NC New Welfare Drug Test Law: 1/3rd Tested Positive from Sample.

[Pogo]

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

Makes one wonder about the value in firing them.

I do to a degree but the addiction is the most important need in their life.

How do you know that though, from a chemical test? I don't want to dismiss the debilitating effects of real addiction, but one thing that the "War on Drugs" tends to gloss over is that most people who use (recreational) drugs aren't addicts.

Not sure why you need to do recreational drugs.

Heh, sure. I don't think 'need' enters into it.

Agreed -- the use of that term belies a fundamental ignorance of what's going on.

Wonder if he walks into bars to inform the patrons that they don't "need" to drink, or walks into movie theaters to inform them that they don't "need" to be watching movies, or into a sports arena to let them know they don't "need" to be watching baseball or football.

Again, it goes right back to controlling other people's private behaviour. Wonder why some people feel they "need" to do that.

 

[Publius1787]

How many studies would you need in order to drop this bullshit? This has been done......and evaluated....many times. The fact is that there is no benefit to requiring drug testing before approving public assistance. It's a scam.

Not only that, but when FL tried to do this same thing a couple of years back, they compared the results of people who were on welfare to drug tests ran by companies, and found that people on assistance were less than half as likely to pop positive than those who had jobs.

Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

Or, unless the business was just hunting for an excuse to cut payroll without taking its responsibility for unemployment compensation, which would be my guess.

An "excuse" huh? Testing is the legitimate of the business, what the reason. Attempting to downplay it as if they ought not to be testing only demonstrates a bias in favor of those who do drugs. Why, I wonder?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Nobody has given a decent argument against what I have been saying for years. Most government benefits are given to people with dependent children. Society has a moral obligation to see that the innocent don't suffer simply because their parents are bums. The only answer I hear is, "that is an emotional response". Pure BS. A society can be judged by how well it treats it's weakest people. Food stamp cards are locked in to purchase only foodstuffs, not drugs or alcohol. Any government agency rules that deprives children of food and shelter because mom used a drug before testing is flat out unconscionable.

 

[dblack]

Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

And we're right back to this again -- if they're good workers, what's the point of going on a drug-fishing expedition?
The only answer is institutional control of private behaviour. It's all there is left.

If they are on drugs then they can't be good workers.

Heh... that's a ridiculously simplistic and naive notion. Caffeine is a recreational drug.

 

[dblack]

Not only that, but when FL tried to do this same thing a couple of years back, they compared the results of people who were on welfare to drug tests ran by companies, and found that people on assistance were less than half as likely to pop positive than those who had jobs.

Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

Or, unless the business was just hunting for an excuse to cut payroll without taking its responsibility for unemployment compensation, which would be my guess.

An "excuse" huh? Testing is the legitimate of the business, what the reason. Attempting to downplay it as if they ought not to be testing only demonstrates a bias in favor of those who do drugs. Why, I wonder?

Maybe it's just a bias in favor of personal freedom and privacy. But fuck that, right?

Anyway, whether business can, or should, drug test has nothing AT ALL to do with whether welfare recipients should be drug tested.

 

[Pogo]

Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

And we're right back to this again -- if they're good workers, what's the point of going on a drug-fishing expedition?
The only answer is institutional control of private behaviour. It's all there is left.

If they are on drugs then they can't be good workers. Decision making skills are reduced and there is a character issue involved. A lot of workers like to be around people of good character. We know they won't hall off and whack someone (workplace violence), they won't steal from the company (workplace theft), and they tend to be easier to get along with. I'm surprised more companies are not realizing that they should hire for good character as well as good work skills since both are a postive to them.

And we'll just address this for like the fifth time with the same answer that never gets a response--- if somebody's not a good worker, has impaired motor skills, decision making skills, whatever, that can all be screened with a much more comprehensive test that screens for exactly those functions -- meaning it would flag those drowsy from lack of sleep, those impaired by illness, those grappling with an alcohol hangover, those who can't think straight due to being preoccupied with some personal matter AND those who happen to be impaired by a drug. It would not however flag the worker who's perfectly competent who also happened to blow a Saturday night joint two weeks ago.

There's your screening test, and it would be a hell of a lot more efficient (and cheaper) than involving a lab to find a coincidental substance that may mean impairment or may not. But that of course assumes that the objective is efficiency and safety ----- which obviously it is not. Rather, the goal is to go to great lengths to control private behaviour in the quest for creating a docile population of subservient drones.

Just admit it. This motivation is as transparent as a new pane of glass.

 

[Pogo]

Not only that, but when FL tried to do this same thing a couple of years back, they compared the results of people who were on welfare to drug tests ran by companies, and found that people on assistance were less than half as likely to pop positive than those who had jobs.

Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

Or, unless the business was just hunting for an excuse to cut payroll without taking its responsibility for unemployment compensation, which would be my guess.

An "excuse" huh? Testing is the legitimate of the business, what the reason. Attempting to downplay it as if they ought not to be testing only demonstrates a bias in favor of those who do drugs. Why, I wonder?

Already spelled out by Captain Obvious in several other recent posts.

Captain Obvious doesn't always get heard by fascists who are out to control the world by any means necessary. But that's not because the obvious -- isn't. As I just said .... the motivation is transparent.

"Testing is the legitimate of the business". I like that. Maybe this board should require a drug test before posting.

 

[OldLady]

When I was a CPS worker, I met lots of folks on welfare who were active drug addicts. Yes, we are putting a roof over the heads of some addicts and keeping food in their kids mouths. The merry chase to get these folks drug tested was a circus, a joke, and as it stands, not worth the trouble we all went to. Addicts know how to cheat urine tests--the only ones you can't cheat are blood or hair samples, and the states won't do it because it's expensive. It is also nearly impossible to chase them down for a 'random' test. Now, if they're applying for benefits, they know, right, they'll be piss tested and they'll get around it. The excuses are legion and so are the ways to fool the test.
When our state tried to institute this same law, the double whammy was that any welfare recipient or applicant testing positive for drugs was given a 'chance' to go into a drug rehab program. Well, that killed it right there--we've got huge waiting lists for the addicts we've already identified. Don't know how NC got around this and the fact that it violates federal guidelines.

 

[Pogo]

Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

Or, unless the business was just hunting for an excuse to cut payroll without taking its responsibility for unemployment compensation, which would be my guess.

An "excuse" huh? Testing is the legitimate of the business, what the reason. Attempting to downplay it as if they ought not to be testing only demonstrates a bias in favor of those who do drugs. Why, I wonder?

Maybe it's just a bias in favor of personal freedom and privacy. But fuck that, right?

Anyway, whether business can, or should, drug test has nothing AT ALL to do with whether welfare recipients should be drug tested.

Yup, that was the topic, and it seems to depend on the fallacious reasoning that if some substance it found, therefore it must have been purchased, and therefore it must have been purchased with benefit money.

So ironically such a law to test for drugs fails a simple test for logic.

 

[Publius1787]

Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

Or, unless the business was just hunting for an excuse to cut payroll without taking its responsibility for unemployment compensation, which would be my guess.

An "excuse" huh? Testing is the legitimate of the business, what the reason. Attempting to downplay it as if they ought not to be testing only demonstrates a bias in favor of those who do drugs. Why, I wonder?

Already spelled out by Captain Obvious in several other recent posts.

Captain Obvious doesn't always get heard by fascists who are out to control the world by any means necessary. But that's not because the obvious -- isn't. As I just said .... the motivation is transparent.

"Testing is the legitimate of the business". I like that. Maybe this board should require a drug test before posting.

Sticky experience in this forum. Do you have any recommendations to make it stop?

The fact remains, you can drug test me every day will pass every day. don't care what the intentions are behind it. You do: Why?

 

[Papageorgio]

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

Makes one wonder about the value in firing them.

I do to a degree but the addiction is the most important need in their life.

How do you know that though, from a chemical test? I don't want to dismiss the debilitating effects of real addiction, but one thing that the "War on Drugs" tends to gloss over is that most people who use (recreational) drugs aren't addicts.

I would say most people who use marijuana are not addicts, maybe even users of club drugs like extasy considering most club drugs aren't addictive and you can't really do a drug such as extasy every single day and still get high on it.

I don't have the stats handy, and it's not important enough to me to go digging for it, but I've read several studies that show that even most people who use really hard-core drugs like heroin aren't addicts. In any case, a drug test doesn't tell you whether someone is an addict - only if they've use in the last month or so.

It's usually in the last 12 to 36 hours, marijuana could be up to 30 days depending on the usage.

 

[Publius1787]

Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

Or, unless the business was just hunting for an excuse to cut payroll without taking its responsibility for unemployment compensation, which would be my guess.

An "excuse" huh? Testing is the legitimate of the business, what the reason. Attempting to downplay it as if they ought not to be testing only demonstrates a bias in favor of those who do drugs. Why, I wonder?

Maybe it's just a bias in favor of personal freedom and privacy. But fuck that, right?

Anyway, whether business can, or should, drug test has nothing AT ALL to do with whether welfare recipients should be drug tested.

You give up a certain amount of those rights when you enter into an employment agreement. Of course, you are correct on your second point.

 

[Papageorgio]

How many studies would you need in order to drop this bullshit? This has been done......and evaluated....many times. The fact is that there is no benefit to requiring drug testing before approving public assistance. It's a scam.

Not only that, but when FL tried to do this same thing a couple of years back, they compared the results of people who were on welfare to drug tests ran by companies, and found that people on assistance were less than half as likely to pop positive than those who had jobs.

Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

Or, unless the business was just hunting for an excuse to cut payroll without taking its responsibility for unemployment compensation, which would be my guess.

No they filled the spots right away and those jobs are commission loaded.

 

[Care4all]

When I was a CPS worker, I met lots of folks on welfare who were active drug addicts. Yes, we are putting a roof over the heads of some addicts and keeping food in their kids mouths. The merry chase to get these folks drug tested was a circus, a joke, and as it stands, not worth the trouble we all went to. Addicts know how to cheat urine tests--the only ones you can't cheat are blood or hair samples, and the states won't do it because it's expensive. It is also nearly impossible to chase them down for a 'random' test. Now, if they're applying for benefits, they know, right, they'll be piss tested and they'll get around it. The excuses are legion and so are the ways to fool the test.
When our state tried to institute this same law, the double whammy was that any welfare recipient or applicant testing positive for drugs was given a 'chance' to go into a drug rehab program. Well, that killed it right there--we've got huge waiting lists for the addicts we've already identified. Don't know how NC got around this and the fact that it violates federal guidelines.

And I believe it is the same rule with Private companies that drug test, if their employee tests positive for drugs, the company drug testing has to put them in a drug rehab program, before they can fire them....or something like that....?

 

[dblack]

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

Or, unless the business was just hunting for an excuse to cut payroll without taking its responsibility for unemployment compensation, which would be my guess.

An "excuse" huh? Testing is the legitimate of the business, what the reason. Attempting to downplay it as if they ought not to be testing only demonstrates a bias in favor of those who do drugs. Why, I wonder?

Maybe it's just a bias in favor of personal freedom and privacy. But fuck that, right?

Anyway, whether business can, or should, drug test has nothing AT ALL to do with whether welfare recipients should be drug tested.

You give up a certain amount of those rights when you enter into an employment agreement.

I wouldn't say they give up any rights at all. They can refuse to take the drug test.

But it's well within the rights of a business to drug test their employees, with their consent, and to fire them if the refuse. I avoid those kinds of employers, but it's their call.

The question here, is whether government can attach such a provision to services that our tax dollars pay for.

 

[Publius1787]

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

Or, unless the business was just hunting for an excuse to cut payroll without taking its responsibility for unemployment compensation, which would be my guess.

An "excuse" huh? Testing is the legitimate of the business, what the reason. Attempting to downplay it as if they ought not to be testing only demonstrates a bias in favor of those who do drugs. Why, I wonder?

Maybe it's just a bias in favor of personal freedom and privacy. But fuck that, right?

Anyway, whether business can, or should, drug test has nothing AT ALL to do with whether welfare recipients should be drug tested.

You give up a certain amount of those rights when you enter into an employment agreement.

I wouldn't say they give any rights at all. They can refuse to take the drug test.

It's well within the rights of a business to drug test their employees, with their consent, and to fire them if the refuse. I avoid those kinds of employers, but it's their call.

Well, lets just say that if you invoke your right to forgo the urinalysis you also forfeit the privilege of employment.

 

[Papageorgio]

Not only that, but when FL tried to do this same thing a couple of years back, they compared the results of people who were on welfare to drug tests ran by companies, and found that people on assistance were less than half as likely to pop positive than those who had jobs.

Most minimum wage jobs do not drug test. But Whoa, when they do look out! If you were to drug test a fast food restaurant you would lose about half of your employees on a conservative estimate. A surprise drug test on a business filled with minimum wage workers that haven't traditionally drug tested will show ridiculous results every time.

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

And we're right back to this again -- if they're good workers, what's the point of going on a drug-fishing expedition?
The only answer is institutional control of private behaviour. It's all there is left.

There was a reason that the managers were drug tested, so I suspect there had to be some issue somewhere. Most companies rarely test on a random unless there is probable cause. It is illegal to test without a drug policy in place and the policy has to be followed or it can comeback to bite you in a lawsuit.

It's protecting your risk and liability, again many companies don't want the liability of mistakes or insurance costs. If the effects bleed over to the company then there is a problem and it does. I have dealt with drug issues in business and it can cost a lot of money. The cost in liability is in the billions. Lawsuits, workman's comp., rehab, and on and on.

DOT requires us to random check 25% of the drivers and 25% of those in a safety sensitive position. Then we are required to do pre-employment DOT drug screens. We also must be trained in probable cause awareness and testing.

To think this about control of behavior is silly, it is control of risk and liability.

 

[OldLady]

When I was a CPS worker, I met lots of folks on welfare who were active drug addicts. Yes, we are putting a roof over the heads of some addicts and keeping food in their kids mouths. The merry chase to get these folks drug tested was a circus, a joke, and as it stands, not worth the trouble we all went to. Addicts know how to cheat urine tests--the only ones you can't cheat are blood or hair samples, and the states won't do it because it's expensive. It is also nearly impossible to chase them down for a 'random' test. Now, if they're applying for benefits, they know, right, they'll be piss tested and they'll get around it. The excuses are legion and so are the ways to fool the test.
When our state tried to institute this same law, the double whammy was that any welfare recipient or applicant testing positive for drugs was given a 'chance' to go into a drug rehab program. Well, that killed it right there--we've got huge waiting lists for the addicts we've already identified. Don't know how NC got around this and the fact that it violates federal guidelines.

And I believe it is the same rule with Private companies that drug test, if their employee tests positive for drugs, the company drug testing has to put them in a drug rehab program, before they can fire them....or something like that....?

I vaguely recall something about that where I worked before...employee assistance program or something? I didn't realize it was mandatory, though. Not an addict myself, so didn't know much about it. There was a brochure they gave us. Covers mental health counseling, too, I think.

 

[Pogo]

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

Or, unless the business was just hunting for an excuse to cut payroll without taking its responsibility for unemployment compensation, which would be my guess.

An "excuse" huh? Testing is the legitimate of the business, what the reason. Attempting to downplay it as if they ought not to be testing only demonstrates a bias in favor of those who do drugs. Why, I wonder?

Already spelled out by Captain Obvious in several other recent posts.

Captain Obvious doesn't always get heard by fascists who are out to control the world by any means necessary. But that's not because the obvious -- isn't. As I just said .... the motivation is transparent.

"Testing is the legitimate of the business". I like that. Maybe this board should require a drug test before posting.

Sticky experience in this forum. Do you have any recommendations to make it stop?

The fact remains, you can drug test me every day will pass every day. don't care what the intentions are behind it. You do: Why?

Because I believe people's private business is their private business, while you believe it's the State's.

 

[Papageorgio]

My wife worked at a car dealership, they did a surprise test on their managers. Five were fired for failing the test.

That seems hard to believe. Is it a huge company? I don't see how they could afford to five managers at once unless they were utterly worthless to begin with, which raises the question of why they had a job there in the first place.

It was a large dealership with multiple locations. They brought in three from other dealerships until they replaced the ones they fired.

They were good workers, an addict can function and do a job and perform at a high level. Not all are on the streets. You'd be surprised at the white collar jobs where the person holding the job is using pot, coke, alcohol or opiates. The common misconception on addicts is they are all street bums or welfare recipients. Not true. Many high functioning addicts out there.

Makes one wonder about the value in firing them.

I do to a degree but the addiction is the most important need in their life. Not family, not morals, not the job, addiction can lead to costly mistakes, embezzlement and so on, it is whatever it takes to feed the addiction. Also consider illness, time off for hangovers, the danger of it spinning out of control. Taking drugs are a risk, employers with drug addicts in their work place face greater liabilities.

Now you're contradicting your own assessment of "they were good workers". You're also extending the status of substance flags in these tests to "addiction". Again, there's no bridge to get there.

Exactly what "drugs" are we talking about here? Because there are substances called "drugs" that are commonly screened that are also not addictive.

DOT wants drug tests for marijuana, opiates, PCP, cocaine and amphetamines, the rest are not tested. Any positive test will get you suspended, your CDL revoked or you lose your job. To get the CDL back you must go through a drug treatment program that is approved by the FMCSA and the FTA requires a treatment program approved to work in working state funded jobs.