Ohio factory has jobs available, but 40% of applicants fail drug tests.

[PosPosPos]

Yes, the kind of people that insist up and down that a policy doesn't make sense and that they're not going to follow it are the kind of people you don't want working on a factory floor. Companies aren't hiring labor to tell them what their policies should be.

Okay, so you will be the first one to jump on the boat if there was ever a policy which mandated employees have to eat shit.

[Acidbaron]

What people do in their spare time is none of a companies business and if recruiters can't tell the difference between a junkie during an interview and someone who uses drugs recreationally they are in the wrong line of work since with opiods especially it's very obvious, not to mention there is always the social control construct of your fellow workers.

[WskyDK]

paying the taxes on it , while tax payers are paying for their food stamps.

...
...
...
Ok?

[Spectral]

Okay, so you will be the first one to jump on the boat if there was ever a policy which mandated employees have to eat shit.

I'd be the first to not be employed at that company. I'd wager that such a company would basically just not have employees at all.

There's a pretty straightforward difference between literally eating shit and asking that applicants not be engaged in illegal drug consumption though, right? I guess not, for the "fight the power" crew.

[Armakus]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/29/us/ohi...ntv/index.html



So do you legalization advocates think this company and others like it (or any industry, even where the use of dangerous machinery/driving isn't required) should be forced to shell out more of their own money to accommodate drug users? To give more precise (and more expensive) regular drug tests to determine if their employees are showing up to work high or if they are just recreational users during their off hours? Do you think they should just tolerate their employees showing up to worked impaired? Or do you think all people who use and abuse drugs should be precluded from working since the employers can't determine whether they use their drugs while working without spending more and more money?

All of those options are pretty shit, but they have to pick one since more and more idiots are using drugs.

As an advocate for legalization, as well as someone who quit smoking two years ago, I think it's fair certain jobs don't have exact means of testing this. If smoking is so important to you, there are other jobs out there that won't test.

[nyc81991]

Drug tests are stupid. Most hard drugs are out of peoples system in a few days at the most. Marijuana is the only "drug" that stays in your system for weeks and it's the least dangerous / impairing. If someone doesn't want to hire a person because they smoke weed they better not approve of anything. Caffeine is more dangerous.

[Gatsbybutters]

You get that's not an argument against it?
The drug policy is to avoid idiots being high.
If you function well enough while using drugs, they don't need to care - But that requires testing to weed out the people who are idiots.

I do not function well enough to work safely and efficiently when I smoke. No one does, and if they are saying they do, it's a lie, mostly to themselves. My argument is that they need actual drug tests that work if they are going to implement them in the first place. I'd love a test I can give to people that could tell me if they are high RIGHT NOW, not if they smoked a joint a week ago. But they don't have it, so the whole system is pointless and a joke.

The problem isn't "idiots being high". It's idiots.

[Fudal]

Those are factory jobs... They dont get to be too picky with who they employ, if they wanna be picky they can suck it up if they got problem filling their posts.

Are you seriously that ignorant that you think production facilities that are paying skilled workers $40-$50/ hr can't be picky about who they hire?

[Holofernes]

Youd probably have 0.1% of the workforce left lol.

in which world do you life?

[NoRest4Wicked]

My previous employer drug tested us on average every 4-6 weeks, and always before or after a holiday. It was a mild annoyance, but I got paid to stand around for a couple hours until I actually needed to piss. It was more annoying to have those people standing next to you, watching your dick to make sure you are actually urinating in the cup.

I've never done drugs, but I don't see an issue with employers wanting their workers not under the influence when they can put peoples lives in danger.

[Spectral]

Drug tests are stupid. Most hard drugs are out of peoples system in a few days at the most. Marijuana is the only "drug" that stays in your system for weeks and it's the least dangerous / impairing. If someone doesn't want to hire a person because they smoke weed they better not approve of anything. Caffeine is more dangerous.

An employer could personally have no problem with marijuana and still prefer to not hire users for legal reasons.

[Pickynerd]

An employer could personally have no problem with marijuana and still prefer to not hire users for legal reasons.

Mostly because insurance costs.

[Spectral]

Mostly because insurance costs.

Right. Our society is litigious as fuck - if you're an employer, you can't do much about that, so you just put in a bunch of CYA measures and deal with it.

[matt4pack]

The whole problem is blue collar workers are treated as second class in the US unlike somewhere such as Germany. Combine this with social media which makes everyone feel inadequate and the decline of rural communities and you end up with the current drug problems.

[Shakari]

Nice call to random anecdotes. Again if they want to get better people, they have to deal with the capitalist market like everybody else and suck it up snowflake. Either lower your standard or increase pay so that better suited people sends in resume. Or cry in public. How come other countries with high legal drug usages in the west dont have ultra increased factory death compared to the US? Yet most of these countries make job drugs testing illegal, try figuring this one out.

Most countries don't have legal high drug usage lol rather simple really, so this problem doesn't arise, ie its illegal lol

This is a new problem and yes it IS a problem, would you condone everyone one turning up to work drunk on alcohol, I seriously hope not,
drugs are the same even if legal. Why you advocate double standards is also concerning.

[melodramocracy]

You probably aren't paying enough. Why don't the other 60% get hired?

If you have so many positions open that you need to recruit more than half your prospective employees, there's something else going on.

[Shakari]

Thats not the point of the topic though its the fact that nearly half the potential workforce is intelligible for employment because of drugs use.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I have never showed up to a job interview drunk.

Have you showed up high?

[Bryntrollian]

Those are factory jobs... They dont get to be too picky with who they employ, if they wanna be picky they can suck it up if they got problem filling their posts.

Its a dangerous work environment, of course they get to be picky...

[Woceip]

By the owner's own admission...she can't tell if the applicants that failed the drug test had gotten high over the weekend or just before the test. She has decided that she can't take the risk on hiring anyone that might decide to get high at work. That's her right to do...but she's the one limiting her options.

Given that operating conditions can get you shut down as a company, and allowing people who cannot focus due to working under the influence of drugs to operate heavy equipment isn't exactly a great operating condition, I don't see how you could consider the alternative an "option".