not happen...apparently none.

you can't be intoxicated at work...we all agree on that. now, do employers routinely breathalyze every employee every day?

just askin'

tests which test for intoxication right now are ok...those which test for general use are not...in spite of the fact that everyone says they ARE

Do you know of a test for being intoxicated on marijuana right now? No? Well, then, expect companies to continue random drug screens and firing employees who use drugs.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Ironically, according to the wikipedia page on social mobility people in Jazz Ad's country of France have a greater amount of "intergenerational elasticity" (ability to NOT be limited to how you were born) than here stateside. Denmark kicks all of our butts in the study, which is a few years old.

I don't want to blow your mind, but all liberties are commodities. They're all redistributed into whatever way best keeps the society intact. There's no such thing as a "right" that doesn't diminish the "rights" of others.

uh, FREE SPEECH, freedom of religion, freedom to keep and bear arms...

i don't want to blow YOUR mind, but when i exercise any one of those rights, the rights of anyone else to do the same is NOT affected.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Do you know of a test for being intoxicated on marijuana right now? No? Well, then, expect companies to continue random drug screens and firing employees who use drugs.

well, you're trying to make your problem OUR problem.

develop such a test...and then use it every day on every employee.

states that have legalized, i predict, will soon address this problem

ps-edit- and employers who do this will continue to invite alcohol use and discriminate against pot users

 

[Unrepresented]

Do you know of a test for being intoxicated on marijuana right now? No? Well, then, expect companies to continue random drug screens and firing employees who use drugs.

Yes. That's undoubtedly the intrusive direction things will keep going in, unless we legislate limits on companies abilities to do so.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Yes. That's undoubtedly the intrusive direction things will keep going in, unless we legislate limits on companies abilities to do so.

So you're cool with me hooking up gas service to grandma's house even though I smoked a big fat bowl of Diesel on the way into work?

 

[Lowactnsatsfctn]

got to agree...no one has said anyone should be allowed to work intoxicated...why do you guys keep saying this, as if it answers our objections?

can you really not understand that we are not talking about working intoxicated, or do you just want to keep throwing out that red herring?

If a person test positive for drugs, they are proven to be more likely to use drugs than a person who tested negative for drug use. Just as a person with a job is more likely to go to work than a person with out a job, so is the likely hood and probability of a person who uses drugs to use at an inappropriate time.

 

[Unrepresented]

uh, FREE SPEECH, freedom of religion, freedom to keep and bear arms...

i don't want to blow YOUR mind, but when i exercise any one of those rights, the rights of anyone else to do the same is NOT affected.

Your speech limits my desires for silence. Your religion limits my desires for secularization. Your arms limit my desires for peace. There is a consequence to every liberty. Just as privacy conflicts with scrutiny.

 

[fdeck]

actually, what my parents did to make sure i wouldn't die a working slave was start a business...

my father did just that and now my wife is doing that too...

in america (so far at least), how you are born is NOT how you will die...it is up to you and you alone to make something of yourself.

those things you call worker's rights are not rights at all...they have been taken from somebody else...RIGHTS are things that can be enjoyed by all people equaly, and the exercise of which by any one person does not diminish the rights of another person to do the same...

the right of FREE SPEECH, for example.

in europe, where this model is not so prevalent, i guess they never got over the idea of being serfs...if you want something more than you have, you have to take it from your lord and master.

we in america (or at least some of us) never succumbed to that model, and i predict we are going to come out of OUR depression before you do...the reason being, our system is not at fault...your system is DEFINITELY at fault.

Right now, there are more entrepreneurs per capita, and more social mobility, in Europe than in the US.

 

[Floyd Eye]

If a person test positive for drugs, they are proven to be more likely to use drugs than a person who tested negative for drug use. Just as a person with a job is more likely to go to work than a person with out a job, so is the likely hood and probability of a person who uses drugs to use at an inappropriate time.

The fact is that it will always be ( and should always be) an employer's right to not hire a drug user. End of story.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Agreed. The only "Rights" employees have are clearly defined by the federal government. Unless you are union and calling those rights is more than a little bit of a stretch. Those are actually concessions won by collective bargaining and haven't got anything to do with rights.

You have the right to be protected from discrimination based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation or disability. You have the right to earn the federal minimum wage. You have the right to a safe workplace.

Those are your rights.

And we gained those rights by fighting for them. Businesses didn't give them to us because we nicely asked one day. What we, or at least I, am arguing for is the right to my own personal privacy from my employer when I'm off hours. I'm not fighting for a job, or to be able to come to work drunk/high, or anything like that. I just want my privacy.

For the record, I don't smoke.

 

[Ziltoid]

well..so be it...it's an illusion that's shared by much of the world, since we have so many immigrants coming here to participate in our lack of "equal opportunity

To make my point simple , let's assume two kids have the same capacities and goals but one is from a poor family and neighborhood and the other the opposite. Let's again assume, again for the sake of the argument, both invest the same amount of work and are equally lucky/unlucky. Will they end up in similar situations? Most definitely not.

Even in societies with democratized education systems (ie: France) it has been proven kids from rich families are more successful.

This is not equal opportunity, some people face way more challenge than others because of which social class they come from, what skin color they have, etc. Social mobility in the US is actually pretty bad.

Success is not based on merit, I would dare say the fraction we can attribute to merit is actually small compared to many other factors.

To believe you get what you deserve or work for is an illusion.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Right now, there are more entrepreneurs per capita, and more social mobility, in Europe than in the US.

There are also infinitely more people on government aid and living in abject poverty per capita than there are in the US.

 

[Lonesomedave]

If a person test positive for drugs, they are proven to be more likely to use drugs than a person who tested negative for drug use. Just as a person with a job is more likely to go to work than a person with out a job, so is the likely hood and probability of a person who uses drugs to use at an inappropriate time.

and drinking?

the problem is...alcohol metabolizes faster in the blood than THC...so while drinking is very much more likely to cause a problem at work than pot, the drinker is much more able to hide his problem

so you end up with the anomalous situation that the far more dangerous drug can be hidden, while the far more innocuous drug cannot

sorry...i am not ok with this.

develop a test for pot similar to that for alcohol and then i will back you 100%

 

[Floyd Eye]

And we gained those rights by fighting for them. Businesses didn't give them to us because we nicely asked one day. What we, or at least I, am arguing for is the right to my own personal privacy from my employer when I'm off hours. I'm not fighting for a job, or to be able to come to work drunk/high, or anything like that. I just want my privacy.

For the record, I don't smoke.

You can have it. Just get a job somewhere that does not drug test.

Those rights are not even comparable to the imaginary right to get high which you are calling privacy. Lots of things that can be misconstrued as privacy are in fact dangerous and illegal.

 

[deeptubes]

Do you know of a test for being intoxicated on marijuana right now? No? Well, then, expect companies to continue random drug screens and firing employees who use drugs.

Yes. There is a saliva test that only costs $5 a pop.