Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think merely having drugs in your system makes you incompetant and unable to do your job. Plenty of people get s***faced drunk every single weekend and still do their job just fine, so those that do drugs are unfairly punished just because alcohol is an "acceptable" drug. IMO what you do off the clock is nobody's business but your own. I know this if off topic, but it leads to a point.
Point being, if you need more workers, and the stipulations you've put in place are making that difficult, YOU'VE GOT TO CHANGE. Looking around and expecting the world to change to suit you will always lead to disappoint. And because they are complaining about it, they have an incentive to change. They are just unwilling do to stubbornness.
Many jobs simply cannot take the risk. Drugs are addictive. Eventually you need them more and more often. There is no way to tell whether you are on drugs now or were last week. Other workers do not want to work with someone with a drug problem. It can get them hurt or killed. Insurance and union rules require drug testing. Many customers government and private require it as well. If you do not drug test and someone gets hurt because a stoned person did something stupid because they were stoned, you get sued.
In short, it is simply not worth it. Better to downsize or even shut down than to gamble everything on hiring a drug user. At least with alcohol, if they are using it during work or before arriving, you can usually smell it, and/or it is pretty obvious. With many drugs, you cannot tell with any degree of certainty unless you test.
At our company you must pass drug test to get hired. after that you have yearly and random testing. If you fail, you get 30 days off without pay to sober up. if you fail again you either get 90 days or fired. third time you are generally fired. A really critical irreplaceable employee might get sent to rehab in lieu of being fired, but they have to agree to it of course.
Business is changing. Not by accepting druggies as viable employees but by replacing employees with machines and computers. Machines and computers do not do drugs on weekends or at work. The problem right now is the current economic boom combined with the dearth of people willing to go into any trade or work involving full time physical activity and then exacerbated by the fact that so many experienced people left the work force during the recession and have not returned.
The difference is, if you can't perform in your civilian job, you are fired. If you can't perform in combat, somebody dies. No way to change the standards on that. OP I have the feeling that you would be the loudest squawker if a heavily armed military decided that it didn't like the orders given to it by the President or Congress and did its own thing.
That's true for certain MOS.
But unless you did something egregious, you will be required to serve out the rest of your contract. Whether that's with a black mark, busted down, or otherwise.
But unless you did something egregious, you will be required to serve out the rest of your contract. Whether that's with a black mark, busted down, or otherwise.
Drug use, at least in the Air Force, is an exit ticket.
US has had 5 years since 1940 when they were not actively involved in a military conflict somewhere, perhaps youngsters have determined that the odds of them being swept up in the same has something to do with this.
Well, beyond the drug thing, a friend of mine who was working as an Army recruiter said most of her "initial contact" people wanting to join had to go on a diet and PT program, usually for several months, to meet the weight and fitness requirements to even join.
Now, that's just one anecdotal tale, I have no data to suggest this is nation-wide or what. But just looking around, a lot of younger people anymore do seem to be quite overweight. Big and tall, but soft. About what I would expect if evil aliens were raising them for meat.
Well, beyond the drug thing, a friend of mine who was working as an Army recruiter said most of her "initial contact" people wanting to join had to go on a diet and PT program, usually for several months, to meet the weight and fitness requirements to even join.
Now, that's just one anecdotal tale, I have no data to suggest this is nation-wide or what. But just looking around, a lot of younger people anymore do seem to be quite overweight. Big and tall, but soft. About what I would expect if evil aliens were raising them for meat.
And the fat ones who are active duty just because they pass tape
Well, beyond the drug thing, a friend of mine who was working as an Army recruiter said most of her "initial contact" people wanting to join had to go on a diet and PT program, usually for several months, to meet the weight and fitness requirements to even join.
Now, that's just one anecdotal tale, I have no data to suggest this is nation-wide or what. But just looking around, a lot of younger people anymore do seem to be quite overweight. Big and tall, but soft. About what I would expect if evil aliens were raising them for meat.
There was a recent article in USA Today (I think) that said 71% of the desired age group was disqualified due to obesity, lack of a HS education, and criminal activity.
Well, beyond the drug thing, a friend of mine who was working as an Army recruiter said most of her "initial contact" people wanting to join had to go on a diet and PT program, usually for several months, to meet the weight and fitness requirements to even join.
Now, that's just one anecdotal tale, I have no data to suggest this is nation-wide or what. But just looking around, a lot of younger people anymore do seem to be quite overweight. Big and tall, but soft. About what I would expect if evil aliens were raising them for meat.
This is what I've noticed over time: Back in the day, the military didn't worry much about "fluffy" recruits because they were confident a few weeks of lots of activity and a controlled diet would whittle the fat off any 18-year-old male.
But kids are coming in these days with some kind of exercise-resistant fat that won't burn off the way fat used to burn off. There doesn't seem to be must scholastic study done on the phenomenon. Is it a matter of more kids today becoming obese much earlier and therefore having a lot more "old" fat? Or is it a different kind of "chemically fortified fat" from heavily processed food?
Lieutenant General Mark Phillip Hertling, commander of US Army Europe and Seventh Army, discusses obesity as a national security issue in a Ted Talk, so it's a problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
