Why the GOP IS the root of all evil...

keycocker · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598

Worked nukes so I have been drug tested hundreds of times.
The problem I saw was that the test was not for being drugged or drunk at work. It tested for smoking a joint in the last few months.
A false positive in about one in 1000 seems pretty low false rate until you consider the consequences.
Any positive and you are escorted in minutes out the gate and the end of your career.
No retest unless you spend years in court.
I have been tested maybe 300 times. If you work twenty years you may go over a thousand. That means you face an eventual false everyday.
There were 3000 guys at hope creek. If you tested them all the same day then three innocent guys get screwed, on average.
A machine was installed for a few days in one plant that took only a minute and costs a penny a test. You looked in a eyepiece like an eye test at the DMV.
It could tell if you were drunk or stoned coming to work right now, but nothing about last weekend at the rock show. It did not violate your privacy enough I guess.

They tore it out with no explanation. We knew why.

KGB-NP · Joined: 25 Jul 2001 Posts: 2856

So why did they tear it out?

isobars · Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935

Insurance is just a small part of the reason for drug testing employees. An employer is paying for a competent employee, not an impaired one. Whether it's due to illegal drugs, legal drugs including alcohol, smoking that impacts with productivity, a disabling sunburn, posting on iW ... anything an employee wittingly does that impairs the productivity he is being paid for is grounds for some kind of action from reprimand to pay cut to dismissal. He's not upholding his end of the contract.

keycocker · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598

That type of test did not fit their agenda. The guy running it said as much. He said the trials had been going well throughout the country but at least one exec had drunkenly told him at lunch that the other test targeted "hippies".
He had not sold a single unit.
Made us think drug testing had gone over to social politics and had little to do with impairment at work. The execs we saw crowding the bars at lunch were never drug and alcohol tested when they got back to work.

swchandler · Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588

Like I said before, there are folks out there that create scenarios to take away one's right to liberty and freedom. Doesn't the War on Drugs make it all right to dig into the rights of others? I don't want to be responsible for drug crazed losers in the workplace. There's always some specious reason to justify it.

Yet, I listen about all the angst coming from the right about the NSA's activities monitoring communications. You know, all the Republican talking points about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and person freedoms are there at the forefront. The government is inappropriately and willfully taking away our freedoms.

What hypocrisy! I could go into all the hot social conservative issues about morality, abortion and gay marriage, but would it make a difference? Lots of ideas and ways to restrict folks' rights and freedoms for the supposed betterment of society.

KGB-NP · Joined: 25 Jul 2001 Posts: 2856

Swchandler,
Thank you for the reflex response that deflects from the fact that there are legitimate reasons for screening. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the labour laws as I did in a crash coarse last summer. You might change your tune when you realize just how responsible a business is for you while in the work place.
Yes, for sure, that would be my motivation, to deny someone of their freedoms. Talk about hypocrisy! I guess if you owned a business the employees could work dangerously, spend their day on Facebook, watching porn, chit chatting about their personal lives endlessly, right? You wouldn't want to infringe now would you, and to hell with silly things like safety and productivity, even if they could bankrupt or imprison you, right?

swchandler · Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588

reinerehlers,

When I'm intruding into your rights, you just let me know. Meanwhile, I'll hold to my comments. As far as your employees and their rights, you can go about your business. Ultimately, they can decide whether they want to work for you.

KGB-NP · Joined: 25 Jul 2001 Posts: 2856

What still no direct rebuttal to my initial comments? Is it the fact that there are in fact legitimate reasons for screening?
How about if I tell an employee to use safety precautions and he gets hurt doing what he has been warned about it that I should be penalized. Guess what.... I am, will, and have been. Now change the scale of operation, and increase the likelihood of injury and then you're damn right I should screen. Infringement my arse!

mac · Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:56 pm Post subject:

Damned few true libertarians out there. Lots of busy bodies. RR--you may not be familiar with the Bill of Rights--but most should be. Here:

KGB-NP · Joined: 25 Jul 2001 Posts: 2856

Is it a unreasonable search when the probable cause to make sure that people are safe in the work place? I'm not just talking about their personal safety but the safety of those around them. How is that any different then being searched at the airport before boarding a plane.....a search to ensure safety....what's the difference? How about a breathalyser test....a search to ensure safety? If the government mandated that every vehicle was fitted with a breathalyser that inhibited operating a vehicle would you view that as an infringement of your rights, or a great safety feature?

I love the argument about others wanting to control or restrict other's rights. People tend to view it strictly as a matter of wanting to control others, where I see many of these issues as "how do other's or my decisions affect other people?" The argument of personal right fails in that it assumes that people's choices don't have a domino effect on other people or society as a whole. It is much the same as arguing that the factory's smoke stack is only polluting the property of the factory, when the undeniable fact is that they are polluting the environment and the people around them. We all are connected in one way or another and more than you think.

It''s not always a matter of wanting to control people. It's often a concern about what those choices can do to people's conscience and their mental state, and the long term net effect that has on that person and society. Not everyone is a control freak, some people are compassionate.