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?
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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 - - -
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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).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 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.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.
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.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.
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.
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 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.Would you refuse to allow someone to work if they speed in their car? After all, it is the law.
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.
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.I'll go ahead and stick with allowing the employers the freedom to hire whomever they want.
Last edited by Fencers; 2017-07-30 at 10:41 PM.
Simple. Legalize drugs.
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.
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.
QFT
I just used good street view for Hubbard OH... And yes, holy shit that area looks depressing AF.
- - - Updated - - -
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.