Drug testing
Laughing Gas
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 796
Likes: 1
From: KCMO
'nother story
Several years ago I was working at a power plant somewhere in KY or TN, where all the rank and file contractors had to take drug tests. I was a sub-contractor, and that was not a requirement for me, and they usually didn't say anything about it, because it would cost them $30. One time though, the Project Manager came to me and explained that several of his men were complaining that it wasn't fair that they had to be tested, but I didn't. Would I mind taking a drug test?
"No problem" I said, "what kind of drugs do you want me to test?"
"No problem" I said, "what kind of drugs do you want me to test?"
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
From: Buffalo, Minnesota
Originally posted by pchristman
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%.... 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.
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%.... 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.
Senior User
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
From: New Baden, IL. USA!
Originally posted by billsco
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?
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?
I'm not going to continue an argument over the accuracy of drug testing. Medicine of any kind is prone to human error and to completely discard a system with a very small percentage of error dispite that so-called study, would be to stop medicine completely.
There is no perfect procedure and never will be one.
Laughing Gas
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 796
Likes: 1
From: KCMO
Originally posted by billsco
Companies shop for the best deals from laboratories. Laboratories respond by cutting costs. Right about now, my specimen is being taken out of the Fed Ex box by some pimply faced bubblegum-chewing teenager who will conduct the test.
Companies shop for the best deals from laboratories. Laboratories respond by cutting costs. Right about now, my specimen is being taken out of the Fed Ex box by some pimply faced bubblegum-chewing teenager who will conduct the test.
Well, the last time it came up positive, and he hit the roof. Demanded a retest. So that bubble-faced pimple-chewing teenybopper dude tested the same sample again, and it was okay. No explanation, no apology, nothing.
In the meantime, they caught a guy - twice - smoking a joint in the paint booth, and they sent him to rehab, gave him a raise and a promotion, and transferred him to day shift.
Senior User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
From: Kodiak USA
Originally posted by billsco
Hi just_brian,
Once again, freedom FROM intrusion. Of the most personal kind, in this instance.
regards
Hi just_brian,
Once again, freedom FROM intrusion. Of the most personal kind, in this instance.
regards
Once again, I suggest that if you don't want to play by my rules as an employer, meeting my standards, then exercise your freedom to choose, and choose to go somewhere else.
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
From: Buffalo, Minnesota
Originally posted by just_brian
Do I, as an employer, as a business owner, have the freedom to choose NOT to have drug users and drug abusers in my employ? Do I get that freedom? Or does your freedom trump my freedom?
Do I, as an employer, as a business owner, have the freedom to choose NOT to have drug users and drug abusers in my employ? Do I get that freedom? Or does your freedom trump my freedom?
You absolutely have that freedom. How does making one submit to a drug test guarantee you have drug-free employees? Are you somehow relieved of the duty to monitor them? You're in the best position to make that determination.
Originally posted by just_brian
Once again, I suggest that if you don't want to play by my rules as an employer, meeting my standards, then exercise your freedom to choose, and choose to go somewhere else.
Once again, I suggest that if you don't want to play by my rules as an employer, meeting my standards, then exercise your freedom to choose, and choose to go somewhere else.
Posting Guru
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,221
Likes: 0
From: Homer, Alaska
You either have to think random drug testing is good or random drug testing it bad. Personally, I think it is bad. It is a violation of everything we should have as a free society. I probably wouldn't mind it quite so much if Ted Kennedy would **** in the bottle like he expects me to so he will be safe from me.
Senior User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
From: Kodiak USA
Originally posted by hreed
It is a violation of everything we should have as a free society.
It is a violation of everything we should have as a free society.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Postmaster
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,496
Likes: 0
From: Calgary Canada
I'm very torn on this one.
I see billsco's point and I tend to agree when it comes to matters of personal freedom.
HOWEVER, if the job requires that you are able to function at 100% in order to protect the safety of others, then I have to go with jsukfan and others. I think random testing where the safety of others is concerned should be permitted. As mentioned, you are free to find work elsewhere.
If you want an example of where strict alcohol/drug policies have had a major impact, look no further than the oil/gas drilling industry. It used to have one of, if not THE, worst safety records of any industry. Much of it was due to alcohol and drug abuse. Companies have instituted zero tolerance policies enforced with plenty of random testing, and safety records have shot up above industry averages.
That seems like pretty good proof to me.
Waxy
I see billsco's point and I tend to agree when it comes to matters of personal freedom.
HOWEVER, if the job requires that you are able to function at 100% in order to protect the safety of others, then I have to go with jsukfan and others. I think random testing where the safety of others is concerned should be permitted. As mentioned, you are free to find work elsewhere.
If you want an example of where strict alcohol/drug policies have had a major impact, look no further than the oil/gas drilling industry. It used to have one of, if not THE, worst safety records of any industry. Much of it was due to alcohol and drug abuse. Companies have instituted zero tolerance policies enforced with plenty of random testing, and safety records have shot up above industry averages.
That seems like pretty good proof to me.
Waxy
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh
I don't care either way about testing in the work place, but i'm all for it in schools. I want my kids to be able to goto school and learn, not to see drug deals and fights. And if that means drug testing, then so be it. I wish they would have tested my high school. It maybe would of got rid of the losers who disrupted class all the time.
I have never done any drug except alcohol and have nothing to hide. If my employer wants to test me, i'm fine with it. If next week I feel it intrudes on my freedom, i'll quit and get a job that doesn't test. The only people I hear complaining about drug testing are druggies themselves.
I have never done any drug except alcohol and have nothing to hide. If my employer wants to test me, i'm fine with it. If next week I feel it intrudes on my freedom, i'll quit and get a job that doesn't test. The only people I hear complaining about drug testing are druggies themselves.
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
From: Pittsburgh
Originally posted by billsco
More than the amount of illegal drugs I've ever taken in my life: zero.
Why the personal attack?
More than the amount of illegal drugs I've ever taken in my life: zero.
Why the personal attack?
What personal attack? I didn't mean it as one if it came across that way. I have a few coworkers that hate drug testing also, and they still use drugs, that is what I based my statement on.
Elder User
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
From: N Ga. Mountains
I thought about placing an ad in our local "alternative lifestyle newspaper" stating "send $10 for a 100% guaranteed method of testing negative on random drug tests." Then I would send them a piece of paper that said "don't do drugs". I wonder how that would go over?--Jack