Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9

 

2011-07-04 08:33:16
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:


It is not an invasion of privacy, the employer asks and makes full disclosure as part of the job application and hiring process that drug testing is part of their process and they do not want drugs as part of their employees lives. They have every right to seek a drug free work force. If you agree then you pretty much have nothing to say about it. If you do not agree and you think it is a violation of your privacy, don't take the job. Because contrary to popular the belief the job belongs to the employer NOT the employee.
So then you would be ok with your job setting up a mandatory exercise program, dictating what you eat, and when you go to bed so that your employer can ensure he is getting the maximally productive you? What I do at home is my business, not my employers. If they are unhappy with my production at work they can fire me for that, not because I smoked a doobie a month ago while on vacation.
LOL, if my company told me when I applied for THEIR job, that a mandatory exercise program was in place and I took the job anyway, how could I bitch about it? The employer has every right to hire who they want, and if they want to hire a drug free work force, isn't their prerogative?
Well, the problem there is that the vast majority of companies perform drug testing, and credit checks, and background checks, and facebook checks, and google searches. Good luck getting a job without a company combing over every aspect of your life. Why this doesn't bother you is beyond comprehension. "I have nothing to hide" is not a valid excuse. I care about my privacy, not because I have anything to hide (I don't), but because it's simply none of their business unless it pertains specifically to the job. Unless I'm handling money, why is a credit check necessary?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-07-04 08:35:55
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England

eleven bravo wrote:

ive never tried it before but ive been around people doing that shit all the time when i was a kid.  i remember my buddy freaking out running around the school hallways during class cus he took like 9 drops.  he was freaking out bad.  I also noticed how people who claim to have done acid more than a dozen times are a little off in the head.
That would come through in a simple job interview though. No ones gonna hire someone that's noticeably a burnout. Their job performance would suck.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-07-04 08:37:29
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5499|foggy bottom
i disagree
Tu Stultus Es
2011-07-04 08:37:54
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5499|foggy bottom
plenty of burn outs get hired
Tu Stultus Es
2011-07-04 09:04:05
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:


So then you would be ok with your job setting up a mandatory exercise program, dictating what you eat, and when you go to bed so that your employer can ensure he is getting the maximally productive you? What I do at home is my business, not my employers. If they are unhappy with my production at work they can fire me for that, not because I smoked a doobie a month ago while on vacation.
LOL, if my company told me when I applied for THEIR job, that a mandatory exercise program was in place and I took the job anyway, how could I bitch about it? The employer has every right to hire who they want, and if they want to hire a drug free work force, isn't their prerogative?
Well, the problem there is that the vast majority of companies perform drug testing, and credit checks, and background checks, and facebook checks, and google searches. Good luck getting a job without a company combing over every aspect of your life. Why this doesn't bother you is beyond comprehension. "I have nothing to hide" is not a valid excuse. I care about my privacy, not because I have anything to hide (I don't), but because it's simply none of their business unless it pertains specifically to the job. Unless I'm handling money, why is a credit check necessary?
Easy, if you can not own up to your own responsibilities in your personal life, why should a company trust that you could handle company business any better? Believe it or not, if you are always late on your bills, or miss payments or default on loans and their is a pattern of you doing this, isn't that a reflexion of you?
2011-07-04 09:08:07
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England
No, it's a reflection of being broke.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-07-04 09:16:19
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jay wrote:

No, it's a reflection of being broke.
and if you are broke your entire life, and still are charging shit, sorry Jay it shows you are not responsible.

Regardless, bottom line is companies have the right to hire a drug free work force. If you do not want to be tested or feel it is an inavasion of your privacy the solution is simple.. Don't apply for job there.
2011-07-04 09:37:06
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

No, it's a reflection of being broke.
and if you are broke your entire life, and still are charging shit, sorry Jay it shows you are not responsible.

Regardless, bottom line is companies have the right to hire a drug free work force. If you do not want to be tested or feel it is an inavasion of your privacy the solution is simple.. Don't apply for job there.
Then don't cry when I end up on welfare because I can't find an employer that isn't invasive
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-07-04 10:18:16
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5477|Cleveland, Ohio

11 Bravo wrote:

so, why is there no uproar for people who work in aviation who get random testing (alcohol also) all the time yet you guys have gone on for 4 pages about testing unproductive leeches?
2011-07-04 10:19:45
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5477|Cleveland, Ohio

Jay wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Jay wrote:


No one does acid every night, and it still stays in the system less long than booze.
true.  but there is one little fact you are missing.  one is illegal.
Thanks for pointing that out Captain Obvious. It's illegal because of ignorant moralistic meddling fools.
so an employer cant screen for people who break the law?  hmmm wonder why we have background checks then.  are you against those?
2011-07-04 10:28:01
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5499|foggy bottom
i think the city of la will let you have thc in you drug test as an employee but nothing else
Tu Stultus Es
2011-07-04 11:12:37
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

No, it's a reflection of being broke.
and if you are broke your entire life, and still are charging shit, sorry Jay it shows you are not responsible.

Regardless, bottom line is companies have the right to hire a drug free work force. If you do not want to be tested or feel it is an inavasion of your privacy the solution is simple.. Don't apply for job there.
Then don't cry when I end up on welfare because I can't find an employer that isn't invasive
Take it as a wake up call that what you do and what decisions you make affects every aspect of your life. Knowing that, maybe one would decide to make better choices in life instead of blaming the company for not hiring you. Blame yourself for not making yourself marketable.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-04 13:19:28)

2011-07-04 13:50:00
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney
I can't recall a time where I had a pill on a Saturday night has affected my performance on Monday morning.

What I do in personal time is my business, not my employer's. If it does not affect my work, why should it be any business to them?
2011-07-04 15:21:46
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

I can't recall a time where I had a pill on a Saturday night has affected my performance on Monday morning.

What I do in personal time is my business, not my employer's. If it does not affect my work, why should it be any business to them?
And like wise, it is not YOUR business who employers choose to hire to operate their business. I guess you missed the part that if you do not want to be tested, do not accept the position.
2011-07-04 15:24:10
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

I can't recall a time where I had a pill on a Saturday night has affected my performance on Monday morning.

What I do in personal time is my business, not my employer's. If it does not affect my work, why should it be any business to them?
And like wise, it is not YOUR business who employers choose to hire to operate their business. I guess you missed the part that if you do not want to be tested, do not accept the position.
What gives the emplyer the right to pry into a workers personal life? Just because its become the societal norm does not make it right. I blame lazy HR departments.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-07-04 15:28:41
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

I can't recall a time where I had a pill on a Saturday night has affected my performance on Monday morning.

What I do in personal time is my business, not my employer's. If it does not affect my work, why should it be any business to them?
And like wise, it is not YOUR business who employers choose to hire to operate their business. I guess you missed the part that if you do not want to be tested, do not accept the position.
What gives the emplyer the right to pry into a workers personal life? Just because its become the societal norm does not make it right. I blame lazy HR departments.
What gives them the right? Well, how about their insurance premiums? How about their personal choice as the ones who put everything on the line for their businesses and want to see it run with drug free employees?

Are you really arguing you have a greater right to work for a company of your choosing than the company has in selecting their employees? Please tell me that you are not arguing that.

Also they are not prying into your life, they are asking you questions before they hire you, if you do not want to answer them then don't.

An application is nothing but a questionnaire asking about who you are, your life and your background, your SS number, your address, your email, your past residences, your past employers, have you ever been fired before. How can you argue that a potential employer has no right to know about the people that ask THEM for jobs?

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-04 15:32:22)

2011-07-04 15:38:48
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England
A resume, job experience, physical fitness and references should be sufficient. I'm there to perform a job, not marry the bosses wife.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-07-04 15:45:57
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6889

Congrats lowing for once again only being able to see the situation in black and white.
2011-07-04 15:51:53
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jay wrote:

A resume, job experience, physical fitness and references should be sufficient. I'm there to perform a job, not marry the bosses wife.
Well you didn't really address what I posted so I will ask again. Are you arguing that YOU should have a greater right and say in where you work than the employer does in who might want to hire you? Is that what you are saying? You are arguing that an employer has NO RIGHT to know if their work force is doing drugs and has no right to a drug free work force?

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-04 15:52:15)

2011-07-04 15:54:02
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

ghettoperson wrote:

Congrats lowing for once again only being able to see the situation in black and white.
and what situation is that? What exactly is the "gray area" as you see it, that you could find an argument to payout welfare to people that are on drugs? Or an employee not having a right to a drug free work force if he wants one?
2011-07-04 15:54:48
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5826

Has your wife ever cheated on you lowing? Daughter had her first period yet? How many times a week do you have sex with your wife? Positions? Have you ever had sex with another man? Ever Thought about it? etc.

These things do affect healthcare cost and and also play a part in how reliable of an employee you would be. It wouldn't bother you if your employer one day started asking these questions?
2011-07-04 15:59:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Macbeth wrote:

Has your wife ever cheated on you lowing? Daughter had her first period yet? How many times a week do you have sex with your wife? Positions? Have you ever had sex with another man? Ever Thought about it? etc.

These things do affect healthcare cost and and also play a part in how reliable of an employee you would be. It wouldn't bother you if your employer one day started asking these questions?
I am not talking about YOUR health care insurance . I am talking about the companies OSHA requirements, and work compensation, death and disability, insurance etc.. By the way, no one asks any of the questions on an application that you posted, and for you to suggest those questions are the same thing as asking about YOU is some what desperate.

Were you suggesting they are the same things?
2011-07-04 16:05:05
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6889

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Congrats lowing for once again only being able to see the situation in black and white.
and what situation is that? What exactly is the "gray area" as you see it, that you could find an argument to payout welfare to people that are on drugs? Or an employee not having a right to a drug free work force if he wants one?
Just read the thread? There's a million different situations that allow the system to potentially be abused. When I first read the title I thought it wasn't a bad idea, but then I read a few peoples ideas and thought about it myself, and you quickly realise that drug testing does not improve the situation, and in a lot of cases might make it worse.
2011-07-04 16:06:11
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5826

lowing wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Has your wife ever cheated on you lowing? Daughter had her first period yet? How many times a week do you have sex with your wife? Positions? Have you ever had sex with another man? Ever Thought about it? etc.

These things do affect healthcare cost and and also play a part in how reliable of an employee you would be. It wouldn't bother you if your employer one day started asking these questions?
I am not talking about YOUR health care insurance . I am talking about the companies OSHA requirements, and work compensation, death and disability, insurance etc.. By the way, no one asks any of the questions on an application that you posted, and for you to suggest those questions are the same thing as asking about YOU is some what desperate.

Were you suggesting they are the same things?
It's in the same vein of "an employer has the right to ask you anything since it's their business".

And an individual employee's health care cost has an effect on the overall employers health care cost.

Also those are questions are about YOU.

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-07-04 16:06:49)

2011-07-04 16:14:47
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

ghettoperson wrote:

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Congrats lowing for once again only being able to see the situation in black and white.
and what situation is that? What exactly is the "gray area" as you see it, that you could find an argument to payout welfare to people that are on drugs? Or an employee not having a right to a drug free work force if he wants one?
Just read the thread? There's a million different situations that allow the system to potentially be abused. When I first read the title I thought it wasn't a bad idea, but then I read a few peoples ideas and thought about it myself, and you quickly realise that drug testing does not improve the situation, and in a lot of cases might make it worse.
If the system is abused it is by people that use welfare as a life style and would rather spend whatever money they do have on drugs instead of helping the taxpayer help themselves. You really have a problem putting such people in check?

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard