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

[1958Bassman]

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.

Uh, Henry Ford noticed that the usual length of time new hires stayed was 3 days because the work was physically demanding, boring, they didn't like making $3/day and they didn't like the working conditions. Against the views of the rest of the industry, he broke ground by announcing that he would be paying his workers $5/day and dropped the shift length from 9 hours to 8. The next day, he had 10000 men standing outside when they got to the plant. His reasoning was that these people would also become consumers, something they had only been able to dream about, previously. $10/day 200 years ago would have been enough to be called very wealthy.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Funny. I think there should be a maximum wage, because the wage gap in this country is nearly unsustainable.

So you think it is the government's job to determine how much an employee is worth to their employer?


I think you may be living in the wrong country brother.

 

[Ziltoid]

Funny. I think there should be a maximum wage, because the wage gap in this country is nearly unsustainable.

I'm right here with you.

Edit: And I voted carrots for the record.

 

[fourstringdrums]

There should be a minimum wage and I believe it should be raised. I am on SSDI for life and I make under 20k a year. I could barely support myself when I was living alone, and what I make roughly works out to about $9.50 an hour. I don't see anyone making less, especially if they have a family to support, can survive.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Uh, Henry Ford noticed that the usual length of time new hires stayed was 3 days because the work was physically demanding, boring, they didn't like making $3/day and they didn't like the working conditions. Against the views of the rest of the industry, he broke ground by announcing that he would be paying his workers $5/day and dropped the shift length from 9 hours to 8. The next day, he had 10000 men standing outside when they got to the plant. His reasoning was that these people would also become consumers, something they had only been able to dream about, previously. $10/day 200 years ago would have been enough to be called very wealthy.

He also actively sought out blacks to hire as a means to lift them out of their social situation. He did meddle in their personal lives quite a bit, but people were all very grateful to be employed by Ford and they all did in fact drive Fords. His company was also the last hold out against the UAW, which today is among the most corrupt organizations on the planet.

 

[Unrepresented]

So you think it is the government's job to determine how much an employee is worth to their employer?


I think you may be living in the wrong country brother.

The government determines a bottom number of an employee's worth, why not a top? CEO pay has been growing at an unsustainable rate for the last decade or so, far past the rate of the average worker which remains stagnant.

 

[1958Bassman]

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...




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

Just being a sole proprietor shouldn't absolve anyone of guilt. I am one. If I tell employees that I don't want them to do certain things, I should expect to get a ton of crap if I do them because that would make me a ginormous hypocrite. If I did that and penalized my employees, I wouldn't expect them to stick around for very long, either.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I know that but the reason for banning these is due to the inability of some to stop when they have had 'enough'. Laws aren't written to control the majority, although they end up having that effect. Laws are written and enforced because a small % of people can't go through life without being a problem for others. Someone who has a few hits or a few drinks after work isn't the problem- it's the ones who cause problems that make it necessary to remove these substances from the list of what's acceptable to an employer. They have every right to make sure their business survives and if they see drug tests as part of this for personal, legal, liability or for reasons that have to do with employee drug use causing their customers to stop doing business with them or exposing them to some kind of liability, that should be allowed. Again, no employee has the right to force an employer to hire them for any reason.

Bans have very little to do with people's ability to control consumption, if that was the case we'd see tobacco, alcohol and caffeine banned too.

Business owners can claim whatever they want, but this thread wasn't about what they want, it was about what someone, as an employee would do and it's from that side of things which I'm providing my answers.

Business owners can claim they need to know X/Y/Z detail about my life, if it has nothing to do with the job, it has nothing to do with them. Thankfully I don't face employers which are that nosey, if I did, as said, I probably wouldn't be staying with them long. Call me paranoid, but the way hiring seems to be going in some industries seems a bit too 1984 for my liking.

I'm not claiming anyone should be able to force someone to hire them, I'm just voicing my opinion on what I think is right and acceptable for employers to ask of employees (and potential employees, keeping in mind this thread isn't just about at the job application stage).

Re: trusting someone off the bat- is it your opinion that trust is implicit, or needs to be earned? This isn't about whether we should be able to trust others, but about whether someone who's looking for employees can afford to trust the applicants before they actually have a good reason to. The cost of screening applicants before any drug test or in-person interviews is about $100 if an outside agency is used to get background/criminal checks is used. They use these agencies because the fact is, people lie and hide pertinent information. I have used one of these companies when screening rental applicants and am glad I did- I weeded out people who would have been a nightmare to deal with later. $35 a pop, just for a credit check. Not one of the bad ones volunteered the information that kept me from renting to them, even though I asked if they had credit problems. From their history, it's impossible that they didn't know.

I don't want people crawling into every orifice on me, either, but the position of some is that an employer doesn't have any right to impose drug tests and the OP asked if people would or currently submit to them. The reasons came out after the question was asked. Will someone die or be less healthy if they have to stop? For the vast majority, the answer is NO. Have employers been damaged/harmed by people who used drugs/alcohol to excess? Absolutely. Is this the reason they their customers require drug testing? Damn skippy.

I see trust as more than black and white, but if you see someone as being fit to hire them, then want these extra steps to look into someones background, it's a level of paranoia I don't want from an employer. There will also be a difference in trust between a new candidate and a long term employee, both of which could be subjected to testing and both of which are within their rights to say "hell no" to that, even if it does result in ending the employment.

Again you're making the assumption that saying no to a test automatically means someone would fail or that they have something to hide.

This is simply coming down to a clash of opinions, the employers may have the right to ask for tests, but that doesn't mean you'll have everyone agreeing to do them, nor thinking they are right, regardless of the outcome. I'm not saying they don't have the right to ask for them, I just think it's wrong in most situations and would, for me, be crossing a line in the sand which of which most jobs wouldn't be worth.

 

[Floyd Eye]

The government determines a bottom number of an employee's worth, why not a top? CEO pay has been growing at an unsustainable rate for the last decade or so, far past the rate of the average worker which remains stagnant.

First of all, this is not a socialist country and the government absolutely has no business capping out ANY employee's pay. There can be no explanation for this sort of thinking other than sheer jealousy. Why the hell do YOU care what someone else pays their employees? It's none of your damn business.

If these sort of asinine laws were implemented, you would see every company worth a crap in this country relocate. Then you would no doubt blame your detractors for shipping jobs overseas. lol

 

[BawanaRik]

Wow, a lot of what is listed there is an not the cost of doing business but basic due diligence. Would you take a job with an employer that was involved in illegal activities? If you were to work for someone and they tell you to drive a truck load of drugs in from Mexico would you do it?

I wouldn't.

I'm trying to grok just where any employer has more rights than you do. In today's market an employer isn't free to hire whom they choose, fire whom they choose, pay what they want, etc etc.

How would you feel if a mineing operation decided you fit a demographic they were short of in a coal mine and sent you down a shaft? Yet daily employers are required to hire to spec..

Yet never has an employee been forced by any employer, other than the US government, to work for anyone.

So because he has more responsibilities he's entitled to more rights, and rights that overlap mines? It does not work that way. If it would the president could kill your family, rape you while high on cocaine in all impunity because he has more responsibilities.

What you listed is part of the cost of being a business owner and not an employee. It justifies nothing.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Wow, a lot of what is listed there is an not the cost of doing business but basic due diligence. Would you take a job with an employer that was involved in illegal activities? If you were to work for someone and they tell you to drive a truck load of drugs in from Mexico would you do it?

I wouldn't.

I'm trying to grok just where any employer has more rights than you do. In today's market an employer isn't free to hire whom they choose, fire whom they choose, pay what they want, etc etc.

How would you feel if a mineing operation decided you fit a demographic they were short of in a coal mine and sent you down a shaft? Yet daily employers are required to hire to spec..

Yet never has an employee been forced by any employer, other than the US government, to work for anyone.

Who is this post directed at please?

 

[Floyd Eye]

Ah. Never mind.

 

[Unrepresented]

First of all, this is not a socialist country and the government absolutely has no business capping out ANY employee's pay. There can be no explanation for this sort of thinking other than sheer jealousy. Why the hell do YOU care what someone else pays their employees? It's none of your damn business.

If these sort of asinine laws were implemented, you would see every company worth a crap in this country relocate. Then you would no doubt blame your detractors for shipping jobs overseas. lol

It is in my interest what employees are paid because there are a finite number of ways that a company's income can be distributed between payroll, investments, research, etc. The more the guys at the top are paid the less room there is for everything else. A maximum wage means increased research and investment -- which means more jobs created/better products and services for consumers, or increased pay for the other employees lower down the totem pole.

 

[chadds]

What the hell are you talking about. I am currently an employer and I will drug test my employees for the hell of it if I feel like it. They don't like it, they can quit.

Maybe you meant this post for someone else?

Yes!

 

[1958Bassman]

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.

I would argue that a more modern and enlightened society would include more people taking responsibility for their actions, identuifying/dealing with their faults and problems without self-medicating and trying to force others to operate the way THEY see fit, instead of allowing a company to use the safeguards they want to keep their business open and free from liability and lawsuits that were caused by employees who refuse to give up a habit that isn't seen by most as a right to engage in.

Anyone who says they get high because they like the way they feel and not because they're trying to avoid something is lying to themselves. If they want to be high rather than straight/sober, it's because they would rather not deal with things head-on. Regardless of what anyone says, drugs change the way we view issues, the way we comprehend, the way we think. If not, what's the point of getting high?

 

[Floyd Eye]

It is in my interest what employees are paid because there are a finite number of ways that a company's income can be distributed between payroll, investments, research, etc. The more the guys at the top are paid the less room there is for everything else. A maximum wage means increased research and investment -- which means more jobs created/better products and services for consumers, or increased pay for the other employees lower down the totem pole.

Unless you are the owner or a stockholder it doesn't have a damn thing to do with you. Consumers have no friggin' say in how any company operates. People do not work hard and start businesses so some dude who has no interest in his company can force him to run it how he sees fit.

Seems to me like you need a business 101 class. Also seems to me that you are, um, not a fan of capitalism.

 

[chadds]

Like I mentioned earlier, there's certain things you are not legally allowed to ask an employee and asking for a piss-test is a bad as asking those things even if not regulated in the same way.

The argument that he's not forcing me to work there is simply BS. You are in a position of power, asking me to let go on my rights when my job is in the balance is akin to coercion.

The power is yours. Work there or not. Do whatever is in your pee or not.
& I really understand what irks you about this.

You don't seem to be petitioning the govt or running for office or attempting civil disobidience to change the law so we drive on the left side of the road.
Way I see it you have a right but you choose to abide by the "way", "law", "customs", here.

You pay to see a show people tell you where to stand, when to go on in, and not to dance in the aisles. These are choices you make that you pay for. So why just your drug of choice?

Is there another drug that you wouldn't want your fellow employees doing the night before work?

Is it invasive?
Yep.
Did someone make it necessary?
Yep.

 

[Unrepresented]

Unless you are the owner or a stockholder it doesn't have a damn thing to do with you. Consumers have no friggin' say in how any company operates. People do not work hard and start businesses so some dude who has no interest in his company can force him to run it how he sees fit.

Seems to me like you need a business 101 class. Also seems to me that you are, um, not a fan of capitalism.

I have a say as a citizen. I elect leaders and representatives who create laws that determine the way that businesses may operate. I have to live with the effects of businesses, I have some small say in how they're regulated.

 

[Floyd Eye]

I have a say as a citizen. I elect leaders and representatives who create laws that determine the way that businesses may operate. I have to live with the effects of businesses, I have some small say in how they're regulated.

You actually think that as a citizen you deserve to have a say in how much a company pays their CEO?

Man.

And we wonder why this country is so screwed up?

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

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.

It's a bit of a difficult comparison with the US being more uniform than Europe (I realise there are big differences state to state, but the differences are bigger in Europe IMO).

Freedom of speech is rarely unlimited, but you'll find that there isn't exactly a huge difference between freedom of speech between the US and UK.

I'd also disagree with the equality thing to a certain extent, where I am, everyone is eligable for up to five years post-school education. No fighting over scholarships or needing family money to go to become a lawyer or medic.

I also have to disagree with the part about systems being at fault (hell, we were bailing out massive companies too), but this isn't a forum to go into that, I'll also say that our economies aren't exactly completelly independent of each other.