Hi rikfish,

Where, may I ask, is the supervisor? A stoned individual is impossible not to spot.

That the individual passed a pre-employment drug screen, which he was aware of, does nothing to stop the above scenario.



I am irritated by the CYA attitude of corporations who follow blindly the federal government's policies on drug testing. The last I heard 85% of all American corporations have instituted drug screening and random testing, at massive costs. Innocent people have had their livelihoods and reputations destroyed by the false positives that occur daily. I'm not sure how to follow just_brian's advice to go get another job if I don't like what's going on with my present one.

This angers me to no end. We need more freedom from intrusion.

regards

 

Come again? How can you even make this statement? Have you ever dealt with an alcoholic before? They can be pretty much the same as a drug user. After doing a drug (alcohol, pot, coke, whatever) for long enough, that person can give you the impression of being completely sober, but in all actuallity they are very intoxicated. Case in point, I recently did a training exercise with cadets at the local highway patrol academy, where a group of people sit in a room for two hours and drink shots. The participants are then led to a room where pairs of cadets gave sobriety tests. I had 16 shots of Jim Beam in those two hours, blew 4 times the legal limit on the breath-a-lyzer, and only two out of the 18 cadets said that I was intoxicated. And the same thing goes for potheads, cokeheads, etc...

Now, how is the supervisor at WalMart supposed to figure out who might have smoked a blunt on the way into work, when this supervisor probably had no training whatsoever on how to spot a drug abuser? Especially when people trained to do this can't even be 100% accurate! IMO, random drug tests can be a good thing when done properly. They keep the work environment safe and the company safe for that matter.

oh yeah, as far as I know, police officers are subjected to drug tests. At the very least, officers here in Columbus are.

(BTW- I'm not an alcoholic, I've just had a lot of practice in college )

 

all I have to say about this is that anyone sick enough to want to play with my urine to see if I'm on drugs can have my feeces also.
fecalphillia is a sickness

 

Have wokplace accidents gone down since drug testing has become commonplace? I'll bet little or no change. I have no time for harder drugs but if someone can be trusted to use alcohol responsibly I expect there are those doing the same with marijuana.

 

I think Another Ford's response covers my comments quite well. Supervisors have other responsibilities other than just eyeballing every employee 24/7 while on the job.

The CYA testing is NOT to keep the Government happy, it is to keep the insurance people happy. Do we have to restate the number of lawsuits that are filed for workmans comp, injuries while on the job, etc? I should hope not. I am a partner in ownership of a small retail company, although I am the only employee at my store at this time. I would not hesitate to require employees to take both pre-employment tests and random while employed. If I have nothing to hide, what's the big deal? No, these tests aren't idiot proof by any means, but nothing in this world is. Results CAN be questioned, it is done on a daily basis.

It is not an intrusion into anyones life, it is a provision of employment! Want the job, meet the requirements. Everyone has to give a little, we live in a society where individual rights don't always take precidence over the best interest of the group.

Don't want to meet the job requirements, go elsewhere. Start your own company, do as you please. It is your right to do so.

 

Employers are liable if their employees are involved in a serious accident where drug use was found to be a contributing factor to the mishap.It gives them a tool to screen out the employees who might just cost them their business.just a thought.

 

Here's an interesting study about what effect the drug screening program has had on accident rates with large commercial vehicles.

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/journal/Drugscreen.htm

The bottom line: There is no noticeable difference between rates today and rates previous to the drug implementation program. Meanwhile, the trucking industry is saddled with the huge costs of implementing and administering the program, passed on to us by higher freight rates.

This is so typical of government policy. We never seem to learn that lesson. And the dearest price of all, our personal freedoms are urinated on, for lack of a better term.

 

How does requiring an employment UA cost you your freedom?

 

Corporations do not 'blindly follow government policies! In many instances it is the law and they have no option.

Sorry, with today's methods there are no false positives.

It's about liability and the huge costs involved.



I do not need to read that 'study' to know it is bogus.

My uncle, 30 years with Yellow Freight, relates how on Sunday afternoons back in the 70s the dispatchers had to physically lift the drunken drivers into their rigs to send them down the road!

If there were no drug test damn near every long distance truck driver out there would be using something to keep him awake. It's about keeping the wheels turning. That is what makes money out there. I've been up and going for 36hrs plus. You better bet your bennies that if I had that option available it would have been taken advantage of! I'm glad it was not an option.

There are demonstrated physilogical changes that take place when using most illegal drugs. Alcohol is bad, but nothing compared to even occasional use of pot or many other drugs commonly used by the public. The effects are long lasting and prevent top performance.

Yes, it does lead to higher freight rates, but just what price would YOU put on the safety of yourself and those you love? In the 60s, before deregulation, the cost of transportation of the finished good to the customer was 33%. Today that number is 7% WITH the cost of drug testing included.

A few years ago the airlines tested the effects of just ONE joint on the judgement of airline pilots. The effects were profound even after 36 hours and a good nights rest.

Freedom includes the choice of a company to hire drug free employees and test to insure they do.

I'll finish by saying most Libertarians are against drug testing for obvious reasons.....they use illegal drugs...

 

Hi just_brian,

Once again, freedom FROM intrusion. Of the most personal kind, in this instance.

regards

 

Hi tominator,

I wish that were true, but sadly it isn't. I'd give you a webpage to see the statistics but you don't care to be bothered by facts.

Highly unlikely, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

This is 2004. Truckers have log books, and are restricted on the amount of hours they can drive any day. Major cheating is impossible.


Am I advocating illegal drug usage because I'm opposed to drug testing? How did you make that leap?

regards

 

Sorry but all this proves that you don't know what happens in the real world....

I've had a Class A CDL with H and M endorsements for 14 years. 1.25 million accident free miles....I've been in the trenches.

There is not an over the road driver out there that keeps a totally legal logbook and even the drivers that keep electronic logs can tell you how to cheat.

Part of the requirements every Trucking Company must make is a program to continually educate the drivers about drug testing and the procedures. In modern drug testing there are nearly zero false positives.

Like any human endeavor there are instances where totally ignorant people do totally ignorant things, but if that is the factor we use to judge whether a law or procedure were accurate, you'd be hungry and naked!

 

Self Government won't work without Self Discipline.
IMHO, the reason we are overburdened by all of these laws, and some of them are really stupid, as that because of a few undisciplined idiots, laws are passed to control those idiots and the rest of us have to follow those laws.

 

A few years ago, Marilyn vos Savant explained that if a lab has some % error rate (2%, 5% - doesn't matter), the odds of a mistake on a retest are 50%. Being "statistics challenged" like I am, I am unable to reproduce her explanation. As used, drug tests have the appearance of CYA material. If they have the potential of ruining an innocent person's life, they should be trashed. Marilyn's argument certainly makes them appear worthless to me.

 

I didn't say totally legal. I said major cheating. It's impossible, rectifying fueling stops being one reason, GPS positioning another, and I stand by the statement.


Ain't good enough. Especially if it is you who is accused of a false positive in a "nearly zero" situation. More so when you have given no indication of being a drug user, and in fact never have used them.

Can't we agree the answer to safety problems is not to be found by relying on the nanny state to keep us safe?