Drug testing
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
From: Eugene Oregon
Your example shows probable cause, way different than suspicionless, random testing, which won't show a sobered-up juicer with a hang over, which your example employee would need to be, at a minimum . By the by what was this guy, the crane opperators, safety record, and did he ignore ground crew directions? Anyways, most employers don't have a say in this issue, if they have insurance, (and you pretty well have to if your even close to legit, and a fool if you don't, IMHO) policy is dictated, for better or for worse, by the insurance industry.
Posting Guru
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
From: Colorado
Originally posted by 62uni
Your example shows probable cause, way different than suspicionless, random testing, which won't show a sobered-up juicer with a hang over, which your example employee would need to be, at a minimum . By the by what was this guy, the crane opperators, safety record, and did he ignore ground crew directions? Anyways, most employers don't have a say in this issue, if they have insurance, (and you pretty well have to if your even close to legit, and a fool if you don't, IMHO) policy is dictated, for better or for worse, by the insurance industry.
Your example shows probable cause, way different than suspicionless, random testing, which won't show a sobered-up juicer with a hang over, which your example employee would need to be, at a minimum . By the by what was this guy, the crane opperators, safety record, and did he ignore ground crew directions? Anyways, most employers don't have a say in this issue, if they have insurance, (and you pretty well have to if your even close to legit, and a fool if you don't, IMHO) policy is dictated, for better or for worse, by the insurance industry.
This operators 'safety' record was as far as I know, no serious injury accidents. I do know of several times where he dropped a load due to carelessness, no one hurt. The union saved his rear every time. Yes, he was either ignoring or out right missing the directions of the lead, which in the case I mentioned of carrying a load over a crews head, was me. drinking was his most serious problem, but he also showed a lot of poor judgement at other times. Smokin his weed was easier to conceal.
Yes, insurance does dictate a lot of these rules, therefore our bellyaching about the issue is moot. Regardless of my personal feelings on testing, if it is required by my insurance, it will be done. As you stated, business owners would be stupid to operate without insurance, and those employees that can't grasp that, well, probably should be looking for work where testing isn't a mandate.
(BTW, how close am I to 500 posts so I can shut up?)
Last edited by rikfish; Jan 24, 2004 at 02:57 PM.
Postmaster
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,659
Likes: 2
From: S/C Texas
I worked for a place and which no one ever complained of the testing.
If you tested positive, you were off a month. In that time you were sent to doctors and counselors that the employer paid 100%. After that month, you tested again. If negative, you went back to work with the employers new found respect. If you were still positive, you continued 'the program'. Then another month, you tested again. Negative good, positive, terminated.
Not one employee ever complained, even the ones terminated cause they couldnt kick the habit. The vast majority who went throught the program, regardless of the outcome, were very thankful for the oppurtinuty.
Ofcourse, some just figured out how to beat the testing.
Thats pretty fair I think.
If you tested positive, you were off a month. In that time you were sent to doctors and counselors that the employer paid 100%. After that month, you tested again. If negative, you went back to work with the employers new found respect. If you were still positive, you continued 'the program'. Then another month, you tested again. Negative good, positive, terminated.
Not one employee ever complained, even the ones terminated cause they couldnt kick the habit. The vast majority who went throught the program, regardless of the outcome, were very thankful for the oppurtinuty.
Ofcourse, some just figured out how to beat the testing.
Thats pretty fair I think.
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 245
Likes: 3
From: north minnesota
the problem at hand is not stopping someone who is stoned from being in the workplace,the problem is keeping drugs from being transported into the U.S. It seems to me the military and the government are doing pretty good at keeping out terrorist activity and keeping mexicans from crossing the border. Why are they having such a hard time stopping the drug transfers? makes a person say to him or herself say hummmm. and what is our number one import product?
Laughing Gas
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 796
Likes: 1
From: KCMO
It took awhile, but I finally found some interesting background information on this subject:
http://www.loompanics.com/cgi-local/...e53+1086890675
http://www.loompanics.com/cgi-local/...e53+1086890675
Posting Guru
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 1
From: pound
Marijuana does not cause accidents. Only 1 in every 3 cars involved in an accident had a driver that was under the influence of marijuana.
Now, doesn't that mean that 2 out of every 3 cars involved had drivers that WEREN'T under the influence of marijuana? This means that you are statistically safer if you are using marijuana than if you are not when driving. Oh, by the way, this is ALL drivers involved in an accident that had marijuana in their system, meaning that if they got high 30 days ago and haven't touched it since, it still shows up in a blood test, so it isn't accurate. Also, it doesn't state how many were using marijuana AND alcohol, it just says marijuana. Nobody knows if they were high AND drunk, just if they had pot in their systems. Blaming pot doesn't help anything.
Now, doesn't that mean that 2 out of every 3 cars involved had drivers that WEREN'T under the influence of marijuana? This means that you are statistically safer if you are using marijuana than if you are not when driving. Oh, by the way, this is ALL drivers involved in an accident that had marijuana in their system, meaning that if they got high 30 days ago and haven't touched it since, it still shows up in a blood test, so it isn't accurate. Also, it doesn't state how many were using marijuana AND alcohol, it just says marijuana. Nobody knows if they were high AND drunk, just if they had pot in their systems. Blaming pot doesn't help anything.
Senior User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 245
Likes: 3
From: north minnesota
no it means there would be a third less accidents if people didnt smoke pot and drive,i feel something has clouded your point, just kidding around, seriously however i have smoked pot earlier in my life and its not good to be high and drive period.I have been all over and smoked the best and there have been times when i found myself driving 25mph in 65mph speed zones.Speed is not the only thing that kills so does being so stoned you almost forget your driving.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Tuned
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
From: Western NY
Im not against random testing, as I have nothing to hide. Most company's that do it, make it understood to their employee's when they are hired. If you feel thats an invasion of privacy, maby you need to work somewhere that dosent test.
As far as schools go, the only thing Ill say is that everyones against testing till some kid thats high does something stupid and dangerous in school, then everyone screams that the school did nothing to protect the other kids from a student doing drugs.
Im by no means an a prude, Im just saying that if someone wants to enjoy recreational drugs, they might want to consider an occupation that dosent require drug testing.
As far as schools go, the only thing Ill say is that everyones against testing till some kid thats high does something stupid and dangerous in school, then everyone screams that the school did nothing to protect the other kids from a student doing drugs.
Im by no means an a prude, Im just saying that if someone wants to enjoy recreational drugs, they might want to consider an occupation that dosent require drug testing.
Thread Starter
|
Elder User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
From: Buffalo, Minnesota
I think it's good to continually examine your beliefs.
Do you think it's an invasion of privacy for a person to have to submit to a urine test, especially when there is not the slightest doubt about drug usage?
Do you think it's an invasion of privacy for a person to have to submit to a urine test, especially when there is not the slightest doubt about drug usage?
Tuned
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
From: Western NY
Ive done a couple of tests for work and didnt feel that way. It would appear that Im the minority though. I think invasion of privecy would be them looking into something that dosent concern them (talking about employers).. I guess I feel that knowing whether ones employee is on drugs would concern them. I didnt mean to be harsh in my posting (although after reading it...I guess it could be taken that way). I sure would like to be comfertable knowing that the guy driving my kids to school isnt enjoying drugs as a past time. Im sure there is a time and place for testing and Im sure that some jobs dont have to have it. Just my opinion though....
Laughing Gas
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 796
Likes: 1
From: KCMO
Invasion of privacy aside, I think it's ludicrous to rely only on a screening system, which has false positive rates as high as 70%, to determine the fate of an individual, and perhaps destroy his livelihood. That's like playing Russian roulette - against your will. If you are one of the unlucky ones who draws a false positive, you have no recourse other than the court system, but we've seen how that can cost thousands of dollars and years of your life. People argue that capital punishment is wrong if just one innocent person is executed by mistake. This is the same type of situation, except that the penalty is not as severe.