Slippery Slope?
#61
(08-17-2015, 05:23 PM)chuck white Wrote: Why not just test people to see if they are impaired. This would catch those who lack sleep as well as being drunk or under some drug that effects your abilities.

 You want some tester to show up on the job at random and give me a some physical ability test? That would cost a buttload of money compared to making me show up at a lab and piss in a cup.
Reply
#62
(08-17-2015, 03:00 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 10:04 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 09:48 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 09:39 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 09:23 AM)Willie Krash Wrote: It's time we get serious about safety in the work place. We need to test for pharmaceuticals too. Vicodin will stone you out of your mind.
Oxycontn is just heroin. The list is huge. Some antihistimes are suspect. Makes you drowsy.

Henry Ford would send company inspectors to workers homes to make sure that  they met his standards. We need to get back to that,
Homes had to be clean and no drinking and gambling.

Big Grin
It's easier to just hold on to the old prejudices and single out marijuana. I don't know, but it doesn't seem to be just about workplace safety to me. Does it to you? I agree that legal pharmaceuticals and some over the counter drugs can be just as dangerous, but those drugs don't get the attention weed does. Why is that?

Baloney, There's no evil conspiracy against pot heads. Drug testing this is driven by insurance companies NOT pot hating employees.
Employers a forced to go with tough anti drug policies in order to get good insurance rates.
Insurance companies will enforce anything they can to reduce accidents on the job.

It's all about $$$$$$ first and safety second. It's not about old prejudices that single out marijuana. If you fail a drug test because you have ANY drug in your system you get the same treatment.
Pot stays in the system a lot longer if you are a heavy user so consequently pot smokers are going to fail drug tests more often.
Is that fair? of course not. All I'm trying to say here is if THAT affects your life, Fair or not fair, and you still won't get of the weed then maybe you do have a drug problem.

No one said there was a evil conspiracy against pot users. Quit hanging out with Hugo.  Big Grin

You are however wrong about equal treatment for testing positive for other drugs. If you test positive for opiates and have a prescription, you will not usually get fired for it. Now say the same about weed; can't can you?

No one said there was a evil conspiracy against pot users. Quit hanging out with Hugo

I don't, I only hang out with Larry Razz . You said employers were holding on to the old prejudices and single out marijuana, sounds like you think they are against pot because of some old theory. I totally think that's Baloney and I explained why.

Drug testing didn't even start until the 80's and back then it was mostly for certain occupations. You know like train conductors and other people who can get high/stupid and kill a bunch of people.
And I think it had to do with DRUGS not just the great, holy, natural all healing, healthy, hallowed, god like magical Marijuana.n youn





OKI agree
You are however wrong about equal treatment for testing positive for other drugs. If you test positive for opiates and have a prescription, you will not usually get fired for it. Now say the same about weed; can't can you?

I think you guys are becoming outdated in your information. I know my current employer demands that they be informed whenever an employee is taking any, ANY, medication. They don't distinguish between over the counter, prescription or illicit. Well, that's not completely true. Illicit drugs would get you fired toot sweet.

They also will not allow you to use any drug, prescription or otherwise, during work hours if it could cause drowsiness or any other impairment. And, you cannot use a medication at least eight hours before working a shift. This is not if it does cause impairment, if it could. This can and does cause some problems for employees who are prescribed medications for any number of things. Too bad, if you have to take meds, you can't work. If you take meds without notifying the management and anything happens, you will be fired. If nothing happens and they find out, you're fired. It makes it kind of tough for those that have bad backs or other physical infirmities that come with working physically demanding jobs.

Seems to get worse every year.
Reply
#63
(08-17-2015, 06:42 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 03:00 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 10:04 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 09:48 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 09:39 AM)cletus1 Wrote: Big Grin
It's easier to just hold on to the old prejudices and single out marijuana. I don't know, but it doesn't seem to be just about workplace safety to me. Does it to you? I agree that legal pharmaceuticals and some over the counter drugs can be just as dangerous, but those drugs don't get the attention weed does. Why is that?

Baloney, There's no evil conspiracy against pot heads. Drug testing this is driven by insurance companies NOT pot hating employees.
Employers a forced to go with tough anti drug policies in order to get good insurance rates.
Insurance companies will enforce anything they can to reduce accidents on the job.

It's all about $$$$$$ first and safety second. It's not about old prejudices that single out marijuana. If you fail a drug test because you have ANY drug in your system you get the same treatment.
Pot stays in the system a lot longer if you are a heavy user so consequently pot smokers are going to fail drug tests more often.
Is that fair? of course not. All I'm trying to say here is if THAT affects your life, Fair or not fair, and you still won't get of the weed then maybe you do have a drug problem.

No one said there was a evil conspiracy against pot users. Quit hanging out with Hugo.  Big Grin

You are however wrong about equal treatment for testing positive for other drugs. If you test positive for opiates and have a prescription, you will not usually get fired for it. Now say the same about weed; can't can you?

No one said there was a evil conspiracy against pot users. Quit hanging out with Hugo

I don't, I only hang out with Larry Razz . You said employers were holding on to the old prejudices and single out marijuana, sounds like you think they are against pot because of some old theory. I totally think that's Baloney and I explained why.

Drug testing didn't even start until the 80's and back then it was mostly for certain occupations. You know like train conductors and other people who can get high/stupid and kill a bunch of people.
And I think it had to do with DRUGS not just the great, holy, natural all healing, healthy, hallowed, god like magical Marijuana.n youn





OKI agree
You are however wrong about equal treatment for testing positive for other drugs. If you test positive for opiates and have a prescription, you will not usually get fired for it. Now say the same about weed; can't can you?

I think you guys are becoming outdated in your information. I know my current employer demands that they be informed whenever an employee is taking any, ANY, medication. They don't distinguish between over the counter, prescription or illicit. Well, that's not completely true. Illicit drugs would get you fired toot sweet.

They also will not allow you to use any drug, prescription or otherwise, during work hours if it could cause drowsiness or any other impairment. And, you cannot use a medication at least eight hours before working a shift. This is not if it does cause impairment, if it could. This can and does cause some problems for employees who are prescribed medications for any number of things. Too bad, if you have to take meds, you can't work. If you take meds without notifying the management and anything happens, you will be fired. If nothing happens and they find out, you're fired. It makes it kind of tough for those that have bad backs or other physical infirmities that come with working physically demanding jobs.

Seems to get worse every year.
Wow. that's getting too close to "Big Brother". I can understand an employer not wanting someone on the job who is "drugged out", RX or Street stuff, but to monitor all one's RX seems beyond the pale. What next? Testing people for reaction times and if you have slow eye/hand coordination you are history? 
Reply
#64
(08-17-2015, 07:47 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 06:42 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 03:00 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 10:04 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 09:48 AM)tvguy Wrote: Baloney, There's no evil conspiracy against pot heads. Drug testing this is driven by insurance companies NOT pot hating employees.
Employers a forced to go with tough anti drug policies in order to get good insurance rates.
Insurance companies will enforce anything they can to reduce accidents on the job.

It's all about $$$$$$ first and safety second. It's not about old prejudices that single out marijuana. If you fail a drug test because you have ANY drug in your system you get the same treatment.
Pot stays in the system a lot longer if you are a heavy user so consequently pot smokers are going to fail drug tests more often.
Is that fair? of course not. All I'm trying to say here is if THAT affects your life, Fair or not fair, and you still won't get of the weed then maybe you do have a drug problem.

No one said there was a evil conspiracy against pot users. Quit hanging out with Hugo.  Big Grin

You are however wrong about equal treatment for testing positive for other drugs. If you test positive for opiates and have a prescription, you will not usually get fired for it. Now say the same about weed; can't can you?

No one said there was a evil conspiracy against pot users. Quit hanging out with Hugo

I don't, I only hang out with Larry Razz . You said employers were holding on to the old prejudices and single out marijuana, sounds like you think they are against pot because of some old theory. I totally think that's Baloney and I explained why.

Drug testing didn't even start until the 80's and back then it was mostly for certain occupations. You know like train conductors and other people who can get high/stupid and kill a bunch of people.
And I think it had to do with DRUGS not just the great, holy, natural all healing, healthy, hallowed, god like magical Marijuana.n youn





OKI agree
You are however wrong about equal treatment for testing positive for other drugs. If you test positive for opiates and have a prescription, you will not usually get fired for it. Now say the same about weed; can't can you?

I think you guys are becoming outdated in your information. I know my current employer demands that they be informed whenever an employee is taking any, ANY, medication. They don't distinguish between over the counter, prescription or illicit. Well, that's not completely true. Illicit drugs would get you fired toot sweet.

They also will not allow you to use any drug, prescription or otherwise, during work hours if it could cause drowsiness or any other impairment. And, you cannot use a medication at least eight hours before working a shift. This is not if it does cause impairment, if it could. This can and does cause some problems for employees who are prescribed medications for any number of things. Too bad, if you have to take meds, you can't work. If you take meds without notifying the management and anything happens, you will be fired. If nothing happens and they find out, you're fired. It makes it kind of tough for those that have bad backs or other physical infirmities that come with working physically demanding jobs.

Seems to get worse every year.
Wow. that's getting too close to "Big Brother". I can understand an employer not wanting someone on the job who is "drugged out", RX or Street stuff, but to monitor all one's RX seems beyond the pale. What next? Testing people for reaction times and if you have slow eye/hand coordination you are history? 

 but to monitor all one's RX seems beyond the pale

Where the heck does it say that?
Reply
#65
(08-17-2015, 06:42 PM)t Cuzz Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 03:00 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 10:04 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 09:48 AM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 09:39 AM)cletus1 Wrote: Big Grin
It's easier to just hold on to the old prejudices and single out marijuana. I don't know, but it doesn't seem to be just about workplace safety to me. Does it to you? I agree that legal pharmaceuticals and some over the counter drugs can be just as dangerous, but those drugs don't get the attention weed does. Why is that?

Baloney, There's no evil conspiracy against pot heads. Drug testing this is driven by insurance companies NOT pot hating employees.
Employers a forced to go with tough anti drug policies in order to get good insurance rates.
Insurance companies will enforce anything they can to reduce accidents on the job.

It's all about $$$$$$ first and safety second. It's not about old prejudices that single out marijuana. If you fail a drug test because you have ANY drug in your system you get the same treatment.
Pot stays in the system a lot longer if you are a heavy user so consequently pot smokers are going to fail drug tests more often.
Is that fair? of course not. All I'm trying to say here is if THAT affects your life, Fair or not fair, and you still won't get of the weed then maybe you do have a drug problem.

No one said there was a evil conspiracy against pot users. Quit hanging out with Hugo.  Big Grin

You are however wrong about equal treatment for testing positive for other drugs. If you test positive for opiates and have a prescription, you will not usually get fired for it. Now say the same about weed; can't can you?

No one said there was a evil conspiracy against pot users. Quit hanging out with Hugo

I don't, I only hang out with Larry Razz . You said employers were holding on to the old prejudices and single out marijuana, sounds like you think they are against pot because of some old theory. I totally think that's Baloney and I explained why.

Drug testing didn't even start until the 80's and back then it was mostly for certain occupations. You know like train conductors and other people who can get high/stupid and kill a bunch of people.
And I think it had to do with DRUGS not just the great, holy, natural all healing, healthy, hallowed, god like magical Marijuana.n youn





OKI agree
You are however wrong about equal treatment for testing positive for other drugs. If you test positive for opiates and have a prescription, you will not usually get fired for it. Now say the same about weed; can't can you?

I think you guys are becoming outdated in your information. I know my current employer demands that they be informed whenever an employee is taking any, ANY, medication. They don't distinguish between over the counter, prescription or illicit. Well, that's not completely true. Illicit drugs would get you fired toot sweet.

They also will not allow you to use any drug, prescription or otherwise, during work hours if it could cause drowsiness or any other impairment. And, you cannot use a medication at least eight hours before working a shift. This is not if it does cause impairment, if it could. This can and does cause some problems for employees who are prescribed medications for any number of things. Too bad, if you have to take meds, you can't work. If you take meds without notifying the management and anything happens, you will be fired. If nothing happens and they find out, you're fired. It makes it kind of tough for those that have bad backs or other physical infirmities that come with working physically demanding jobs.

Seems to get worse every year.

Maybe that is the position of your employer, but the drug and alcohol policies of employers vary rather drastically. Like I said before, many employers allow for medical marijuana use including some State of Oregon agencies. I can assure you that many State employees smoke weed without fear of consequences. I also know employers that switched from random urinalysis to reasonable suspicion UAs. Now why would they do that?
Reply
#66
(08-17-2015, 08:36 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 06:42 PM)t Cuzz Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 03:00 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 10:04 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 09:48 AM)tvguy Wrote: Baloney, There's no evil conspiracy against pot heads. Drug testing this is driven by insurance companies NOT pot hating employees.
Employers a forced to go with tough anti drug policies in order to get good insurance rates.
Insurance companies will enforce anything they can to reduce accidents on the job.

It's all about $$$$$$ first and safety second. It's not about old prejudices that single out marijuana. If you fail a drug test because you have ANY drug in your system you get the same treatment.
Pot stays in the system a lot longer if you are a heavy user so consequently pot smokers are going to fail drug tests more often.
Is that fair? of course not. All I'm trying to say here is if THAT affects your life, Fair or not fair, and you still won't get of the weed then maybe you do have a drug problem.

No one said there was a evil conspiracy against pot users. Quit hanging out with Hugo.  Big Grin

You are however wrong about equal treatment for testing positive for other drugs. If you test positive for opiates and have a prescription, you will not usually get fired for it. Now say the same about weed; can't can you?

No one said there was a evil conspiracy against pot users. Quit hanging out with Hugo

I don't, I only hang out with Larry Razz . You said employers were holding on to the old prejudices and single out marijuana, sounds like you think they are against pot because of some old theory. I totally think that's Baloney and I explained why.

Drug testing didn't even start until the 80's and back then it was mostly for certain occupations. You know like train conductors and other people who can get high/stupid and kill a bunch of people.
And I think it had to do with DRUGS not just the great, holy, natural all healing, healthy, hallowed, god like magical Marijuana.n youn





OKI agree
You are however wrong about equal treatment for testing positive for other drugs. If you test positive for opiates and have a prescription, you will not usually get fired for it. Now say the same about weed; can't can you?

I think you guys are becoming outdated in your information. I know my current employer demands that they be informed whenever an employee is taking any, ANY, medication. They don't distinguish between over the counter, prescription or illicit. Well, that's not completely true. Illicit drugs would get you fired toot sweet.

They also will not allow you to use any drug, prescription or otherwise, during work hours if it could cause drowsiness or any other impairment. And, you cannot use a medication at least eight hours before working a shift. This is not if it does cause impairment, if it could. This can and does cause some problems for employees who are prescribed medications for any number of things. Too bad, if you have to take meds, you can't work. If you take meds without notifying the management and anything happens, you will be fired. If nothing happens and they find out, you're fired. It makes it kind of tough for those that have bad backs or other physical infirmities that come with working physically demanding jobs.

Seems to get worse every year.

Maybe that is the position of your employer, but the drug and alcohol policies of employers vary rather drastically. Like I said before, many employers allow for medical marijuana use including some State of Oregon agencies. I can assure you that many State employees smoke weed without fear of consequences. I also know employers that switched from random ursine analysis to reasonable suspicion UAs. Now why would they do that?

 Are you actually making the case that state and federal employers are doing something better than private enterprise?

I also know employers that switched from random ursine analysis to reasonable suspicion UAs. Now why would they do that?

Because of  the type of business? 

Lets say I was an electrician. I smoked a little weed on the job and then drove my ladder truck away forgetting to lower the ladder. Lets  say the ladder crashed and killed someone. Then they test me positive for weed.

Lets say the victims family sued. Will they win when it's shown the company didn't drug test at all. Only when they had "reasonable suspicion"
Lets say I was working out of town and my bosses never even saw me all week. I think the company would get their asses sued off and maybe go out of business.
Reply
#67
(08-17-2015, 06:31 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 05:23 PM)chuck white Wrote: Why not just test people to see if they are impaired. This would catch those who lack sleep as well as being drunk or under some drug that effects your abilities.

 You want some tester to show up on the job at random and give me a some physical ability test? That would cost a buttload of money compared to making me show up at a lab and piss in a cup.

Yes, but it would be more accurate and effective.
Reply
#68
For what it's worth, here is the original post. 

My concerns are still the same. 



http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory.com/?token=cFFFQVlWVwtGWHFSXVlZXxxTXlg=


From that article: 

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says. (If you’re an employer, this would be a good time to review your drug policy.) Don’t expect the courts to drive much change in this area: Judges in a number of states consistently have sided with employers."


So what if you work for someone who does not want you to drink a beer on your day off? Or, maybe you have been living with your girlfriend/boyfriend for years but never married? Or your employer knows you are an atheist? 


Your employer should not be able to dictate your lawful behavior, especially when off the job. 
Reply
#69
(08-17-2015, 10:47 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 06:31 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 05:23 PM)chuck white Wrote: Why not just test people to see if they are impaired. This would catch those who lack sleep as well as being drunk or under some drug that effects your abilities.

 You want some tester to show up on the job at random and give me a some physical ability test? That would cost a buttload of money compared to making me show up at a lab and piss in a cup.

Yes, but it would be more accurate and effective.

Yeah and if every time I went to a doctor I got a full body xray , a CT scan and an MRI it would be a more accurate diagnosis.
Reply
#70
(08-18-2015, 07:06 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: For what it's worth, here is the original post. 

My concerns are still the same. 



http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory.com/?token=cFFFQVlWVwtGWHFSXVlZXxxTXlg=


From that article: 

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says. (If you’re an employer, this would be a good time to review your drug policy.) Don’t expect the courts to drive much change in this area: Judges in a number of states consistently have sided with employers."


So what if you work for someone who does not want you to drink a beer on your day off? Or, maybe you have been living with your girlfriend/boyfriend for years but never married? Or your employer knows you are an atheist? 


Your employer should not be able to dictate your lawful behavior, especially when off the job. 

True enough. There are even states than can fire you or refuse to hire you if you smoke cigarettes. Some of that goes on in Oregon for sure. If a smoker came in to my wife's office stinking of nicotine they were NOT going to get the job.
Reply
#71
(08-17-2015, 09:13 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 08:36 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 06:42 PM)t Cuzz Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 03:00 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 10:04 AM)cletus1 Wrote: No one said there was a evil conspiracy against pot users. Quit hanging out with Hugo.  Big Grin

You are however wrong about equal treatment for testing positive for other drugs. If you test positive for opiates and have a prescription, you will not usually get fired for it. Now say the same about weed; can't can you?

No one said there was a evil conspiracy against pot users. Quit hanging out with Hugo

I don't, I only hang out with Larry Razz . You said employers were holding on to the old prejudices and single out marijuana, sounds like you think they are against pot because of some old theory. I totally think that's Baloney and I explained why.

Drug testing didn't even start until the 80's and back then it was mostly for certain occupations. You know like train conductors and other people who can get high/stupid and kill a bunch of people.
And I think it had to do with DRUGS not just the great, holy, natural all healing, healthy, hallowed, god like magical Marijuana.n youn





OKI agree
You are however wrong about equal treatment for testing positive for other drugs. If you test positive for opiates and have a prescription, you will not usually get fired for it. Now say the same about weed; can't can you?

I think you guys are becoming outdated in your information. I know my current employer demands that they be informed whenever an employee is taking any, ANY, medication. They don't distinguish between over the counter, prescription or illicit. Well, that's not completely true. Illicit drugs would get you fired toot sweet.

They also will not allow you to use any drug, prescription or otherwise, during work hours if it could cause drowsiness or any other impairment. And, you cannot use a medication at least eight hours before working a shift. This is not if it does cause impairment, if it could. This can and does cause some problems for employees who are prescribed medications for any number of things. Too bad, if you have to take meds, you can't work. If you take meds without notifying the management and anything happens, you will be fired. If nothing happens and they find out, you're fired. It makes it kind of tough for those that have bad backs or other physical infirmities that come with working physically demanding jobs.

Seems to get worse every year.

Maybe that is the position of your employer, but the drug and alcohol policies of employers vary rather drastically. Like I said before, many employers allow for medical marijuana use including some State of Oregon agencies. I can assure you that many State employees smoke weed without fear of consequences. I also know employers that switched from random ursine analysis to reasonable suspicion UAs. Now why would they do that?

 Are you actually making the case that state and federal employers are doing something better than private enterprise?

I also know employers that switched from random ursine analysis to reasonable suspicion UAs. Now why would they do that?

Because of  the type of business? 

Lets say I was an electrician. I smoked a little weed on the job and then drove my ladder truck away forgetting to lower the ladder. Lets  say the ladder crashed and killed someone. Then they test me positive for weed.

Lets say the victims family sued. Will they win when it's shown the company didn't drug test at all. Only when they had "reasonable suspicion"
Lets say I was working out of town and my bosses never even saw me all week. I think the company would get their asses sued off and maybe go out of business.

No, the type of business was not the issue. The issue was randoms caught up some really good employees and management decided that the wanted control over who got UAs and when. You follow right?
Reply
#72
(08-18-2015, 12:02 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 09:13 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 08:36 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 06:42 PM)t Cuzz Wrote:
(08-17-2015, 03:00 PM)tvguy Wrote: No one said there was a evil conspiracy against pot users. Quit hanging out with Hugo

I don't, I only hang out with Larry Razz . You said employers were holding on to the old prejudices and single out marijuana, sounds like you think they are against pot because of some old theory. I totally think that's Baloney and I explained why.

Drug testing didn't even start until the 80's and back then it was mostly for certain occupations. You know like train conductors and other people who can get high/stupid and kill a bunch of people.
And I think it had to do with DRUGS not just the great, holy, natural all healing, healthy, hallowed, god like magical Marijuana.n youn





OKI agree
You are however wrong about equal treatment for testing positive for other drugs. If you test positive for opiates and have a prescription, you will not usually get fired for it. Now say the same about weed; can't can you?

I think you guys are becoming outdated in your information. I know my current employer demands that they be informed whenever an employee is taking any, ANY, medication. They don't distinguish between over the counter, prescription or illicit. Well, that's not completely true. Illicit drugs would get you fired toot sweet.

They also will not allow you to use any drug, prescription or otherwise, during work hours if it could cause drowsiness or any other impairment. And, you cannot use a medication at least eight hours before working a shift. This is not if it does cause impairment, if it could. This can and does cause some problems for employees who are prescribed medications for any number of things. Too bad, if you have to take meds, you can't work. If you take meds without notifying the management and anything happens, you will be fired. If nothing happens and they find out, you're fired. It makes it kind of tough for those that have bad backs or other physical infirmities that come with working physically demanding jobs.

Seems to get worse every year.

Maybe that is the position of your employer, but the drug and alcohol policies of employers vary rather drastically. Like I said before, many employers allow for medical marijuana use including some State of Oregon agencies. I can assure you that many State employees smoke weed without fear of consequences. I also know employers that switched from random ursine analysis to reasonable suspicion UAs. Now why would they do that?

 Are you actually making the case that state and federal employers are doing something better than private enterprise?

I also know employers that switched from random ursine analysis to reasonable suspicion UAs. Now why would they do that?

Because of  the type of business? 

Lets say I was an electrician. I smoked a little weed on the job and then drove my ladder truck away forgetting to lower the ladder. Lets  say the ladder crashed and killed someone. Then they test me positive for weed.

Lets say the victims family sued. Will they win when it's shown the company didn't drug test at all. Only when they had "reasonable suspicion"
Lets say I was working out of town and my bosses never even saw me all week. I think the company would get their asses sued off and maybe go out of business.

No, the type of business was not the issue. The issue was randoms caught up some really good employees and management decided that the wanted control over who got UAs and when. You follow right?

I jsut asked "Because of  the type of business?" It was a question. I gave a very good example of why in some cases an employer might be powerless as to whether he keeps pot smokers or not..

 You follow right? Wink
Reply
#73
in some cases an employer might be powerless as to whether he keeps coffee drinkers or not..
Reply
#74
(08-18-2015, 01:12 PM)chuck white Wrote: in some cases an employer might be powerless as to whether he keeps coffee drinkers or not..
I don't know, Chuck, if you meant to post that a a "chuckle" or what, but it's possible that some company's owned by Mormons could actually entertain this thought. 

Why I thought it was a slippery slope. Time will tell, and things for the most part get worked out in time to reasonable standards. We should hope. (The rest of your pray).  Smiling
Reply
#75
Crap I'm self employed. Sign my on pay check. Freedom for me, the rest of you pee in a cup.
Reply
#76
(08-21-2015, 01:10 PM)Willie Krash Wrote: Crap I'm self employed. Sign my on pay check. Freedom for me, the rest of you pee in a cup.
Me too, although I pay myself in cash.

I really don't think most people that work for others need to pee in cups. It's just part of the invasion of privacy so many Americans have signed onto and want for their neighbors. 

I said most people TVguy so don't give me any of that safety crap.  Smiling  
Reply
#77
(08-18-2015, 07:06 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: For what it's worth, here is the original post. 

My concerns are still the same. 



http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory.com/?token=cFFFQVlWVwtGWHFSXVlZXxxTXlg=


From that article: 

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says. (If you’re an employer, this would be a good time to review your drug policy.) Don’t expect the courts to drive much change in this area: Judges in a number of states consistently have sided with employers."

The above is a factual reality faced by employers and employees alike.

Below is a self described "what if" fantasy that can not be backed up by any real examples to any measurable degree.


So what if you work for someone who does not want you to drink a beer on your day off? Or, maybe you have been living with your girlfriend/boyfriend for years but never married? Or your employer knows you are an atheist? 


Your employer should not be able to dictate your lawful behavior, especially when off the job. 

Which makes your argument a "straw man" and invalid.
Reply
#78
So If I'm a Rastafarian, can I claim religious persecution?
Reply
#79
(08-21-2015, 04:39 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(08-18-2015, 07:06 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: For what it's worth, here is the original post. 

My concerns are still the same. 



http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory.com/?token=cFFFQVlWVwtGWHFSXVlZXxxTXlg=


From that article: 

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says. (If you’re an employer, this would be a good time to review your drug policy.) Don’t expect the courts to drive much change in this area: Judges in a number of states consistently have sided with employers."

The above is a factual reality faced by employers and employees alike.

Below is a self described "what if" fantasy that can not be backed up by any real examples to any measurable degree.


So what if you work for someone who does not want you to drink a beer on your day off? Or, maybe you have been living with your girlfriend/boyfriend for years but never married? Or your employer knows you are an atheist? 


Your employer should not be able to dictate your lawful behavior, especially when off the job. 

Which makes your argument a "straw man" and invalid.

That my "self described what if fantasy can't be backed up by any real examples to a measurable degree" only supports the tone of this thread: "The slippery slope". To what degree an employer can exercise control over an employee's life OFF THE JOB when that behavior does not effect the on the job performance, is the issue. At this point, we don't really know. So yes, I used "what if" example. Hence: "The slippery slope". 

Not a straw man. 
Reply
#80
(08-21-2015, 09:17 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(08-21-2015, 04:39 PM)Hugo Wrote:
(08-18-2015, 07:06 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: For what it's worth, here is the original post. 

My concerns are still the same. 



http://medfordmailtribune.or.newsmemory.com/?token=cFFFQVlWVwtGWHFSXVlZXxxTXlg=


From that article: 

"Here’s the takeaway for employees in Oregon: You have the legal right to consume marijuana. But, if marijuana use is banned by your company, the company can fire you if you test positive. That means if you work for one of those companies, you’re going to want to check to see exactly what your company’s drug policy says. (If you’re an employer, this would be a good time to review your drug policy.) Don’t expect the courts to drive much change in this area: Judges in a number of states consistently have sided with employers."

The above is a factual reality faced by employers and employees alike.

Below is a self described "what if" fantasy that can not be backed up by any real examples to any measurable degree.


So what if you work for someone who does not want you to drink a beer on your day off? Or, maybe you have been living with your girlfriend/boyfriend for years but never married? Or your employer knows you are an atheist? 


Your employer should not be able to dictate your lawful behavior, especially when off the job. 

Which makes your argument a "straw man" and invalid.

That my "self described what if fantasy can't be backed up by any real examples to a measurable degree" only supports the tone of this thread: "The slippery slope". To what degree an employer can exercise control over an employee's life OFF THE JOB when that behavior does not effect the on the job performance, is the issue. At this point, we don't really know. So yes, I used "what if" example. Hence: "The slippery slope". 

Not a straw man. 

Yep, I agree that what a person does off the job is none of the employers business when it does not affect the employer. That is what I got out of your posts.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)