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

[Papageorgio]

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.

Those are good points that are brought up all the time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Wrong question.

Correct question: why do you and most others on the right seek to compel conformity by increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty – if conservatives aren’t violating the 4th Amendment rights of public assistance applicants, they’re violating the equal protection rights of gay Americans, or the voting rights of African-Americans, or the privacy rights of women, or the due process rights of immigrants.

In these and other examples we see conservatives advocating for more government, more intrusive government, more government interfering in citizens’ personal lives.

The only logical inference is that this need by most on the right to compel conformity is consistent with the authoritarian nature of conservatism, and an unwarranted fear of change, diversity, and dissent, conjoined with errant conservative dogma and its wrongheaded notion that drug testing public assistance applicants will act as a ‘deterrent’ to them doing so, when in fact those who apply have a real need for assistance, will receive benefits for only a very short time, never to return.

Of course most on the right don’t care about these facts, seeking instead to propagate their myths and lies about public assistance for some perceived partisan gain.

 

[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....?

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.

I read it somewhere after one of these drug testing welfare threads here on USMB...wanted to see about Maine and how they handled it and came across an article that said something like that....

I think the idea behind it limits private businesses to a degree, from drug testing and then firing a bunch of people simply to reduce their payroll.... if the business wants to drug test an employee, then the responsibility to get them help is on the business....? I'll try to google it again and see if I can find more details....

 

[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.

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.

Once AGAIN, and this is at least the sixth time I've made this point without any objection --- if liabilty, safety, etc. are the actual objective, that can all be tested DIRECTLY with for example a simple motor skills/reflex test. You pass, go do your job. You fail, you're pulled off. Doesn't matter whether that failure is because you just toked up, because you had a fight with your spouse and are preoccupied, because you had too much to drink last night, because you had insomnia, because you have a flu coming on that you're not aware of --- such a test would flag you as incompetent in the present.

But that's not what we're dealing with is it? No, we're screening for what you ingested on your own time yesterday or last week or three weeks ago, regardless whether that's impairing you in the present or not. So you're not screening for liability or competence or motor skills --- you're screening for personal history.

There's just no way around that fact. Let's drop this pretentious song and dance that we're screening for 'safety reasons' when the fact is a test that actually DID that would be far easier, far cheaper, far more comprehensive and far more effective.

 

[Papageorgio]

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....?

Depends on the company policy and state laws. Our state we can fire them with cause and do not need to fund their rehab.

 

[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?

Wrong question.

Correct question: why do you and most others on the right seek to compel conformity by increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty – if conservatives aren’t violating the 4th Amendment rights of public assistance applicants, they’re violating the equal protection rights of gay Americans, or the voting rights of African-Americans, or the privacy rights of women, or the due process rights of immigrants.

In these and other examples we see conservatives advocating for more government, more intrusive government, more government interfering in citizens’ personal lives.

The only logical inference is that this need by most on the right to compel conformity is consistent with the authoritarian nature of conservatism, and an unwarranted fear of change, diversity, and dissent, conjoined with errant conservative dogma and its wrongheaded notion that drug testing public assistance applicants will act as a ‘deterrent’ to them doing so, when in fact those who apply have a real need for assistance, will receive benefits for only a very short time, never to return.

Of course most on the right don’t care about these facts, seeking instead to propagate their myths and lies about public assistance for some perceived partisan gain.

No individual liberty is lost in the process. Individual liberty is being violated by taking from one individual to support another. Requiring a drug test is but a simple way to ensure that both interests are represented well and that the loss of liberty from one end is compensated by a good faith effort on the other. Make no mistake about it, the liberty interests isn't with the welfare recipient who benefits from the loss of individual liberty of another. By accepting the produce of the liberty of another he in turn should reciprocate in a like manner that benefits the person who's liberty was lost. It's a balancing of liberty, not a loss.

Whenever liberals advocate for destroying individual liberty you can always bet a conservative, if he can't get rid of the liberty sapping law, will attempt to balance the liberty interests.

 

[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....?

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.

here is what I found so far...


§683. Testing procedures
No employer may require, request or suggest that any employee or applicant submit to a substance abuse test except in compliance with this section. All actions taken under a substance abuse testing program shall comply with this subchapter, rules adopted under this subchapter and the employer's written policy approved under section 686. [1989, c. 536, §§1, 2 (NEW); 1989, c. 604, §§2, 3 (AFF).]

1. Employee assistance program required. Before establishing any substance abuse testing program for employees, an employer with over 20 full-time employees must have a functioning employee assistance program.
A. The employer may meet this requirement by participating in a cooperative employee assistance program that serves the employees of more than one employer. [1989, c. 536, §§1, 2 (NEW); 1989, c. 604, §§2, 3 (AFF).]
B. The employee assistance program must be certified by the Department of Health and Human Services under rules adopted pursuant to section 687. The rules must ensure that the employee assistance programs have the necessary personnel, facilities and procedures to meet minimum standards of professionalism and effectiveness in assisting employees. [2011, c. 657, Pt. AA, §72 (AMD).]
[ 2011, c. 657, Pt. AA, §72 (AMD) .]
Title 26, §683: Testing procedures

 

[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.

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.

Once AGAIN, and this is at least the sixth time I've made this point without any objection --- if liabilty, safety, etc. are the actual objective, that can all be tested DIRECTLY with for example a simple motor skills/reflex test. You pass, go do your job. You fail, you're pulled off. Doesn't matter whether that failure is because you just toked up, because you had a fight with your spouse and are preoccupied, because you had too much to drink last night, because you had insomnia, because you have a flu coming on that you're not aware of --- such a test would flag you as incompetent in the present.

But that's not what we're dealing with is it? No, we're screening for what you ingested on your own time yesterday or last week or three weeks ago, regardless whether that's impairing you in the present or not. So you're not screening for liability or competence or motor skills --- you're screening for personal history.

There's just no way around that fact. Let's drop this pretentious song and dance that we're screening for 'safety reasons' when the fact is a test that actually DID that would be far easier, far cheaper, far more comprehensive and far more effective.

We are screening because the FMCSA and the FTA require us to test. No other reason. Most companies rarely do a probable cause test and the rules governing a probable cause test is extensive. The random testing is government required and is determined by a third party. We give them our census and then it is returned to us who we test. We have to have them performed by the end of the quarter.

The person applying for the job knows the rules of which we play. If you don't like the rules, don't take the job. It's all free will.

 

[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?

Wrong question.

Correct question: why do you and most others on the right seek to compel conformity by increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty – if conservatives aren’t violating the 4th Amendment rights of public assistance applicants, they’re violating the equal protection rights of gay Americans, or the voting rights of African-Americans, or the privacy rights of women, or the due process rights of immigrants.

In these and other examples we see conservatives advocating for more government, more intrusive government, more government interfering in citizens’ personal lives.

The only logical inference is that this need by most on the right to compel conformity is consistent with the authoritarian nature of conservatism, and an unwarranted fear of change, diversity, and dissent, conjoined with errant conservative dogma and its wrongheaded notion that drug testing public assistance applicants will act as a ‘deterrent’ to them doing so, when in fact those who apply have a real need for assistance, will receive benefits for only a very short time, never to return.

Of course most on the right don’t care about these facts, seeking instead to propagate their myths and lies about public assistance for some perceived partisan gain.

No individual liberty is lost in the process. Individual liberty is being violated by taking from one individual to support another. Requiring a drug test is but a simple way to ensure that both interests are represented well and that the loss of liberty from one end is compensated by a good faith effort on the other. Make no mistake about it, the liberty interests isn't with the welfare recipient who benefits from the loss of individual liberty of another. By accepting the produce of the liberty of another he in turn should reciprocate in a like manner that benefits the person who's liberty was lost. It's a balancing of liberty, not a loss.

Whenever liberals advocate for destroying individual liberty you can always bet a conservative, if he can't get rid of the liberty sapping law, will attempt to balance the liberty interests.

Here's a poster who apparently gets paid for how many times he can work the word liberty into a post while utterly failing to comprehend it.

If we're back to the original topic, once again the concept shoots itself in its own foot with this non sequitur ass-umption that "If the state gives monetary benefits to person X, and X is found to have substance Y in his body, then person X must have purchased substance Y and must have done so with state benefits".

That conclusion has no bridge to it. It is inoperative. It's ass-umption. It is assuming facts which are not in evidence. It does not work. Period. It has as much legitimate logical basis as the old law that if a woman is driving a car she must be preceded by a man waving a flag to warn pedestrians.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Once AGAIN, and this is at least the sixth time I've made this point without any objection --- if liabilty, safety, etc. are the actual objective, that can all be tested DIRECTLY with for example a simple motor skills/reflex test. You pass, go do your job. You fail, you're pulled off. Doesn't matter whether that failure is because you just toked up, because you had a fight with your spouse and are preoccupied, because you had too much to drink last night, because you had insomnia, because you have a flu coming on that you're not aware of --- such a test would flag you as incompetent in the present.

But that's not what we're dealing with is it? No, we're screening for what you ingested on your own time yesterday or last week or three weeks ago, regardless whether that's impairing you in the present or not. So you're not screening for liability or competence or motor skills --- you're screening for personal history.

There's just no way around that fact. Let's drop this pretentious song and dance that we're screening for 'safety reasons' when the fact is a test that actually DID that would be far easier, far cheaper, far more comprehensive and far more effective.

We are screening because the FMCSA and the FTA require us to test. No other reason. Most companies rarely do a probable cause test and the rules governing a probable cause test is extensive. The random testing is government required and is determined by a third party. We give them our census and then it is returned to us who we test. We have to have them performed by the end of the quarter.

The person applying for the job knows the rules of which we play. If you don't like the rules, don't take the job. It's all free will.

All this post is is saying "this is what the rules are".

No shit. That isn't the point.

The point is there is no legitimate basis for them. I just demonstrated why the basis is illegitimate, as well as why it can only mean an overreaching authority poking its institutional nose into the private business of citizens.

And again I've pointed this out over and over and there is no argument that refutes it. Yet the unwashed masses would rather just bend over for it and not dare to stand up for their own rights already articulated in the Fourth Amendment.

That docility is what I find disgusting.

 

[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?

Wrong question.

Correct question: why do you and most others on the right seek to compel conformity by increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty – if conservatives aren’t violating the 4th Amendment rights of public assistance applicants, they’re violating the equal protection rights of gay Americans, or the voting rights of African-Americans, or the privacy rights of women, or the due process rights of immigrants.

In these and other examples we see conservatives advocating for more government, more intrusive government, more government interfering in citizens’ personal lives.

The only logical inference is that this need by most on the right to compel conformity is consistent with the authoritarian nature of conservatism, and an unwarranted fear of change, diversity, and dissent, conjoined with errant conservative dogma and its wrongheaded notion that drug testing public assistance applicants will act as a ‘deterrent’ to them doing so, when in fact those who apply have a real need for assistance, will receive benefits for only a very short time, never to return.

Of course most on the right don’t care about these facts, seeking instead to propagate their myths and lies about public assistance for some perceived partisan gain.

No individual liberty is lost in the process. Individual liberty is being violated by taking from one individual to support another. Requiring a drug test is but a simple way to ensure that both interests are represented well and that the loss of liberty from one end is compensated by a good faith effort on the other. Make no mistake about it, the liberty interests isn't with the welfare recipient who benefits from the loss of individual liberty of another. By accepting the produce of the liberty of another he in turn should reciprocate in a like manner that benefits the person who's liberty was lost. It's a balancing of liberty, not a loss.

Whenever liberals advocate for destroying individual liberty you can always bet a conservative, if he can't get rid of the liberty sapping law, will attempt to balance the liberty interests.

Here's a poster who apparently gets paid for how many times he can work the word liberty into a post while utterly failing to comprehend it.

If we're back to the original topic, once again the concept shoots itself in its own foot with this non sequitur ass-umption that "If the state gives monetary benefits to person X, and X is found to have substance Y in his body, then person X must have purchased substance Y and must have done so with state benefits".

That conclusion has no bridge to it. It is inoperative. It's ass-umption. It is assuming facts which are not in evidence. It does not work. Period.

Your first point is garbage and I think you should read up on Madisonian theories of balancing liberty between two interests before going further. I could recommend a few books if you'd like on the subject of liberty and I apologize if I am so intellectually beyond you on the subject that you fail to comprehend. Shall I write it with a crayon for you?

Your second point fails to factor in employability, willingness to abide by work rules and the law, and the fact that money is fungible. If I have a limited amount of income and you give me money for food I have more money from that limited source for drugs. Particularly the limited amount I was spending on food is now available for drugs. Once again, Fungible. Why can't liberals understand finance and accounting?

 

[Likkmee]

Of several thousand people who were screened, 89 people took the test and 21 of them tested positive.

Who's the math genius here?

No chillinz b ginn leff ahine N shit. Ever heard of it ?

 

[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.

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.

Once AGAIN, and this is at least the sixth time I've made this point without any objection --- if liabilty, safety, etc. are the actual objective, that can all be tested DIRECTLY with for example a simple motor skills/reflex test. You pass, go do your job. You fail, you're pulled off. Doesn't matter whether that failure is because you just toked up, because you had a fight with your spouse and are preoccupied, because you had too much to drink last night, because you had insomnia, because you have a flu coming on that you're not aware of --- such a test would flag you as incompetent in the present.

But that's not what we're dealing with is it? No, we're screening for what you ingested on your own time yesterday or last week or three weeks ago, regardless whether that's impairing you in the present or not. So you're not screening for liability or competence or motor skills --- you're screening for personal history.

There's just no way around that fact. Let's drop this pretentious song and dance that we're screening for 'safety reasons' when the fact is a test that actually DID that would be far easier, far cheaper, far more comprehensive and far more effective.

We are screening because the FMCSA and the FTA require us to test. No other reason. Most companies rarely do a probable cause test and the rules governing a probable cause test is extensive. The random testing is government required and is determined by a third party. We give them our census and then it is returned to us who we test. We have to have them performed by the end of the quarter.

The person applying for the job knows the rules of which we play. If you don't like the rules, don't take the job. It's all free will.

All this post is is saying "this is what the rules are".

No shit. That isn't the point.

The point is there is no legitimate basis for them. I just demonstrated why the basis is illegitimate, as well as why it can only mean an overreaching authority poking its institutional nose into the private business of citizens.

And again I've pointed this out over and over and there is no argument that refutes it. Yet the unwashed masses would rather just bend over for it and not dare to stand up for their own rights already articulated in the Fourth Amendment.

That docility is what I find disgusting.

I have posted why, you don't like the answer. Billions of dollars saved, lives saved, liability for poor work performance, work injuries prevented and death. The standards set save lives, you may not think they are worth it but that is just one opinion. When a guy is hauling 40 tons of a loaded truck down the highway, tell if you want them high or not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Correct.

Two separate issues, one having nothing to do with the other.

The right to privacy and other 4th Amendment protections concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between private persons and organizations, such as job applicants and employers.

The North Carolina measure was enacted in bad faith; the state has failed to establish a compelling governmental interest in infringing upon the 4th Amendment right of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches.

There is no objective, documented evidence in support of the measure – indeed, similar measures have failed to realize a cost-savings for the state and have done nothing to deter or reduce drug use.

The measure seeks only to disadvantage those applying for public assistance, to embarrass them, to humiliate them, and the make them different from everyone else, predicated solely on an unwarranted hostility toward those applying for benefits.

 

[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.

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.

Correct.

Two separate issues, one having nothing to do with the other.

The right to privacy and other 4th Amendment protections concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between private persons and organizations, such as job applicants and employers.

The North Carolina measure was enacted in bad faith; the state has failed to establish a compelling governmental interest in infringing upon the 4th Amendment right of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches.

There is no objective, documented evidence in support of the measure – indeed, similar measures have failed to realize a cost-savings for the state and have done nothing to deter or reduce drug use.

The measure seeks only to disadvantage those applying for public assistance, to embarrass them, to humiliate them, and the make them different from everyone else, predicated solely on an unwarranted hostility toward those applying for benefits.

So you believe that drug users need to be enabled?

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Makes one wonder about the value in firing them.

Which was exactly my point.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

Makes one wonder about the value in firing them.

Which was exactly my point.

After awhile up goes up, must come down.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Correct.

Two separate issues, one having nothing to do with the other.

The right to privacy and other 4th Amendment protections concern solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between private persons and organizations, such as job applicants and employers.

The North Carolina measure was enacted in bad faith; the state has failed to establish a compelling governmental interest in infringing upon the 4th Amendment right of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches.

There is no objective, documented evidence in support of the measure – indeed, similar measures have failed to realize a cost-savings for the state and have done nothing to deter or reduce drug use.

The measure seeks only to disadvantage those applying for public assistance, to embarrass them, to humiliate them, and the make them different from everyone else, predicated solely on an unwarranted hostility toward those applying for benefits.

So you believe that drug users need to be enabled?

I think they need to be housed, clothed and fed. I don't see that doing that is enabling them. I think it is very dangerous and expensive to do nothing.

You clearly do not understand what the word "enabling" means.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Which was exactly my point.

After awhile up goes up, must come down.

Your ignorance on drug use knows no bounds.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Once AGAIN, and this is at least the sixth time I've made this point without any objection --- if liabilty, safety, etc. are the actual objective, that can all be tested DIRECTLY with for example a simple motor skills/reflex test. You pass, go do your job. You fail, you're pulled off. Doesn't matter whether that failure is because you just toked up, because you had a fight with your spouse and are preoccupied, because you had too much to drink last night, because you had insomnia, because you have a flu coming on that you're not aware of --- such a test would flag you as incompetent in the present.

But that's not what we're dealing with is it? No, we're screening for what you ingested on your own time yesterday or last week or three weeks ago, regardless whether that's impairing you in the present or not. So you're not screening for liability or competence or motor skills --- you're screening for personal history.

There's just no way around that fact. Let's drop this pretentious song and dance that we're screening for 'safety reasons' when the fact is a test that actually DID that would be far easier, far cheaper, far more comprehensive and far more effective.

We are screening because the FMCSA and the FTA require us to test. No other reason. Most companies rarely do a probable cause test and the rules governing a probable cause test is extensive. The random testing is government required and is determined by a third party. We give them our census and then it is returned to us who we test. We have to have them performed by the end of the quarter.

The person applying for the job knows the rules of which we play. If you don't like the rules, don't take the job. It's all free will.

All this post is is saying "this is what the rules are".

No shit. That isn't the point.

The point is there is no legitimate basis for them. I just demonstrated why the basis is illegitimate, as well as why it can only mean an overreaching authority poking its institutional nose into the private business of citizens.

And again I've pointed this out over and over and there is no argument that refutes it. Yet the unwashed masses would rather just bend over for it and not dare to stand up for their own rights already articulated in the Fourth Amendment.

That docility is what I find disgusting.

I have posted why, you don't like the answer. Billions of dollars saved, lives saved, liability for poor work performance, work injuries prevented and death. The standards set save lives, you may not think they are worth it but that is just one opinion. When a guy is hauling 40 tons of a loaded truck down the highway, tell if you want them high or not.

Once again that is not an answer. The "drug test" song and dance DOES NOT tell anybody whether the subject is high or not. NOR does it screen those who are dangerous/incapacitated for other reasons. Doesn't do either one.

And once again, IF that were the objective they would be testing FOR that incapacitation.

But they're not --- are they.

This is SEVEN times I've posted the same thing without refutation.