Marijuana legalization clashes with drug testing in the workplace

[BlackSand]

... and yet some o' y'all continue bleating "yes master, may I have another". I find such obsequiousness disgusting.

Note: I didn't delete the rest of your post without reason ... I understand what you posting and have no issue with it.

I want to address this part though ... And something I think has been lost in translation in regards to the freedom people think they have.

My business is not a democracy ... The employees do not vote on what they want or what should happen.
I have to be concerned with their safety, morale and interests ... I listen to their opinions or suggestions and implement what is good and reliable as part of any successful process.

In the end though ... The question of "master" and "employee" is not up for grabs.
If I decided that it was necessary to piss test my employees there would not be a question as to whether or not they had a choice.
Objections would be met with a general response ... "That is my name on the door ... If you don't like it, go put your name on a door somewhere else".

Luckily I tend to have more patience with my employees than people in general ... And I seldom have the need nor opportunity to kick them in the ass.
I also trust them to do what should be done without me watching over them ... Which gives me more time to enjoy my own frivolous pursuits.

So ... My objection would still rest on the employer's right to do what they think is necessary for their business.
If you choose not to patronize that business due to their policies ... I understand that.
If you support the idea that people should reject the outright compliance with testing ... There are consequences until you are the boss (master).

.

 

[Moonglow]

Let's remember that these are private companies requiring the tests, not the government – consequently there are no privacy or search and seizure rights violations.

Indeed, in some rare cases government has actually played a role in protecting citizens from searches such as drug tests by their employers; the California state constitution affords privacy rights to both public and private sector employers, for example, and seven other states have enacted similar legislation.

Most everywhere else, however, if you refuse the test you'll likely lose your job or not be hired.

I worked for a company that had random drug testing of those employees that had a secret or higher security clearance as well as others that operated equipment.
When someone failed the test, a Doctor made the determination whether to send the person to a company sponsored drug rehab program or to have him/her terminated. Part of his decision making process was based on the attitude of the employee.

It is against the law to fire someone if they are an addict and want help..

 

[TooTall]

Let's remember that these are private companies requiring the tests, not the government – consequently there are no privacy or search and seizure rights violations.

Indeed, in some rare cases government has actually played a role in protecting citizens from searches such as drug tests by their employers; the California state constitution affords privacy rights to both public and private sector employers, for example, and seven other states have enacted similar legislation.

Most everywhere else, however, if you refuse the test you'll likely lose your job or not be hired.

I worked for a company that had random drug testing of those employees that had a secret or higher security clearance as well as others that operated equipment.
When someone failed the test, a Doctor made the determination whether to send the person to a company sponsored drug rehab program or to have him/her terminated. Part of his decision making process was based on the attitude of the employee.

It is against the law to fire someone if they are an addict and want help..

I don't believe that.

 

[Pogo]

... and yet some o' y'all continue bleating "yes master, may I have another". I find such obsequiousness disgusting.

Note: I didn't delete the rest of your post without reason ... I understand what you posting and have no issue with it.

I want to address this part though ... And something I think has been lost in translation in regards to the freedom people think they have.

My business is not a democracy ... The employees do not vote on what they want or what should happen.
I have to be concerned with their safety, morale and interests ... I listen to their opinions or suggestions and implement what is good and reliable as part of any successful process.

In the end though ... The question of "master" and "employee" is not up for grabs.
If I decided that it was necessary to piss test my employees there would not be a question as to whether or not they had a choice.
Objections would be met with a general response ... "That is my name on the door ... If you don't like it, go put your name on a door somewhere else".

Luckily I tend to have more patience with my employees than people in general ... And I seldom have the need nor opportunity to kick them in the ass.
I also trust them to do what should be done without me watching over them ... Which gives me more time to enjoy my own frivolous pursuits.

So ... My objection would still rest on the employer's right to do what they think is necessary for their business.
If you choose not to patronize that business due to their policies ... I understand that.
If you support the idea that people should reject the outright compliance with testing ... There are consequences until you are the boss (master).

Not sure if I grok the complete message here, but "master" as I invoked it isn't meant to be taken literally -- it's a metaphor for Authority -- i.e. any Authority, whether the employer or the State. What I'm griping about there is the propensity of jellyfish to just roll over without questioning; getting at a psychological need some seem to have to be told what to do so they might find nirvana in the glorious submission of obedience for the sake of obedience. ( )

It's not the structure of the workplace I take issue with; it's the groveling.

 

[BlackSand]

It is against the law to fire someone if they are an addict and want help..

That is certainly true in some places ... But ultimately irrelevant in regards to any employer willing to put forth effort.
If an employee is undesirable for any reason ... It isn't hard to find any number of things you can fire them in regards to.

The need to state that addiction is the cause of termination is only necessary for people too dim to figure out the other 50 reasons you want to fire them.
In reference to the laws regarding termination ... All you have to do is document whatever reasons you give for termination.

.

 

[EverCurious]

It's different from "no smokers" in that smoking (tobacco) can't be a solitary act -- it affects everyone around the smoker whether they want the intrusion or not.

~chuckles~ Clearly you've never gotten a contact high...

Anyway, I see what you're saying about it being "past use" - but as I said, speak to your boss and get pot use clarified. IF your boss says that they don't want you using pot either, then that's it - end of argument. If you choose to use pot in that case, then you've chosen it over your job.

If an employer doesn't want you using drugs, including pot, that's their choice - and especially if it's an already established requirement for the position. There's really no debate here.

 

[Pogo]

... and yet some o' y'all continue bleating "yes master, may I have another". I find such obsequiousness disgusting.

Note: I didn't delete the rest of your post without reason ... I understand what you posting and have no issue with it.

I want to address this part though ... And something I think has been lost in translation in regards to the freedom people think they have.

My business is not a democracy ... The employees do not vote on what they want or what should happen.
I have to be concerned with their safety, morale and interests ... I listen to their opinions or suggestions and implement what is good and reliable as part of any successful process.

In the end though ... The question of "master" and "employee" is not up for grabs.
If I decided that it was necessary to piss test my employees there would not be a question as to whether or not they had a choice.
Objections would be met with a general response ... "That is my name on the door ... If you don't like it, go put your name on a door somewhere else".

Luckily I tend to have more patience with my employees than people in general ... And I seldom have the need nor opportunity to kick them in the ass.
I also trust them to do what should be done without me watching over them ... Which gives me more time to enjoy my own frivolous pursuits.

So ... My objection would still rest on the employer's right to do what they think is necessary for their business.
If you choose not to patronize that business due to their policies ... I understand that.
If you support the idea that people should reject the outright compliance with testing ... There are consequences until you are the boss (master).

Not sure if I grok the complete message here, but "master" as I invoked it isn't meant to be taken literally -- it's a metaphor for Authority -- i.e. any Authority, whether the employer or the State. What I'm griping about there is the propensity of jellyfish to just roll over without questioning; getting at a psychological need some seem to have to be told what to do so they might find nirvana in the glorious submission of obedience for the sake of obedience. ( )

It's not the structure of the workplace I take issue with; it's the groveling.

Wending offtopic but as regards the above I can't get over the irony that the same voices who claim to be "libertarians" standing up against the horrors of the State championing individual rights -------- suddenly and starkly do a complete 180 when the oppressor is the Corporation rather than the State. At that point they get all obsequious and jump up to defend the oppressor against the rights of the individual.

Authority is authority is authority. If authority A is to be challenged for impinging on one of my rights, then Authority B is also to be challenged when it does the same thing. I don't get this flagrant double standard.

 

[Pogo]

It's different from "no smokers" in that smoking (tobacco) can't be a solitary act -- it affects everyone around the smoker whether they want the intrusion or not.

~chuckles~ Clearly you've never gotten a contact high...

Anyway, I see what you're saying about it being "past use" - but as I said, speak to your boss and get pot use clarified. IF your boss says that they don't want you using pot either, then that's it - end of argument. If you choose to use pot in that case, then you've chosen it over your job.

If an employer doesn't want you using drugs, including pot, that's their choice - and especially if it's an already established requirement for the position. There's really no debate here.

The question is --- there's no justification for it. When you hire on with an employer, you sell your services. That buyer (employer) has a right to expect your full capacity. Screening for past weed use doesn't address that at all. It just generates a parent-child relationship. Creates a caste system within the workforce.

Well fuck that. I don't work for parents; I work for equals.

 

[Moonglow]

Let's remember that these are private companies requiring the tests, not the government – consequently there are no privacy or search and seizure rights violations.

Indeed, in some rare cases government has actually played a role in protecting citizens from searches such as drug tests by their employers; the California state constitution affords privacy rights to both public and private sector employers, for example, and seven other states have enacted similar legislation.

Most everywhere else, however, if you refuse the test you'll likely lose your job or not be hired.

I worked for a company that had random drug testing of those employees that had a secret or higher security clearance as well as others that operated equipment.
When someone failed the test, a Doctor made the determination whether to send the person to a company sponsored drug rehab program or to have him/her terminated. Part of his decision making process was based on the attitude of the employee.

It is against the law to fire someone if they are an addict and want help..

I don't believe that.

I should have worded it better, you can't fire a drug addict or alcoholic if they are not using and are in treatment...

 

[EverCurious]

You've completely left out the employer's responsibility for their employee's safety as well as the safety of their customers - a relatively new concept pushed by nanny state style movements.

The move for drug testing is not only a product of the war on drugs, but also a self-protection movement.

 

[BlackSand]

Wending offtopic but as regards the above I can't get over the irony that the same voices who claim to be "libertarians" standing up against the horrors of the State championing individual rights -------- suddenly and starkly do a complete 180 when the oppressor is the Corporation rather than the State. At that point they get all obsequious and jump up to defend the oppressor against the rights of the individual.

Authority is authority is authority. If authority A is to be challenged for impinging on one of my rights, then Authority B is also to be challenged when it does the same thing. I don't get this flagrant double standard.

Although "off-topic" by your consideration ... It isn't the conflict that you suggest.
States rights versus individual rights ... Is not the same as individual rights versus individual rights.
However hypocritical you may view the difference ... Propriety always trumps investment (although investment can offer influence).

If anyone feels they are being oppressed beyond the necessary means to achieve compliance with respects to their individual rights ... Then I would suggest the act on their individual right to create their own state of propriety.

.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

"Drug testing" is bullshit. Nobody should bend over for that kind of statist overreach. I won't even patronize businesses that do it.

I can't believe We the Sheeple just bent over for that shit and enabled it. Now look where we are. Good job, assholes. Way to stand up.

Holy shit you're a dumbass.
The number of jobs out there that require a clear head for public safety is staggering.
Not to mention the liability issues if they were to kill someone while stoned at work.
So until they can come up with an accurate test to determine if they are high at the moment,I dont see any other way to address the issue.

 

[Pogo]

You've completely left out the employer's responsibility for their employee's safety as well as the safety of their customers - a relatively new concept pushed by nanny state style movements.

The move for drug testing is not only a product of the war on drugs, but also a self-protection movement.

Who are you addressing? You didn't quote anybody.

Again, if "safety" were the actual concern genuinely and honestly, a simple motor skills test would screen out those who were exhausted, preoccupied, hung over, sick, etc and would not screen out those who were fully capable yet used pot two weeks ago. That would be an honest test, would be far more effective, and would be cheaper and easier to do.

Which just demonstrates that pee tests are not after safety at all -- any more than "Reefer Madness" was an accurate propaganda film.

 

[Moonglow]

"Drug testing" is bullshit. Nobody should bend over for that kind of statist overreach. I won't even patronize businesses that do it.

I can't believe We the Sheeple just bent over for that shit and enabled it. Now look where we are. Good job, assholes. Way to stand up.

Holy shit you're a dumbass.
The number of jobs out there that require a clear head for public safety is staggering.
Not to mention the liability issues if they were to kill someone while stoned at work.
So until they can come up with an accurate test to determine if they are high at the moment,I dont see any other way to address the issue.

There is, by testing by nano-gram toxicity levels...

 

[Pogo]

"Drug testing" is bullshit. Nobody should bend over for that kind of statist overreach. I won't even patronize businesses that do it.

I can't believe We the Sheeple just bent over for that shit and enabled it. Now look where we are. Good job, assholes. Way to stand up.

Holy shit you're a dumbass.
The number of jobs out there that require a clear head for public safety is staggering.
Not to mention the liability issues if they were to kill someone while stoned at work.
So until they can come up with an accurate test to determine if they are high at the moment,I dont see any other way to address the issue.

Already addressed -- repeatedly. See 173 above for most recent.
For one time in your life would it kill ya to read the thread before bringing up old stuff that's already been done?

 

[BlackSand]

Well fuck that. I don't work for parents; I work for equals.

If we were equal ... The employee wouldn't be looking for a job.

.

 

[Pogo]

Wending offtopic but as regards the above I can't get over the irony that the same voices who claim to be "libertarians" standing up against the horrors of the State championing individual rights -------- suddenly and starkly do a complete 180 when the oppressor is the Corporation rather than the State. At that point they get all obsequious and jump up to defend the oppressor against the rights of the individual.

Authority is authority is authority. If authority A is to be challenged for impinging on one of my rights, then Authority B is also to be challenged when it does the same thing. I don't get this flagrant double standard.

Although "off-topic" by your consideration ... It isn't the conflict that you suggest.
States rights versus individual rights ... Is not the same as individual rights versus individual rights.
However hypocritical you may view the difference ... Propriety always trumps investment (although investment can offer influence).

If anyone feels they are being oppressed beyond the necessary means to achieve compliance with respects to their individual rights ... Then I would suggest the act on their individual right to create their own state of propriety.

Does this come in English?

 

[Pogo]

Well fuck that. I don't work for parents; I work for equals.

If we were equal ... The employee wouldn't be looking for a job.

I'm a Liberal; that means I don't believe in castes. The employer is absolutely not some higher life form.
It's a barter. He needs my services, I need his wages. We trade. It's what equals do.

 

[BlackSand]

Does this come in English?

I have no doubt you have trouble understanding it ... Especially the parts concerning propriety.

.

 

[BlackSand]

Well fuck that. I don't work for parents; I work for equals.

If we were equal ... The employee wouldn't be looking for a job.

I'm a Liberal; that means I don't believe in castes. The employer is absolutely not some higher life form.
It's a barter. He needs my services, I need his wages. We trade. It's what equals do.

You miss the point ... If you were equal you would be the employer.
It is not a caste ... Not intelligence ... Not superiority ... You just don't own the business.
If you did own your own business ... Then you would be equal and not looking for a job.

You make that separation in opportunities and responsibilities ... And then try to tell me they are the same.

.