drug testing at the workplace......

SPEEDY MCCREADY · November 2006

PaperPlates wrote:

Besides, most truck drivers, if they are of the "drug using whilst working" type, are on speed, a much different and more dangerous drug than marijuana. Correct me if Im wrong. Surely you know a few drivers who use speed to get it done.

i have never met 1 truck driver who is on speed.......

and you no longer have my vote for president......after that comment....

hahahahahahahaha...........

hippiemom · November 2006

I think it's stupid. My workplace doesn't do them, they have a little more respect for their employees than that. I haven't used illegal drugs in years and I still would never work for a place that tested because I think it's disrespectful and an invasion of my privacy.

You'd think that drugs were the cause of all accidents, the way people use that as a reason to meddle in the private lives of employees. Frankly, when I get on the plane on Tuesday, I don't give a rat's ass if the pilot smoked a joint on Friday night. I don't care if the guy driving the semi did a few lines last weekend, or celebrated his birthday with some shrooms, or whatever. I'm a lot more interested in how much sleep he had last night, or if he's in the middle of a nasty divorce and can't concentrate, or if he pounded back three beers at lunch today, and random drug tests can't tell me any of those things.

Now if there are work performance issues, some reason to believe someone is showing up stoned for work, that's another story. But I'm old fashioned, I still believe that you shouldn't have to prove your innocence in this country, either to the government or to your employer, and I think forcing you to piss in a cup in order to keep your job is an unreasonable seizure despite what the Supreme Court says, and I would never work for a company that did it.

SPEEDY MCCREADY · November 2006

hippiemom wrote:

I think it's stupid. My workplace doesn't do them, they have a little more respect for their employees than that. I haven't used illegal drugs in years and I still would never work for a place that tested because I think it's disrespectful and an invasion of my privacy.

You'd think that drugs were the cause of all accidents, the way people use that as a reason to meddle in the private lives of employees. Frankly, when I get on the plane on Tuesday, I don't give a rat's ass if the pilot smoked a joint on Friday night. I don't care if the guy driving the semi did a few lines last weekend, or celebrated his birthday with some shrooms, or whatever. I'm a lot more interested in how much sleep he had last night, or if he's in the middle of a nasty divorce and can't concentrate, or if he pounded back three beers at lunch today, and random drug tests can't tell me any of those things.

Now if there are work performance issues, some reason to believe someone is showing up stoned for work, that's another story. But I'm old fashioned, I still believe that you shouldn't have to prove your innocence in this country, either to the government or to your employer, and I think forcing you to piss in a cup in order to keep your job is an unreasonable seizure despite what the Supreme Court says, and I would never work for a company that did it.

ignorant fucking liberals.....

hello hippie......

QuarterToTen · November 2006

old and in the way wrote:

On behalf of me and my family I would like to thank you for taking such a careful and considerate position with your responsibilities as an overland freight expediter. Keep up the safe and careful work

i have always felt a great respect for truck drivers. they have a huge responsibility and their job can be quite dangerous.

the prospect of being on the highway next to an altered truck driver is truly frightening. so yeah, thanks speedy.

so yes, drug screens are absolutely necessary.

i used to work in an occupational medical facility that did hundreds of
pre employment, accident related and random drug screens weekly.

suprisingly, very very few ever came back positive. like 1-2% tops.

trappedinmyradio · November 2006

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

whats everyone's point of view???

invasion of privacy???
should the companies have the right to drug test????

just curious.....

i have to submit to 2-5 random tests a year.....and i dont have a problem with it....

it's not an invasion of privacy...you're asking THEM for a job...there are issues of safety and productivity that have long been shown to negatively affected by drug and alcohol abuse...

sponger · November 2006

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

ignorant fucking liberals.....

hello hippie......

..at least he took the time to explain those ignorant fucking views. That's a greater contribution than the one you just made.

Vedderlution_Baby · November 2006

sponger wrote:

..at least he took the time to explain those ignorant fucking views. That's a greater contribution than the one you just made.

Wait, he was serious?

hippiemom · November 2006

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

Wait, he was serious?

Speedy's never serious when he says that, he just likes to give me a hard time.

*waves to Speedy*

sponger · November 2006

speedy has been pro drug test throughout this thread. So, how could he have not been serious?

Vedderlution_Baby · November 2006

sponger wrote:

speedy has been pro drug test throughout this thread. So, how could he have not been serious?

I just figured it was like what hippiemom said...just busting her...ba..lls....

uh........

giving her a hard time.

hippiemom · November 2006

sponger wrote:

speedy has been pro drug test throughout this thread. So, how could he have not been serious?

"Ignorant fucking liberals" is Speedy's response to virtually everything I say. I've met Speedy, we're cool. He's just messing around. He's not a bad guy, as ignorant fucking nazis go

SweetHarmonics · November 2006

An idealistic fantasy IMO, seems like a good idea on the surface but is extremely flawed in execution and overall success rate. Considering each drug has it's own half-life and metabolism time-table it seems like an elementary solution that's full of loopholes.

Another issue would be the end-result debate, what exactly are these tests protecting everybody from? Cell phone use is easily as dangerous, if not more, as far as highway safety goes. Also, the educated drug-user can simply get around these tests with a 5 minute Google search.

It's something for the PR people to trumpet as a pro-active solution but, as history has proven, doesn't really deter drug use among the employees.

trappedinmyradio · November 2006

there will always be people who can get around, but just the fact that a place drug tests will keep a majority of drug users from applying or sending in their resumee...or, if you start mid-stream to drug test...people that use to such a degree that they are altered in their performance of their duties will quit or be outed...

SweetHarmonics wrote:

An idealistic fantasy IMO, seems like a good idea on the surface but is extremely flawed in execution and overall success rate. Considering each drug has it's own half-life and metabolism time-table it seems like an elementary solution that's full of loopholes.

Another issue would be the end-result debate, what exactly are these tests protecting everybody from? Cell phone use is easily as dangerous, if not more, as far as highway safety goes. Also, the educated drug-user can simply get around these tests with a 5 minute Google search.

It's something for the PR people to trumpet as a pro-active solution but, as history has proven, doesn't really deter drug use among the employees.

hippiemom · November 2006

trappedinmyradio wrote:

there will always be people who can get around, but just the fact that a place drug tests will keep a majority of drug users from applying or sending in their resumee...or, if you start mid-stream to drug test...people that use to such a degree that they are altered in their performance of their duties will quit or be outed...

People whose performance is consistently not up to par should be fired regardless of the reason. It doesn't take a drug test to weed out those who aren't doing their jobs.

old and in the way · November 2006

hippiemom wrote:

People whose performance is consistently not up to par should be fired regardless of the reason. It doesn't take a drug test to weed out those who aren't doing their jobs.

This is true Mom, but the legal protections and credibility of having the label of being able to provide a "Drug Free Environment" are very strong and desirable for a public company nowadays especially the larger "deeper pockets" type companies.

pushmepullme · November 2006

My view is that from 9-5 i'm at work and i won't drink or take any drugs, but from 5 until 9am i'm free to do whatever the fuck i want. As long as I don't come in stoned or drunk then no way would I ever take a drugs test.

ved_zep · November 2006

Its a fucking joke

Liberty means shit, honestly. If your under the influence fine, sent home or fired. But they will pick up weekend traces and then what... there's no cut off points. Respect people's autonomy

PaperPlates · November 2006

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

i have never met 1 truck driver who is on speed.......

and you no longer have my vote for president......after that comment....

hahahahahahahaha...........

Really? Ive known a few myself, and many of them are on something in order to stay awake for longer runs. Unless this has been phased out.

Too bad your vote is so easily swayed, I'd make a hell of a Pres.

inmytree · November 2006

PaperPlates wrote:

Showing up at work stoned= bad

Getting stoned at home after work= who cares?

Getting nailed for failing a piss test when you follow those two things, = bullshit.

Do drug tests only determine whether you use drugs? Or do they actually let them know WHEN you were using drugs?

I guess this would also depend what you do for a living, of course. Not everyone's job puts their safety in the hands of those around you.

Well stated...I agree with this stance...

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

How about alcohol testing?

Great question...I'd be willing to bet more "work hours" are lost due to people being hung-over, half-drunk, and feeling like crap the day after drinking...vs. those who may chose to partake in a spliff every now and then...

I also think those who come to work hung-over put more people at risk than those who smokey da smoke....

RockinInCanada · November 2006

100% against drug testing,

If one was to dabble in the green herb after supper on a Monday night then gets piss tested on Wednesday he would be positive, a complete and total mis-reprensentation of his current condition.

It is a privacy issue, okay someone said if it is a company policy well IMHO they should then pay you out of work hours to enfore their corporate lifestyle rules on you. Seriously many will think this sounds ridiculous but that is exactly how I feel about random drug testing. If there is a serious accident at work then go to measures to look at investigating the issue futher, ala drug testing if deemed necessary.

It is pathetic to think that someone who indulges in drugs on his own time will endanger those around him next day.

FYI for those in Canada, I believe that the province of Alberta is re-examining the privacy right violations caused through random drug screening, as a few lawsuits have come up from those wishing to defend their rights.

drug testing at the workplace......

Comments

Categories