Do you support drug testing for welfare recipients? (minimum wage, workers, best)
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 have a problem with physicals for underlying, undetectable, dangerous medical conditions.
The drug testing component is useless. Seriously, is there no one there that can tell if a worker is under the influence of meth on the job? How does a drug test once every two years (going by your link) prevent them from doing that or taking PCP later? False sense of security doesn't help anyone.
I don't have a problem with physicals for underlying, undetectable, dangerous medical conditions.
The drug testing component is useless. Seriously, is there no one there that can tell if a worker is under the influence of meth on the job? How does a drug test once every two years (going by your link) prevent them from doing that or taking PCP later? False sense of security doesn't help anyone.
I do see your point.
My point is useful or, not.........I have to take a test to make a living.
It's a waste of resources set up to attack an almost nonexistent problem.
Again, the reason so few people failed the test in Florida is becsue of the huge number that refused to take it. In the last month they were testing 35% of the applicants were denied, 35% is a lot. There is also an unknown number of people that never applied because they knew they would be tested.
I said, if a person is performing poorly then you fire them (or get to the bottom of what's going on, whatever. My point was not firing them per se, but that the employer has options regarding poorly performing employees, regardless of the cause). I did not say "wait until something happens".
In dangerous work environments there should be adequate supervision. I do not think that penalizing a person who has smoked pot on the weekend and absolving yourself of responsibility because another employee passed the drug test but is distracted by something not substance related is the right tactic either. There are legal deterrents that should discourage employees from putting others in harms way already in place. If you hire people that are that stupid as to ignore this at their own peril, then you need to be a bit smarter about who you hire. Likewise, if you have employees who are struggling with substance abuse issues then you have an obligation to direct them to help, legally.
Drug testing does not ensure accidents won't occur. Paying proper attention to your employees, making sure they are adequately trained and have respect for their fellow's safety would be a more effective strategy, IMO.
But what we have now is a culture where many people, regardless of whether they're in a position where they can cause harm or not, are drug tested on a regular basis. Why? Reeks of intrusion and control freakery to me.
Employers can already fire you if you aren't doing your job, and if you are, then what business is it of theirs what you do outside of the workplace, and long as you aren't throwing up on your clients or otherwise reflecting poorly on your employer?
For the sake of the illusion of safety we are giving up too many civil liberties.
Not being tested by a private employer is not a civil liberty. The Constitution does not apply to private enterprises. If you want to argue you are giving up to much privacy, fine but it has nothing to do with civil liberties.
My employer can fire me for simply saying something they do not like.
I'm pretty much with you. I think it's great that the supervisors have training to keep an eye on people's well being. I think this is a much better strategy. After all people will only fail a drug test if they happen to be drugged that day or close to it, unless it's pot or something that is no longer potent but is still detectable, which us also quite useless practically speaking. Behavioral patterns are a much better indicator of all sorts of problems that could cause someone to be homicidally or grievously negligent, and I fully support programs that would help people get through things as opposed to canning them, to a reasonable extent of course.
It's really all about money and litigation and little to do with actual people's safety and well being.
Sorry, you have no idea what it is. If there is something unsafe I am permitted to shut everything down until it is addressed. Cost never figures into this.
People have opinions that business will only do things based upon the bottom line and that is not always the case. I can only speak on my experience. If I shut something down and it causes us to miss ship dates and costs thousands of dollars to address it is what is done.
Someone got hurt a couple months ago. We shut down for 4-5 days to address what happened. I say "only" but it was only a laceration to someone's finger. That cost the business a ton of money.
Where I work the business has very real reasons to make sure to the best of their ability that no one is under the influence of anything. You aren't going to be the one dealing with the family of a dead employee or an explosion because job requirements were relaxed. (you use our products everyday in many different applications)
Sorry, you have no idea what it is. If there is something unsafe I am permitted to shut everything down until it is addressed. Cost never figures into this.
People have opinions that business will only do things based upon the bottom line and that is not always the case. I can only speak on my experience. If I shut something down and it causes us to miss ship dates and costs thousands of dollars to address it is what is done.
Someone got hurt a couple months ago. We shut down for 4-5 days to address what happened. I say "only" but it was only a laceration to someone's finger. That cost the business a ton of money.
Where I work the business has very real reasons to make sure to the best of their ability that no one is under the influence of anything. You aren't going to be the one dealing with the family of a dead employee or an explosion because job requirements were relaxed. (you use our products everyday in many different applications)
Okay, I see your point in both of your posts, including the civil liberties definition, which granted is not exactly what I mean. Personal liberties would have been a better choice. And I realize your employer can fire you for anything. That kinda supports my POV as well. You don't need to drug test everyone to get rid of one or two.
I'm glad to hear safety is paramount in your business for safety's sake. I should not have generalized to that extent. However I would imagine that there is a definite financial motivation in some companies with regard to insurance premiums that are really the driver of these rules.
I'm curious, (genuinely) - what constitutes the best of their ability? Are employees tested before every shift? And is it just workers who are capable of doing themselves or others harm that are subject to it or is it a company wide policy? Why did the person cut their finger?
I take your word for it that it's a useful tool for your company to help keep people safe. I trust you know your own business. I definitely feel it's being overused and is unnecessary and intrusive in many many applications, and I absolutely disagree with it being used as some kind of moral qualifier/punishment, which I think is motivation for many who would implement it in the case of welfare recipients.
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.