Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/7/2001 6:17:27 AM EDT
I accepted a position with my current employer 7 years ago. Went through 2 interviews, and got hired right away. It was about a week later that I had to fill out an application as a formality. NO mention of drug testing, random or otherwise was made during this time. Now, 7 years later the company is going to start a random drug testing program. It just plain pisses me off. No mention was made of this at the time I was hired. What I do on my time is MY business. Not my employers'. I don't have a problem with the current drug testing program we have, wherein if you are injured, wreck a company vehicle or reak of pot or alcohol you can be tested. But random testing? Mind your own FVCKING business. What do you think?
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 6:31:25 AM EDT
i have to take random drugtests. dont bother me a bit. if i was an employer i wouldnt want a buch of stoners or crackheads working for me.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 6:35:18 AM EDT
Go listen to the Mojo Nixon song "I ain't gonna pee-pee in no cup." Kevin Tuma's cartoon "Dueling Axes" says it all: http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/Tumaarchive/2000/cart20000609.asp
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 6:37:09 AM EDT
Welcome to the real world. When you take someones money you have to play by their rules. I can understand from their point of view why they do it. Non drug/alcohol using employees have less instances of accidents, sick time and even thefts. I have been filling up jars for many years and no one seems to care that I don't like it.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 6:41:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2001 6:42:45 AM EDT by a3kid]
We DON'T have a bunch of crack-heads working for us. We've had alot of people tested over the last 3 years (over 100) for various reasons ie: damaging a vehicle or an injury requiring medical treatment. You know what we've found? NOTHING. NOBODY- not a single person has tested positive for anything. The only people we've had test positive are the "kids" straight out of high school during pre-hire screening. It pisses me off because they claim they're doing it in the name of safety - but they let safety issues go unattended - and people keep getting hurt. A co-worker of mine was nearly injured in one area of the shop 30 days ago. He filled out a "safety concern" form and per our safety handbook, he should've received a written statement w/in 48 hrs from the safety director regarding what action was going to be taken (with time schedule for action included). 30 days later, no reply. Who's bullshitting who? This is about CONTROL, not safety.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 6:45:41 AM EDT
I fail to see if you do not use drugs why it concerns you so. As others have said above there are practical reasons for it. It is not an invasion of privacy. You are being paid by them and work on their property. They have a right now know that those people working for them are clean. As to what you do on your own time, you are correct. But they will be testnig you at work, "on the clock", not in your home on your time. If it is still in your system then it is [b]not[/b] a matter of what you do on your own time. You would then be bringing a residual to work. It then becomes their business. No flame intended. You and I have, in the past, agreed on almost everything. But just piss in the cup. Do you want to work with dopers? It will weed them out of [i]your[/i] work place.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 6:48:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By a3kid: We DON'T have a bunch of crack-heads working for us.
View Quote
And as long as you keep testing you won't.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 6:50:21 AM EDT
I have no problem drug testing in the case of an accident or injury. But random test is a clear violation of a persons rights! And I am very anti-drug!! Check with your local labor board, this may not even be legal. Here in California we used to be able to drug test applicants prior to hiring, but that quickly got overturned, with the exception of highly dangerous and "sensative" jobs, like cops,firemen,etc. It would be worth checking out. sgtar15 [img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/trooper.gif[/img][img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/trooper.gif[/img][img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/trooper.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 6:51:16 AM EDT
NO flame taken Gunslinger. It's the CHANGE in policy in the midst of all the other things around here that are true safety concerns that pisses me off. Had a guy who installs front seats hurt his back on the job. Oh yea - drug test him - that's the thing to do. Then 1 week later, he's still doing the SAME job by himself (should be a 2 man operation) but now he's wearing a back brace. Thank you MR. Employer SIR! YOU are truly concerned for my safety. It's bullshit. And gunslinger, did you know you would be subjected to random drug testing when you accepted you position, or did the company add it later as an afterthought? I know I can't change the rules - but it sure pisses me off that they can like this.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 6:52:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2001 6:52:37 AM EDT by patriot_dave]
So your saying Gunslinger that if someone tests positive for alcohol because they drank a few beers watching Monday Night football they should be terminated? As residual alcohol stays in your system for up to 48 hrs. And I fail to see why if your not doing anything illegal you would have a problem with ramdom home searches. I do of course.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 6:53:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sgtar15: I have no problem drug testing in the case of an accident or injury. But random test is a clear violation of a persons rights! And I am very anti-drug!! Check with your local labor board, this may not even be legal. Here in California we used to be able to drug test applicants prior to hiring, but that quickly got overturned, with the exception of highly dangerous and "sensative" jobs, like cops,firemen,etc. It would be worth checking out. sgtar15 [img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/trooper.gif[/img][img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/trooper.gif[/img][img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/trooper.gif[/img]
View Quote
Thank you. My position exactly. [beer]
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 6:56:19 AM EDT
I agree kid and I've never even smoked a cigarette. This is more of the guilty until proven inocent mentallity. It is the same as we should do background checks, drug test, waiting periods, and have a license to own a gun. Just in case! It is bullsh*t! Stating that, I do think it is ok if you signed up knowing that policy. If your in a high danger profession where what you do puts coworkers or others in danger, it might be needed. Scratch
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 7:01:07 AM EDT
I don't normally like to "what if?" things, but... My lovely wife has the capacity to cause my legs to be weak and sometimes shake for awhile after we indulge in certain activities. Now certainly, weak and shaky legs in a manufacturing environment is a safety issue. Am I to assume that my employer should be allowed to inspect my private areas upon my arrival at work to make sure I havn't done anything on my OWN time that might cause me to be a danger to myself or others?
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 7:08:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By patriot_dave: So your saying Gunslinger that if someone tests positive for alcohol because they drank a few beers watching Monday Night football they should be terminated? As residual alcohol stays in your system for up to 48 hrs.
View Quote
I know a lot of people who have had a few beers watching a game but no one that was run off for it. There is a cut off point for all drugs including alcohol. I believe for us the cut off point for alcohol is .05%. If you test higher than this then you probably had more than a few beers and drank way too close to work time.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 7:09:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Getsome:
Originally Posted By patriot_dave: So your saying Gunslinger that if someone tests positive for alcohol because they drank a few beers watching Monday Night football they should be terminated? As residual alcohol stays in your system for up to 48 hrs.
View Quote
I know a lot of people who have had a few beers watching a game but no one that was run off for it. There is a cut off point for all drugs including alcohol. I believe for us the cut off point for alcohol is .05%. If you test higher than this then you probably had more than a few beers and drank way too close to work time.
View Quote
They're calling .02 positive with alcohol.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 7:16:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By a3kid: They're calling .02 positive with alcohol.
View Quote
Better go easy on the Monday Night Football beers then.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 7:17:15 AM EDT
Personally, I don't believe in mandatory testing, UNLESS there is probale cause for suspicion. The real funny thing is, do you know just how many people are currently on prescribed "drugs", such as tranquilizers, Xanax, Prozac, MAOI's, Anti-Depressants & similar substances while in the workplace ? Many people is the so called "high stress" fields are prescribed these medications by their Doctors, but that's OK, right ?? Also, you can go home and drink yourself into a stew every night, but that's also OK, it's legal. Go figure ?? Regards, Dom Pastore Jr.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 7:19:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Getsome:
Originally Posted By a3kid: They're calling .02 positive with alcohol.
View Quote
Better go easy on the Monday Night Football beers then.
View Quote
Don't normally watch Monday night football, but the Sunday races end early enough to get a good "de-toxing" nights sleep. [;)]
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 7:32:56 AM EDT
It is interesting how your constitutional rights end at the workplace door. Soon SCROTUS will rule that the only place they exist at all is in your own home. Many drugs are traceable for days, weeks or even months(marijuana)-long after they have ceased to have any pharmacological effect. I am also amazed at how many members of this board(generally, supporters of freedom) approve of selective restriction of rights; Provided that they do not approve of what others do. What hypocrisy. How do you justify this when you support your RKBA, a right which many others do not believe you need. It is all the same in the long run. I can also tell you from experience that alcohol is by the worst and most costly drug in this country. Its cost to us economically, to families and to society as a whole is unsurpassed by all other drugs. However, many who most strongly oppose "drugs" are heavy users of alcohol. I am definitely not advocating drug and alcohol use in the workplace and FWIW wil be taking a piss test myself soon when I start my next job. However, recognize this for what it is-one more incremental intrusion into our privacy and a degradation of our freedoms.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 7:36:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/7/2001 7:40:32 AM EDT by patriot_dave]
My point is if you drink alcohol you pretty much have to be intoxicated on the job to cause a problem. No so with anything else. Anything else you could have done it a month ago and it is enough. And that statement - Because its illegal is total BS. People do illegal things all the time and most employers could care less as long as you don't miss work and do a good job. My point still is what you do in your home is your business. Unfortunately I have to agree that the employer has a right to do anything that you are willing to let him do. And Dr Jarhead you said it perfectly
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 8:25:52 AM EDT
Maybe if you stayed off the drugs, you wouldn't be worrying about it, now would you? Stay clean folks... The best drug is sex - master it... out..
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 10:10:08 AM EDT
For those who don't object to this form of invasion of privacy, it should come as a pleasant surprise that next year they plan to expand in the name of safety and start shoving and endoscope up you rear in an effort to make sure you are not a drug smuggler. We are taking about drugs here aren't we? But, you didn't hear that from me.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 10:29:59 AM EDT
"Your sense of liberty is as pale as your skin." - Tchéky Karyo in the "Patriot" You all bitch and whine about the place you work for not allowing you to carry on company property. And you all bitch and whine if your access to gun websites is blocked at work. I am sure your boss doesn't want some crazy person with a gun shooting up the place, right? What you do on personal time is your own business, but I can see that the "if you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have to worry" mentality that the socialists use to justify big brother peeking into everyone's private lives is bleeding over into the so-called "protectors of the Constitution". What a joke. This only confirms my belief: The Republic is lost.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 11:00:05 AM EDT
THE COMPANY I WORK FOR HAS IMPLEMENTED A RANDOM DRUG SCREENING THATS BULLSHIT.THEY HAVE MORE OF MY PISS THAN I HAVE IN MY SEPTIC TANK.BUT YET THE SUPERVISORS ARE EXCEMPT FROM TESTING.AND OTHER EMPLOYEES HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED.THE FUNNIEST THING I HAVE SEEN YET IS WHEN THE BOSSES SON TURNS UP DIRTY AND THEY COVER IT UP.BUT YET THEY FIRE OTHERS.I THINK WHAT YOU DO ON YOUR TIME,IN YOUR HOME IS YOUR BUSINESS.YOU DONT HAFFTA WORK WITH CRACKHEADS CAUSE THEY ARENT GOING TO WORK THEY STEAL WHAT THEY WANT FROM THOSE WHO DO WORK.AS LONG AS YOU DONT HARM ANYONE,MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS.MY DOLLAR 298 CENTS WORTH.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 11:26:38 AM EDT
What's the big deal if you're not a drug user?
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 11:33:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunslinger: I fail to see if you do not use drugs why it concerns you so.
View Quote
Nice attitude. A lot of people have that attitude when it comes to guns. "I don't own a gun. Why should I care whether they're banned?"
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 11:48:41 AM EDT
Let us step back for a moment and view this from a different perspective. There have been a few threads [i]here[/i] recently in which the members, myself included, have derided the level of service encountered in contemporary American. Poor customer service and the over all attitude of those we deal with in our day to day lives as a couple of examples. I am not suggesting that all this can be directly attributed to drug and/or alcohol use in the work place. Far from it. However, it [i]must[/i] be recognized that it [i]could[/i] be a contributing factor. By "protecting" those that arrive at work in a chemically impaired state we are doing nothing more than encouraging this type of poor service and level of behavior. Frankly, to those that feel it is encroaching on their rights to be forced to submit to a drug test my answer is; Their lack of service or response to what I am paying my hard earned money for is an encroachment on my rights as a consumer. Now let us place this in a perspective that we all understand and something dear to us that we relate to. Would you want to shoot on a range with someone, whom you do not know, knowing that they are under the influence of an intoxicant of any kind? (Think about that.....do not just jump to the next paragraph or post. This is a person whom you know nothing about, do not know their level of intoxication and they are armed with a deadly weapon next to you. Do you want to spend you time set aside to shoot, relax and have a good time being forced to watch them instead of doing what you are there for?) In most cases that is the position that not only most employeers find themselves in but also fellow workers.......you. If one is employeed digging ditches manually there is little that the person next to you can do to injure you or themselves. But most jobs are not that way. You, a fellow worker who keeps themselves clean on the work place (regardless of what you choose to do on your own time) and we all, consumers deserve better than to have to deal with an impaired person in the enviroment.
Originally Posted By dr jarhead: [b]I can also tell you from experience that alcohol is by the worst and most costly drug in this country. Its cost to us economically, to families and to society as a whole is unsurpassed by all other drugs.[/b]
View Quote
What "experience" do you base this on? I submit you may wish to research such a bold statement before making bold assumptions. I think, after doing so, you will find you are either painfully naive' or simply uninformed.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 11:56:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raven:
Originally Posted By Gunslinger: I fail to see if you do not use drugs why it concerns you so.
View Quote
Nice attitude. A lot of people have that attitude when it comes to guns. "I don't own a gun. Why should I care whether they're banned?"
View Quote
So Raven, you are now trying to draw a parallel between working while under the influence with owning guns? Well, that certainly does a Hell of a lot for the RKBA! Working carefully grasp both ears and without rupturing anything try to pull your head out before you sufficate. Flame intended. Gunslinger
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 11:59:30 AM EDT
A strong statement is warranted. "necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the plea of TYRANTS, it is the creed of SLAVES." Flame away.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 12:17:53 PM EDT
As an employer we do not do drug testing. The main reason being that if a person test positive it can prevent them from being fired. All they have to do is claim drug dependence under ADA they are protected from dismissal from most jobs. The drug test can be a double-edged sword.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 1:14:48 PM EDT
Some of you guys just don't get it. You are either for freedom or you are not. If we allow certain individuals rights to be trampled we assure the same for ourselves at some point in the future when what we do is no longer politically correct(any ideas on what?). Even if what someone else does is not in keeping with our sense of ideals we must support their right to do so as long as it does not injure nor infringe upon the rights of others. Bear in mind that if you pursue this far enough you can find a reason to remove the rights of any individual or group-ie. should car makers or their workers be responsible for car accidents or drunk driving? Should gun makers be responsible for murders committed with their product? What about knife makers? Fertilizer manufacturers? Liquor companies or distributors? etc.etc. There are risks inherent to living in a free society. We either accept those or we agree to stand by and watch while all of our freedoms are incrementally destroyed. And make no mistake-if you choose the latter proposition you accept the ends as well as the means. And the idea that you have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong is utterly ludicrous. Apparently some of you support videocamera use by the government and other forms of unobtrusive intrusion. Why not in your homes as well? After all, if you've done nothing wrong...? Why not allow the government to follow, monitor and track every activity we undertake from birth until death? Wouldn't we live in a safer society? Is it worth it? Sure seems to be to most women and liberals. That should reassure you that you are on the right path. Certainly, there need to be laws. My assertion is that there need to be about 10% of the laws that are currently in place. As it stands I would bet that we all break several laws daily without even realizing so. Many people on this board have probably committed felonies without their knowledge or being caught. Once again, my initial point: You either stand for freedom or you do not. However, in so choosing you choose for all of our freedoms not just one.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 1:25:20 PM EDT
AMEN,JARHEAD!
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 1:28:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbrog|io: "Your sense of liberty is as pale as your skin." - Tchéky Karyo in the "Patriot" You all bitch and whine about the place you work for not allowing you to carry on company property. And you all bitch and whine if your access to gun websites is blocked at work. I am sure your boss doesn't want some crazy person with a gun shooting up the place, right? What you do on personal time is your own business, but I can see that the "if you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have to worry" mentality that the socialists use to justify big brother peeking into everyone's private lives is bleeding over into the so-called "protectors of the Constitution". What a joke. This only confirms my belief: The Republic is lost.
View Quote
Ditto^^^^
I fail to see if you do not use drugs why it concerns you so. As others have said above there are practical reasons for it. It is not an invasion of privacy. You are being paid by them and work on their property. They have a right now know that those people working for them are clean. As to what you do on your own time, you are correct. But they will be testnig you at work, "on the clock", not in your home on your time. If it is still in your system then it is not a matter of what you do on your own time. You would then be bringing a residual to work. It then becomes their business. No flame intended. You and I have, in the past, agreed on almost everything. But just piss in the cup. Do you want to work with dopers? It will weed them out of your work place.
View Quote
Sorry, this is the exact same arguments anti-gunners make about guns. "practical reasons" for gun control too I guess. I ain't buying it. Unless your an airline pilot with 400 passengers 40,000 feet in the air, I don't think it's practical. Oh and I never have and never will use drugs.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 1:28:56 PM EDT
You all must realize that a piss test can show a lot of things beside drugs or alcohol use.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 2:32:59 PM EDT
So, according to some, we should be free to do as we like regarding anything with no restrictions. Does this to mean we should be free drive while impaired endangering the lives of anyone else on the road.....including your wife, mother, sister, et. al.? Perhaps we should be free to sexual attack someone else's wife simply because we "want" her? Or we should be appalled that that we are denied the freedom to molest children? God forbid that we all be suppressed and not allowed to do exactually as we wish with whomever or to whomever we choose. By God, we are barbarians and we have a freakin' rights! Folks, y'all will find no one here that is more dedicated nor many that spend more time working for our rights than I. But we have to place things into context. If you are paying someone to work for you.....if you are paying someone to serve you, you have the right to have that person unimpaired and ready to do the job they are taking money to perform to the best of their ability. Not have blown out of their mind. (a3kid, that last statement was [b]not[/b] to imply that [i]you[/i] are not performing your job. Merely an illustration.)
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 2:49:13 PM EDT
You sound like you want a nanny, where there would be someone to protect you from yourself. Ever hear of personal responsibility? You should be able to do whatever in the hell you want as long as you don't harm anyone else in the process but if you do then you pay the consequences. If you show up to the job stoned AND can't perform you job, by all means you should be fired. Otherwise it is no business of the company what you do on YOUR time. I don't know how up on current events you are, but there are so-called "safety experts" now giving out profiles of those who are prone to "workplace violence". I remember a thread a few months ago that was posted on here where people were laughing at how many of those criteria applied to them. How would you like it if all of a sudden the place you work at made it mandatory that you have a GUN FREE home because gun owners are prone to comitting mass murder? After all they are paying you to serve them so you should be forced into doing getting rid of all your guns, right? I don't know where you work at but it has been my experience that employers pay employees to perform a SERVICE, not to become chattel from 9 to 5.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 2:54:49 PM EDT
Yes you should be free to do as you like with few or no restrictions. If what you like hurts or kills someone else then I have no problem with the electric chair as punishment for the crime. You have not hurt or killed anyone until the act is commited, not before. If you believe in punishment before the crime then you are probably a strong supporter of thought crimes. If you want to drive drunk - no problem as long as you don't hurt someone. Once you do - the electric chair is fine with me. Keep in mind that drunkeness is different everywhere. How can you be drunk in Mississippi and not in Louisiana. The numbers are totally arbitrary with no real connection to the specific effects on an individual. I've seen people totally drunk in my view drive better that others that are totally straight. By your rational the Gun Control crowd has a very strong argument that your possesion of a gun may endanger someone's life. So you should not have them.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 3:17:12 PM EDT
Hate to break it to y'all but I DO drug and alcohol testing. It's all about the money. I've known people that were fired because they had a prescription from dental work, I know people that were fired because the employer chose to interpret the test result as positive for alcohol when in fact it was below the linearity for the instrument. I've almost been forced to perform breath alcohol testing on uncalibrated instruments. I know others who have just caved in and did what they were told, include misinterpreting drug tests. I have a friend that works in a factory and if safty was such a big concern a lot of what goes on there would stop. No, people should not go to work loaded. Trouble with the drug testing is it doesn't tell if the person was working udner the influence, oh they could develop such a test but like I said, it's about control. If some of y'all knew what I did you wouldn't be so "it's all for your own good".
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 3:18:10 PM EDT
Hate to break it to y'all but I DO drug and alcohol testing. It's all about the money. I've known people that were fired because they had a prescription from dental work, I know people that were fired because the employer chose to interpret the test result as positive for alcohol when in fact it was below the linearity for the instrument. I've almost been forced to perform breath alcohol testing on uncalibrated instruments. I know others who have just caved in and did what they were told, include misinterpreting drug tests. I have a friend that works in a factory and if safty was such a big concern a lot of what goes on there would stop. No, people should not go to work loaded. Trouble with the drug testing is it doesn't tell if the person was working udner the influence, oh they could develop such a test but like I said, it's about control. If some of y'all knew what I did you wouldn't be so "it's all for your own good".
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 3:26:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunslinger: So Raven, you are now trying to draw a parallel between working while under the influence with owning guns? Well, that certainly does a Hell of a lot for the RKBA! Working carefully grasp both ears and without rupturing anything try to pull your head out before you sufficate. Flame intended. Gunslinger
View Quote
Up yours. You don't understand what I am saying. First of all, I believe guns would be just as illegal and have the same stigma of drugs if they weren't explicitly protected under the Constitution. The government tramples over all sorts of our freedoms because "Well, there's nothing in the Constitution saying we can't". Guns are protected under the Bill of Rights, and look at the way the gov't is trying to take your freedom to own them. Secondly, piss testing invades your privacy. What you do off the clock isn't the company's business. Just because you test positive on a random or pre-employment screen, doesn't mean you'll come to work high. A guy who smoked some dope a month ago would still fail the piss test, while a guy who had used cocaine or heroin could have his system clear of those drugs in a few days. Who's the bigger risk of being a fuck-up at work? The dope smoker or the hard drug user? The piss test discriminates in favor of the hard drug user. Or the alcoholic.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 3:40:35 PM EDT
Sorry but Alcohol use and drug use is protected by the constitution. Why else would they have enacted the 18 th amendment establishing proabition then the 21st to repeal. Today they would not bother. There is no specific right in the bill of rights that relates to alcohol consumption. Proabition still exists with other intoxicants with no amendment, how? Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This basically says that just because its not specifically spelled out elsewhere in the Constitution, it does not mean that the Government has a legal authority to take it away or regulate it. Quite the contrary. Of course this amendment has been totally ignored and is the source of our governments tyranny. You can bet if the 2nd was not spelled out, that right would not exist, even with the 9th amendment protecting all rights. Our government has done exactly what this amendment is put in to protect, taken the other rights that are specific and made them exclusive.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 5:34:32 PM EDT
When I took the first one, the company nurse was in the other room and told me to fill the cup. I said "From here?" She called me a smart ass.
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 5:37:06 PM EDT
Think of it as an IQ test. Are you smart enough to not use, if not, are you smart enough to pass the test?
Link Posted: 4/7/2001 6:31:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raven [b]Up yours.[/b]
View Quote
Ah.....just the type of well thought out, intellectual response I would expect from you. Get back with me [i]after[/i] you have matured to the point of being capable of engaging in an adult conversation.
Link Posted: 4/8/2001 1:10:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gunslinger: Working carefully grasp both ears and without rupturing anything try to pull your head out before you sufficate. Gunslinger
View Quote
Yeah, that's real mature.
Link Posted: 4/8/2001 1:32:47 PM EDT
patriot_dave, I keep thinking about all those white heads who drive like I do......when I've drank a bottle of scotch.
Link Posted: 4/8/2001 6:33:56 PM EDT
Actually me and my buddies have cloned the name bluehairs for them here in VA.
Link Posted: 4/8/2001 8:14:24 PM EDT
"if you aren't planning on commiting a crime, why would you need an assault rifle and high cap magazines?" same mentality as: "if you're not on drugs then why should urinalysis tests bother you?" Some people - even on **this** forum - just don't get it. If you want to shoot up Draino all day - fine - you'll die soon enough. Don't bother anyone or their property and everything will be fine. If you do bother anyone or their property, then you will be quickly and harshly phucked. THAT'S how the laws should work!!! [heavy] Tate
Link Posted: 4/9/2001 7:36:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MarineSniper: Maybe if you stayed off the drugs, you wouldn't be worrying about it, now would you? Stay clean folks... The best drug is sex - master it... out..
View Quote
How did you ever learn to type so well without learning how to read?
Link Posted: 4/9/2001 7:52:49 AM EDT
I refuse to work for companies that do pre-employment drug screening or random tests. I have no problem with requiring a drug test of someone who has exhibited erratic behavior on the job or been chronically late. My personal opinion is that what I do in my spare time is none of my employer's business. Collecting peoples' precious bodily fluids smacks of Henry Ford's personal visits to his factory workers to ensure that they were living the "right" kind of life. I also respect the right of employers to set their own rules. All companies that have any federal government contracts pre-screen all employees. Fortunately, I've found that (at least in my occupation) purely private-sector employers pay better than government contractors. I'm not sure exactly what I would do if my employer suddently change the rules. I've been at the same place over 5 years. They can't test you until you sign a consent form. I'd probably avoid signing the paper as long as possible, then quit on principle if push came to shove. Actually, I think a new random drug testing policy would cause a mass exodus where I work. Not that there are a lot of druggies, but a lot of us are highly employable. Two thirds of the programming staff threatened to quit when a new boss proposed tightening the dress code.
Link Posted: 4/9/2001 7:54:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2001 7:54:25 AM EDT by DK-Prof]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top