T
TorontoReign
Guest
If I ask for a job and need it and they ask for me to pee I can hand them my card and tell them a doctor prescribed it and they can suck my foreskin.
Random drug testing is not permitted in NJ unless for safety sensitive jobs. And even when it was allowed it was never implemented because if it was then it would just be me and three other people left at my work.
But it makes sense. You've signed a contract that gave consent to random drug testing, companies want to ensure safety and that employees are doing their job and use equipment unimpaired (yes, even that lowly disgraceful job at McDonald's that everyone loves to put down has risks).
But it makes sense. You've signed a contract that gave consent to random drug testing, companies want to ensure safety and that employees are doing their job and use equipment unimpaired (yes, even that lowly disgraceful job at McDonald's that everyone loves to put down has risks).
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
No way in hell that isn't a psyop.
No it doesn't. Not to me at least. As long you're not doing something hazardous it shouldn't be a companies fucking business what you do in your private time. What ever if your're doing weed, snorting cocain out of a (legal) hookers ass or marrying a potatoe. As long it does not effect your work, it's your life. Why the fuck should a company know what you take here?
Gives those fucktards way to much power and decision over you if they can "legaly" conduct random drug tests. Even if some of what you do might be shitty. But again. As long it doesn't affect your work and you only harm your self? Then it's no ones else business. And definetly not a corporation.
And before someone asks. Yes. I am also against mandatory vaccination. For pretty much the same reason. It's a personal decision that everyone has to make for them self.
Because it does effect your work. I’ve seen people fall asleep while operating a spinning blade because they do heroin in their private time. It’s a danger to themselves and others.
And no, I don’t believe people should do whatever the fuck they want in their private life and not have to live with the consequences. This is how we as a society got where we are today. You can’t say that people should do whatever they please and then complain about your fellow man or society.
And no, I don’t believe people should do whatever the fuck they want in their private life and not have to live with the consequences. This is how we as a society got where we are today. You can’t say that people should do whatever they please and then complain about your fellow man or society.
Morgan_
Duckerz
Yeah I can't make sense of it lol
For hardcore drugs or even signs of alcoholism in work environments where it will matter I'd agree but for stuff like weed or lsd I don't think there is an argument. I also am not really sure what you mean here other than just drugs though. Got where as a society and because of what?
Firing them and giving corporations a say about what you do in your private life, isn't going to fix the situation though - and it doesn't, as Opium adiction is growing in the United States.
That's notw what I am saying. What I am saying is : "Gives those fucktards way to much power and decision over you if they can "legaly" conduct random drug tests. Even if some of what you do might be shitty. But again. As long it doesn't affect your work and you only harm your self? Then it's no ones else business. And definetly not a corporation."
I mean, would you be ok with the govermment demanding random drug tests on everyone?
Last edited:
If I was president of the Erf I would introduce 'Let's all get fucked up day'. Do Hippies start wars? I don't 4king think so.
Morgan_
Duckerz
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
It's their business, their reputation, their expense, their [brick & mortar] property, their chosen work environment, and their conditional agreement to hire the employee—who agrees to the condition going into the arrangement; else why should they waste their time hiring the person? (...and why should they not feel betrayed by them when the employee fails the drug test?—where they have affirmed that they would not; IE. they broke their word if done deliberately.)
What's the problem here? (I see none at all).
Last edited:
Morgan_
Duckerz
The problem would the infringment on civil liberties/personal privacy vs the assurances of a company. Where should one outweigh the other. Failing a drug test is also not particularly hard either.
Last edited:
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
How so?
*As for the liberties...You give some up for the term of the employment, in exchange for getting the job (, and keeping it).
Consider the dress code. If a job requires an approved outfit, it means that one is not free to come to work wearing pajamas, or anything but the approved outfit; it's condition of employment. That is not infringement, that is an adult adhering to their own word/bond (a promise) to their employer. There is no difference here between this and drug use while employed.
Whatever the condition agreed upon, that is the employee's responsibility whether they like it or not.
IE. Don't use drugs while employed under the condition of abstinence, and getting caught breaking their word is the employee's own fault, not the employer's—who is then within their rights to fire them... as was mutually agreed upon by both when they were hired. What's the contention here?
This is their business, their rules. At Coca~Cola, it used to be (and probably still is) a firing offense to drink Pepsi at work. It's not an infringement of liberty if you agree to it beforehand.
___________
What employer [weed-shops aside] would willingly hire a person who could not be fired if they showed up drunk, high, stinking of weed, other drugs, or other embarrassment to the company? Why would they do that to themselves; why would they waste time on such a person?
Last edited:
Morgan_
Duckerz
You can fail drug tests if you smoked some weed recetly at a party or took lsd for the hell of it. There's also the famous poppy seed test failure.
You need to have resonable reasons for requiring certain work conditions. If they extend into controlling peoples personal lives outside of work this is an overstep in most cases, I think. If you work construction, operate dangerous machinery or are a boat captain then drug tests are understandable.
Oh no, looks like my programmer took lsd recently. I should be able to fire them simply brcause I don't like that or I think it may somehow affect their work maybe. Uh oh, my service worker has weed in their system due to weed brownies. Looks like they need to be fired since I make it a point to test them for it for whatever reason I feel like giving. These are overstep examples to me.
Out of curiosity is there a limit to this for you? Should we also test for alcohol? What if all companies decided no one is allowed to drink and have a job? Is this an overstep or are you okay with that as well? No one can drink anymore if they want to work.
Edit:
You need to have resonable reasons for requiring certain work conditions. If they extend into controlling peoples personal lives outside of work this is an overstep in most cases, I think. If you work construction, operate dangerous machinery or are a boat captain then drug tests are understandable.
Oh no, looks like my programmer took lsd recently. I should be able to fire them simply brcause I don't like that or I think it may somehow affect their work maybe. Uh oh, my service worker has weed in their system due to weed brownies. Looks like they need to be fired since I make it a point to test them for it for whatever reason I feel like giving. These are overstep examples to me.
Out of curiosity is there a limit to this for you? Should we also test for alcohol? What if all companies decided no one is allowed to drink and have a job? Is this an overstep or are you okay with that as well? No one can drink anymore if they want to work.
Edit:
In these examples I'd agree with firing them, we're talking about just detecting the presence of drugs in people systems regardless of if it affects their work.
Last edited:
To you as well, would you want the government to do it then? All in the name of "safety" and "security" of course? For the greater good.
Honestly, with all due respect, I will never undersand how you peeps are (kinda rightfully) suspicious when it gomes to the state. But you immediately roll over to show your belly when it's about corporations.
Nuhuuhu! Leave those poor corpos allone! They *snif* have it so hard already! Oh. Give me a brake.
Be sceptical about everyone's motivation here. You can lose your freedom and liberty not only trough the state. It can just as well happen from large corporations. What ever if the boot in your neck is now paid by taxes or driven by private profit doesn't matter. Opression stays opression. And the state will very likely find "good" reasoning for their decisions just as a corporation can, with words like "our" business "our" reputation "our" expenses yada yada.
And it honestly brings us back to situations that I thought would be long gone. I mean what else should they decide for us? Decide who you marry? Where you should life? Hey! It's about their "reputation"! - And those are things corporations did actually had power to decide at some point.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
I think drug tests should be mandatory for certain jobs. Truck drivers do not need to be driving while high for instance. If you work at Wendy's I doubt you being high is gonna kill anyone but you might put a dildo in a cheeseburger or something I guess. The reason I doubt you could hurt anyone is because if you are that high they are gonna tell you to fuck off to the house and fire you or something.
Cops can pull me over and random drug test me with a three day test even though I have a card. Now that is bullshit.
Cops can pull me over and random drug test me with a three day test even though I have a card. Now that is bullshit.
But how serious is the problem to begin with that it warrants such intrusive measures by a corporation? A lot of people that actually abuse drugs - see the Opioid crisis - are pretty functional. Enough that they can do their jobs for the most part. Random drug tests in general are in my opinion a very iffy issue. And again. Why is it suddenly a problem when cops do it but it's fine for corporations doing it on random? Should the same reasoning not apply for cops? They try to protect others in traffic from your "druged out ass".
See. That's my point. A sort of double standard. It's like someone trained you with a bell to go "HATE THIS MEASURE!" when it's the state, when in reality both situations are very questionable from a personal privacy point of view. And I am not saying the idea of drug tests in CERTAIN professions is wrong. I just do not think that it's actually really needed for like most jobs out there. Even truck drivers. Particularly as the biggest issue here is alcohol. Which a random drug test really isn't really doing much here. Which funny enough would eventually require more policing by the police stoping truck drivers and test them for alcohol.
See. That's my point. A sort of double standard. It's like someone trained you with a bell to go "HATE THIS MEASURE!" when it's the state, when in reality both situations are very questionable from a personal privacy point of view. And I am not saying the idea of drug tests in CERTAIN professions is wrong. I just do not think that it's actually really needed for like most jobs out there. Even truck drivers. Particularly as the biggest issue here is alcohol. Which a random drug test really isn't really doing much here. Which funny enough would eventually require more policing by the police stoping truck drivers and test them for alcohol.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
It's their company, the reason can be simply their preference; if the employee doesn't like it, they don't want them there.
Why would someone do that after affirming they would abstain? It breaks their word, and proves them dishonorable and untrustworthy.
*That aside, this is a double sided edge... people seem to ignore the other side it, where it's disrespectful to the company to betray them like that; they hired the person on their word. The person then breaks their word, and acts like they are the ones who've been wronged—by getting caught.
You miss the point. The limit is accepted by the employee, then reneged upon by them. The limits [specific conditions] are irrelevant, the only relevance is that they break their word.
Last edited:
We're talking past each other. I am not aguing against "their" reasoning.
I am sure the Chinese government has a lot of reasoning to controll their population with social credits, surveilance and all sorts of draconic measures which sound totally fine in their mind as well, since it's for the benefit of the people protecting them from themself.
Just because someone has a reason, maybe even a logical reason, for their actions doesn't mean that it's a good one.
Not aimed directly at you, but interestingly enough this was often named as a reason not to employ a certain "type" of people in the past. They well, just didn't "wanted" their kind here. Completely normal. And totally justifed within their reasoning. Them black folks and white folks just don't mix! No sir! Not in this comapny, sir!
Not everything is "ok" just because they have it written down in their corporate manual what ever.
Last edited:
Morgan_
Duckerz
You're doing the thing again where you ignore what I say and then I have to restate it again to get a response.
An enployer simply not liking a thing is not cause for firing or creating rules around it. You need to have justifyable resons for these things.
Again:
If all companies decided that no one is allowed to drink and have a job are you okay with this? Why does their concerns overide people rights and liberties if so? Why should they have the power to direct society in such major ways because of their whims or preferences? Is there a limit for you as to what rules they can create?
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Idk how many truck driving accidents are related to drugs?
Get a job somewhere else.
Just to let you know this is going away now so you guys can stop whining about it.