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

[Spectral]

Why are you ignoring my entire post to focus on 2 numbers I myself admitted were made up?

The actual margin is relevant to your core point that companies don't need to be cost conscious.

[Bullettime]

Factory workers in Belgium are paid pretty well. It's hard work, but you are paid for your work. I won't say you will get rich doing it, but someone willing to work will earn more than the average joe.

In the US they make shit wages and just turn to alcohol more often than not.

[Deleted]

There's a reason why people who work factory and even logistics work end up turning to alcohol or other harder drugs than marijuana.

Note that I don't smoke marijuana. I just hate the ridiculous double standard companies seem to have with it.

I'm starting to wonder if factories participate in slavery by how bad some people make it sound.

[Fencers]

Then you are not basing it in a consistent manner.

Pretty consistent. Illegal drug use, not acceptable. Intoxication at work, not acceptable.

Some legal drugs are far more harmful than some illegal ones.

This may be, but if so likely is is circumstantial such that the person shouldn't be working anyway. Because they would be working while intoxicated or impaired- which is bad regardless of legality.

I don't trust the judgment or character of those who wish to force their beliefs onto others.

As a society we do this all the time. Every social law is something someone thinks. No judgement, no value.

[Machismo]

Pretty consistent. Illegal drug use, not acceptable. Intoxication at work, not acceptable.

This may be, but if so likely is is circumstantial such that the person shouldn't be working anyway. Because they would be working while intoxicated or impaired- which is bad regardless of legality.

As a society we do this all the time. Every social law is something someone thinks. No judgement, no value.

But the issue is that many illegal drugs are less harmful than the legal ones. The existence of such laws is inconsistent, which makes your stance inconsistent.

You shouldn't get to decide who gets to work, and who gets not. That is some authoritarian bullshit of epic proportions.

I was referring to your judgment. It's inconsistent, so it is unreliable. You are literally basing the justification of something on its existence.

[unbound]

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.

Have to learn to read PR. Think about what is being said...6 out of 10 applicants are not failing drug tests. Are they taking all 6 of them? Nope.

Corporate PR is awesome at finding scapegoats. Why can't they hire more or provide better raises? Squirrel!!

My favorite one was when the ACA became law. All of the sudden corporations were talking about how much rates were going up because of the ACA. Here's the kicker, they went up much more before the ACA...they just had different excuses back then as they were busy unloading more of the cost on their workers.



I've seen the similar BS whenever it comes to raises. If the company did well, the raises weren't that great because they wanted to match the "market". If the company didn't do well, then the raises weren't that great because they couldn't afford it. Notice the pattern? It always lands on raises not being that great.

[Bullettime]

I'm starting to wonder if factories participate in slavery by how bad some people make it sound.

They just pay shit knowing there's no shortage of unskilled labor to fill the spot. They'll do hiring in waves, bring in a shit load of people, work the everloving hell out of them until they quit or the temp window ends that a lot of them are starting to use, then bring in a fresh batch. The ones that manage to stick around doing it turn to alcohol or drugs and there's generally little to no advancement.

[Bullettime]

But the issue is that many illegal drugs are less harmful than the legal ones. The existence of such laws is inconsistent, which makes your stance inconsistent.

You shouldn't get to decide who gets to work, and who gets not. That is some authoritarian bullshit of epic proportions.

I was referring to your judgment. It's inconsistent, so it is unreliable. You are literally basing the justification of something on its existence.

Anecdote but like I put above, at similar "unskilled' jobs, no one ever cared about people lighting up on the weekend. But to see half the crew roll in hungover was pretty much the norm but considered acceptable.

[Spectral]

lol is this how you got your 30k posts? By running off on a 1v1 tangent irrelevant to the original point? My numbers were exaggerated to the point where it was obvious (or should have been) to the reader that I was sarcastic and witty.

Of course this is 100% irrelevant to the OP because the laws changing are not (should not) cater to the factories being cheap and not wanting to shell out more money for better tests. The laws WILL change concerning marijuana in Ohio, I promise you. It's not a matter of if, but only when at this point in the US. And when they do the factories can either: not hire anybody that doesn't pass their outdated test (possible problems for them in the future with this route, but still an option), or upgrade their screenings and get with the changing times.

You're giving yourself far too much credit with the witty part.

The rest is speculation about what'll happen going forward. OK, whatever.

[Machismo]

Anecdote but like I put above, at similar "unskilled' jobs, no one ever cared about people lighting up on the weekend. But to see half the crew roll in hungover was pretty much the norm but considered acceptable.

I worked with alcoholics, it's fucking terrible. I have no problem what someone does in their off time, but when they come into work, they better be on point. Their choice of drug does not matter, its impact on their performance is what matters. My company does not drug test, but we do fire people who are stoned/drunk/hungover at work.

[GreenJesus]

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.

Using heavy machinery and drugs don't go well together... She is actually prioritizing the safety of her workers.

[Machismo]

Using heavy machinery and drugs don't go well together... She is actually prioritizing the safety of her workers.

Great, good for her. She doesn't then get to turn around and complain that people are failing the standards that she supports. She is literally asking for exactly what she is getting, so it's not an issue.

[Fencers]

But the issue is that many illegal drugs are less harmful than the legal ones.

No, that is an issue. It is not the issue in the OP or the issue I initially commented upon.

The existence of such laws is inconsistent, which makes your stance inconsistent.

There are a host of concerns here that are not inclusive of the topic of this thread. But I am not totally convinced by some claims for drug legalization based on what I have read. I do agree with some reports in that some currently illegal drugs might be better for the legal system & society if they were decriminalized.

Consistency within the law and all possible scenarios in which the law might not take into account X or Y circumstance is another much larger topic. One that is likely applicable to many aspects of US law, not just legal drug use.

Could US drug law be better written? Sure. However, I am not in favor of full legalization at all.

You shouldn't get to decide who gets to work, and who gets not.

I disagree with this entirely.

That is some authoritarian bullshit of epic proportions.

I am fairly authoritarian on varying issues. I do not believe humans can fully be in charge of themselves.

I was referring to your judgment. It's inconsistent, so it is unreliable.

Pretty consistent. Not in favor of illegal drug use or intoxication in relation to employment.

[Sunseeker]

Great, good for her. She doesn't then get to turn around and complain that people are failing the standards that she supports. She is literally asking for exactly what she is getting, so it's not an issue.

I mean, a 6/10 success rate for factory workers passing a drug test really isn't that bad. The working conditions and pay are both likely very poor, so she's getting low-quality applications.

I never understand this mindset in business where they think they can treat their workers so poorly...and yet expect the best of the best to apply to work there. They don't treat their products that way, they know poor products=poor profits; so why would poor treatment=good workers?

[Machismo]

No, that is an issue. It is not the issue in the OP or the issue I initially commented upon.

There are a host of concerns here that are not inclusive of the topic of this thread. But I am not totally convinced by some claims for drug legalization based on what I have read. I do agree with some reports in that some currently illegal drugs might be better for the legal system & society if they were decriminalized.

Consistency within the law and all possible scenarios in which the law might not take into account X or Y circumstance is another much larger topic. One that is likely applicable to many aspects of US law, not just legal drug use.

Could US drug law be better written? Sure. However, I am not in favor of full legalization at all.

I disagree with this entirely.

I am fairly authoritarian on varying issues. I do not believe humans can fully be in charge of themselves.

Pretty consistent. Not in favor of illegal drug use or intoxication in relation to employment.

It is the issue, as it points out your logical inconsistency. Your stance is based on an inconsistent set of laws, making your stance inconsistent as a result.

You are about as authoritarian as they come, you want to decide who is worthy of working, and who is not. On top of that, you want to base it on inconsistent logic...

Once again, the existence of a law is not a justification for it. Let me know when that sinks in.

[LilSaihah]

40% sounds about right. Blue collar workers are riddled with drug problems. 40% got screened out; how many of the 60% were smart enough to bring someone else's piss for the test?

[Machismo]

I mean, a 6/10 success rate for factory workers passing a drug test really isn't that bad. The working conditions and pay are both likely very poor, so she's getting low-quality applications.

I never understand this mindset in business where they think they can treat their workers so poorly...and yet expect the best of the best to apply to work there. They don't treat their products that way, they know poor products=poor profits; so why would poor treatment=good workers?

You see that a ton with poorly-run business, or with companies in areas that are not economically diverse. They are the only game in town, so they are more restrictive. Honestly, that's fine. However, they then don't get to turn around and complain when they literally get exactly what they ask for.

My hometown is a lot like that. The quality of labor was always very low, because there weren't that many major employers. The quality talent left for greener pastures, and the companies were left with those who were not willing to better themselves. Now it's 20-40 years later, and the entire economy is in the shitter. You also see it across the entire rust belt. Entire towns of people who are too uneducated, lazy, or untrained to do anything they learned to do on their first job.

[AztechZero]

Oh, it's a town near Youngstown. Color me fucking shocked...

[Shakari]

To be fair, if alcohol was something that could be popped, most factory workers would be out of jobs. The fact that the company isn't investing the better drug test says something right there since there are absolutely tests available that can determine when the drug was consumed but they don't use it. Taking a hit at night before bed is bad but hitting the bar and/or coming into work the next day hungover is ok?

I've always thought with drug tests that companies should use impairment checks or start barring alcohol. I have to appeal every drug test because I take prescription tramadol but half my coworkers when doing logistics or even security would get shitfaced every night?

Anecdotes and all that but I've ran into far more issues in those types of jobs with coworkers and alcohol so I'm a bit jaded here.

Thing is the company should have the same issues and policies with alcohol and with people working while drunk ie they would not be allowed to as judgement is impared and could end up killing people.

[Fencers]

It is the issue, as it points out your logical inconsistency.

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.

Your stance is based on an inconsistent set of laws

To you. Take your case up with the courts.

Once again, the existence of a law is not a justification for it. Let me know when that sinks in.

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.