Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
9
10
... LastLast
  1. #141
    How many of those 40% smoked a little pot 2 weeks ago?

    Maybe relax a bit on the pot and get a drug test that does not include it?

  2. #142
    I will never hire someone that I suspect of smoking marijuana.

    Here is my anecdotal:
    My best friend at high school was a genius programmer. Now after some years of smoking, his programs are below average.
    Ever programs he did in his youth, he can no longer replicate.
    I have a couple other friends that smoke, and over the years, they also seem dumbed down, a lot

    I guess long time weed smokers are MAYBE ok for flipping burgers, or filling gas tanks, as long as they don't show up at work high

  3. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by Woceip View Post
    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".
    Like I said, the drug tests don't actually say that the person was high right before work or on the weekend. If she needs to drug test her employees every day...she needs a better method to check to see if anyone is actually high at the time. As it stands, many of her applicants might be failing due to prescription medication and not because of degenerate drug use.
    “The biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand. We listen to reply,” Stephen Covey.

  4. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by I Push Buttons View Post
    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.
    I'd have to dig up the statistics, but alcohol is responsible for a far greater amount of productivity loss, workplace injuries/accidents, and even workplace deaths than pot (and I even think all the other drugs combined). So unless they're also doing daily breathalyzers this is pretty much a red herring. Alcohol has a far greater impact on the workplace and the economy than pot, and would require daily testing to make sure it's not still in peoples systems. Yet you don't see people clamoring for that or complaining about how much that would cost, do you? Companies just absorb the negative impact and moved on.

    I think the companies should either deal with it like they do with alcohol abuse, or start testing for all of them equally.

  5. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by mariovsgoku View Post
    Using heavy machinery and drugs don't go well together... She is actually prioritizing the safety of her workers.
    Sure, if those applicants that are failing are under the influence of drugs at the time...but her tests are not accurate enough to determine that.

    I wonder if her drug tests also check for things like anti-allergy medications...which often come with specific instructions to not operate heavy machinery.
    Last edited by Evil Midnight Bomber; 2017-07-30 at 08:26 PM.
    “The biggest communication problem is we do not listen to understand. We listen to reply,” Stephen Covey.

  6. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    I support the rule of law as dictated by citizens. Currently, many drugs are illegal in the US. I agree with these laws in macro despite lack of refinement.

    Refining those laws- totally different set of issues and highly debatable on extent.

    To you. Take your case up with the courts.

    I agree with the law on the legal status of many substances used for intoxication. Refining the law is another matter. Nonetheless it is the law that certain drugs are illegal.

    People are not generally allowed to disregard the law, even if inconsistent in your opinion, because they find it to be inconsistent, flawed or generally disagreeable.

    If you wish to change that- awesome! Do so. Petition your law makers and take part in your society to that discourse.
    And that rule of law is inconsistent, making your stance inconsistent. Saying you support the rule of law, means you would have supported slavery before 1865, or the banning of gay marriage before a few years ago.

    It's inconsistent, as has even been admitted by you. That's not even really up for debate. Even you have said some legal drugs are more dangerous than some illegal ones.

    Once again, the existence of a law is not a justification for it. Until you figure that part out, your comments mean nothing. Let me know when you figure it out.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by d00mGuArD View Post
    I will never hire someone that I suspect of smoking marijuana.

    Here is my anecdotal:
    My best friend at high school was a genius programmer. Now after some years of smoking, his programs are below average.
    Ever programs he did in his youth, he can no longer replicate.
    I have a couple other friends that smoke, and over the years, they also seem dumbed down, a lot

    I guess long time weed smokers are MAYBE ok for flipping burgers, or filling gas tanks, as long as they don't show up at work high
    Great, then don't hire potheads. However, you don't get to turn around and complain that many perspective employees failed your standards, because they smoke pot. That is exactly what this company is doing.

  7. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    I support the rule of law as dictated by citizens. Currently, many drugs are illegal in the US. I agree with these laws in macro despite lack of refinement.

    Refining those laws- totally different set of issues and highly debatable on extent.

    To you. Take your case up with the courts.

    I agree with the law on the legal status of many substances used for intoxication. Refining the law is another matter. Nonetheless it is the law that certain drugs are illegal.

    People are not generally allowed to disregard the law, even if inconsistent in your opinion, because they find it to be inconsistent, flawed or generally disagreeable.

    If you wish to change that- awesome! Do so. Petition your law makers and take part in your society to that discourse.
    The law is always subject to interpretations though and there is also the ability to look the other way, which is done a lot, as it should. Noone cares if you smoke a little pot but lets not do it in court..in front of a judge. If you have a factory and can not fill your positions, stop testing for stuff that will have no effect on job.

  8. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Brubear View Post
    I'd have to dig up the statistics, but alcohol is responsible for a far greater amount of productivity loss, workplace injuries/accidents, and even workplace deaths than pot (and I even think all the other drugs combined). So unless they're also doing daily breathalyzers this is pretty much a red herring. Alcohol has a far greater impact on the workplace and the economy than pot, and would require daily testing to make sure it's not still in peoples systems. Yet you don't see people clamoring for that or complaining about how much that would cost, do you? Companies just absorb the negative impact and moved on.

    I think the companies should either deal with it like they do with alcohol abuse, or start testing for all of them equally.
    I think cigarettes may be the top when it comes to lost hours. Smokers tend to take far more breaks than others.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/health/10patt.html

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598486/
    Last edited by Machismo; 2017-07-30 at 08:31 PM.

  9. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by Najnaj View Post
    The law is always subject to interpretations though and there is also the ability to look the other way, which is done a lot, as it should. Noone cares if you smoke a little pot but lets not do it in court..in front of a judge. If you have a factory and can not fill your positions, stop testing for stuff that will have no effect on job.
    Your missing the point .... in this case ... it WOULD effect the job ... massively lol
    Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men: Jean Rostand. Yeah, Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour!.
    Classic: "The tank is the driver, the healer is the fuel, and the DPS are the kids sitting in the back seat screaming and asking if they're there yet."
    Irony >> "do they even realize that having a state religion IS THE REASON WE LEFT BRITTEN? god these people are idiots"

  10. #150
    I think everyone here is missing a big part of this picture. With the government requiring health insurance, the amount and the type of jobs that are now 'drug screening' has 10fold. A lot of companies that didn't test in the past now do because they know they can bill the test takers insurance, which will reimburse them, or in some cases possibly even make money...

    Its a win/win/win for the employer! It pretty much provides a statement that this possible employee won't end up being a liability (I say pretty much because obviously Quick Fix/Synthetic piss is very cheap), will most likely be reliable, somewhat intelligent (cause anyone that has the slightest chance of pissing dirty that gives a real sample is obviously herppdurrr), and it most likely cost them nothing, possibily even making profit (rather it be 3 cents or 500 dollars is no different)!

    What company wouldn't hop on that train?!

    Personally I'm 100% for impairment testing. It does not eliminate possible employees, doesn't ruin possible opportunities for people that fall under that category, doesn't invade peoples personal life, and honestly makes a company that does have dangerous situations that much safer! Not only does it weed out people who try to get away with working while impaired, it could also prevent further accidents by exposing any negative behavioral actions or injuries. Say someone twisted their ankle over the weekend, and they operate some sort of equipment with foot pedals. A small twist might not prevent someone from using said pedals, but could lower their reaction time, or make them question an action, possibly resulting in some sort of accident... By no means is it fool proof, but it is an added later of saftey, and could also open up a few new positions or departments in companies.

  11. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    And that rule of law is inconsistent, making your stance inconsistent.
    So one can ignore the laws one feels are inconsistent?

    Inconsistency in the law, real or perceived, does not provide one with the option to ignore the law without consequence.

    Saying you support the rule of law, means you would have supported slavery before 1865, or the banning of gay marriage before a few years ago.
    I wouldn't agree and thus support those laws, but would not break them either. Rather I would petition against those laws. As some people actually did historically (slavery) and I have in my lifetime (gay marriage).

    I think citizens should be active in their community and direction of society. I am.

    It's inconsistent, as has even been admitted by you. That's not even really up for debate. Even you have said some legal drugs are more dangerous than some illegal ones.
    I did not claim the laws were inconsistent. That's all your argument. Take it up with the courts.

    Once again, the existence of a law is not a justification for it. Until you figure that part out, your comments mean nothing. Let me know when you figure it out.
    Justification? This is an issue you brought up. I both agree and support much of the US law in macro regarding illegal substances used for intoxication.

    At best, I would consider some refinement to decriminalize some substances but would need to be more convinced than currently on the impact of recreational drug use.

  12. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    So one can ignore the laws one feels are inconsistent?

    Inconsistency in the law, real or perceived, does not provide one with the option to ignore the law without consequence.

    I wouldn't agree and thus support those laws, but would not break them either. Rather I would petition against those laws. As some people actually did historically (slavery) and I have in my lifetime (gay marriage).

    I think citizens should be active in their community and direction of society. I am.

    I did not claim the laws were inconsistent. That's all your argument. Take it up with the courts.

    Justification? This is an issue you brought up. I both agree and support much of the US law in macro regarding illegal substances used for intoxication.

    At best, I would consider some refinement to decriminalize some substances but would need to be more convinced than currently on the impact of recreational drug use.
    I never said to ignore laws. However, if you are going to base allowing people to be employed on whether they have broken a law, you are going to have a very bad time. Almost all adults break a law every single day. Would you refuse to allow someone to work if they speed in their car? After all, it is the law.

    Everything else you posted is authoritarian bullshit.

    I'll go ahead and stick with allowing the employers the freedom to hire whomever they want.
    Last edited by Machismo; 2017-07-30 at 10:14 PM.

  13. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    However, if you are going to base allowing people to be employed on whether they have broken a law, you are going to have a very bad time.
    Only if they fail the company's drug testing, yes. Their illegal action now has a consequence- I don't think such people should have jobs. And neither do a number of employers.

    Would you refuse to allow someone to work if they speed in their car? After all, it is the law.
    Fuck yes. I do not know how to drive a vehicle; so there may be a reason for speeding I am not aware of in the course of driving. However as a pedestrian, one who has been hit by a car several times, nearly hit by a cars a few more tines, former Florida resident (where drivers give no fucks seemingly) and someone who has lost several family members to car accidents. Hell-to-fucking-yes.

    I am pretty severe on how I think drivers should be treated. I do not even think people should be allowed to own personal vehicles willy-nilly at all.

    As I said, I have many authoritarian views. I do not think can be left to their devices. They must be controlled to an extent.

    I'll go ahead and stick with allowing the employers the freedom to hire whomever they want.
    Clearly, if a company is testing for drug use they don't want certain employees. So they are doing what they want and never stated otherwise.
    Last edited by Fencers; 2017-07-30 at 10:41 PM.

  14. #154
    Simple. Legalize drugs.

  15. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    Only if they fail the company's drug testing, yes. Their illegal action now has a consequence- I don't think such people should have jobs. And neither do a number of employers.

    Fuck yes. I do not know how to drive a vehicle; so there may be a reason for speeding I am not aware of in the course of driving. However as a pedestrian, one who has been hit by a car a several times, nearly hit by a car, former Florida resident (where drivers give no fucks seemingly) and someone who has lost several family members to car accidents. Hell-to-fucking-yes.

    I am pretty strict on how I think drivers should be treated. I do not even think people should be allowed to own personal vehicles willy-nilly at all.

    Clearly, if a company is testing for drug use they don't want certain employees. So they are doing what they want and never stated otherwise.
    Then such things should be up to the company, not up to you. Do you see the difference?

    So, anyone who breaks a law, ever... cannot work. I'm not talking they cannot work for you... they cannot work at all.

    I have no problem if a company wants to drug test, good for them. I do have a problem when authoritarian bastards want to force their bullshit beliefs onto everyone else.

    You are literally saying that the overwhelming majority of the adult American public should not be allowed to work. I hope you don't break any pedestrian laws, like stepping into a crosswalk too early, or not using a crosswalk. Otherwise, you wouldn't even allow yourself to work.

    I just realized, you are the same as Orlong, have fun with that.

  16. #156
    The Lightbringer Skayth's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Backwards Country
    Posts
    3,098
    Quote Originally Posted by I Push Buttons View Post
    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.
    How about people that are still drunk when they come to work? or hung over? What are they going to do if you wreck something? Give you a breathalizer? No. They are going to draw blood. The more expensive test. They want as much proof to make it infallible.

  17. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by tollshot View Post
    Aye, because the more hazardous the work place the better, eh?
    I'm just saying the company probably couldn't hire pot heads if they wanted to. One mistep and they get sued into oblivion or shut down regardless if the employee was willfully floating in the clouds on the job.

    We live in a nation where a burglar can fall through a skylight on a home roof, sue the homeowner, and win.

  18. #158
    Titan I Push Buttons's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    11,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Skayth View Post
    How about people that are still drunk when they come to work? or hung over? What are they going to do if you wreck something? Give you a breathalizer? No. They are going to draw blood. The more expensive test. They want as much proof to make it infallible.
    According to another guy earlier in the thread who works in this industry, they breathalyze people before they even let them operate the machinery.

  19. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Holofernes View Post
    in which world do you life?
    One where construction worker drink beer on the week end. Theres a difference with drinking outside work and drinking to work. Same should apply to any drug.

  20. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by Sky High View Post
    I would think anyone living in Ohio would be high all the time to deal with the fact they live in Ohio.
    QFT

    I just used good street view for Hubbard OH... And yes, holy shit that area looks depressing AF.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ouch View Post
    One where construction worker drink beer on the week end. Theres a difference with drinking outside work and drinking to work. Same should apply to any drug.
    Thing is, people are high on the job all the time.

    Seriously though, companies would end up losing a great deal of their current staff if they pulled a drug test on them, so they don't. All they want is people who care enough about a job, that they can pass the first test.
    Disarm now correctly removes the targets’ arms.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •