BF2S Forums "Downright Unconstitutional!!" Drug Screening for Welfare in Florida.

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

I can understand testing at the start of taking up new employment, and ongoing testing for fields of employment where safety is a high priority, like the aviation industry, police force, armed forces, etc.

As far as that goes, once I have the job it is no business of the employer unless it affects my quality of work.

I don't get tested, other than a yearly police check, which is mandatory for my position working in disability services. Glad we don't have draconian laws here.

Wel lI don't recall McDonalds drug testing the fry cook, but if they wanted to it would be well within their right. If you have a problem with drug testing, you could always quit THEIR job.

Do you know anything about drug testing? Have you read up on it?

Read up on it? Nope, I get drug tested regularly since I am in aviation. I know the procedures and the lengths they go to make sure they get a pure and genuine untainted urine sample.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-04 18:01:43)

Jaekus wrote:

Your credit rating is of no concern to your employee unless you are engaged with some sort of loan or line of credit with them.

Wrong, if you have shitty credit, that means you have a greater potential to try to solve your money problems at the expense of your employer, it also shows your level of responsibility. If you can not take care of your own business, an employer, understandably, may not want you taking care of company business.

Jaekus wrote:

What measures might they be?

Well, you have to empty your pockets, show they are empty, you are not allowed to flush the toilet when you are done, you are not allowed to turn on the water until after the sample is collected, they take the temperature of the sample, they make you watch them pure the sample into the 2 different test vials, seal them and have you initial the samples indicating that it came from you. Did I miss anything?

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

What measures might they be?

Well, you have to empty your pockets, show they are empty, you are not allowed to flush the toilet when you are done, you are not allowed to turn on the water until after the sample is collected, they take the temperature of the sample, they make you watch them pure the sample into the 2 different test vials, seal them and have you initial the samples indicating that it came from you. Did I miss anything?

No, that's pretty good.

Obviously in the aviation industry, like the military and police force, you would expect stringent and accurate testing methods. Thing is, a urine sample is not infallible:

There is good reason to be concerned about the accuracy of the results of employment drug testing:

• Cheap screening kits can yield false positive or error rates of up to 20% in detecting the presence of illegal drugs
• Tests are often administered by untrained personnel
• Specimens can be mislabeled or inadvertently switched from the time the test was administered to the time it was processed in a lab
• Urinalysis testing generally does not indicate whether a person is impaired at the time of testing
• Conversely, some urinalysis tests will identify certain pain remedies, diet pills, herbal teas and even poppy seeds as illegal drugs

http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com … sting.html

Which is why to can understand employees would have major concerns. I've seen some employers treat their employees like shit, and if a test shows a false positive they are within their rights to terminate that employment - and with a 20% chance of a false positive from a cheap kit, it is quite likely they could in reality sack 20% of their workforce even if none of them had every touched an illicit substance in their lifetime.

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

What measures might they be?

Well, you have to empty your pockets, show they are empty, you are not allowed to flush the toilet when you are done, you are not allowed to turn on the water until after the sample is collected, they take the temperature of the sample, they make you watch them pure the sample into the 2 different test vials, seal them and have you initial the samples indicating that it came from you. Did I miss anything?

No, that's pretty good.

Obviously in the aviation industry, like the military and police force, you would expect stringent and accurate testing methods. Thing is, a urine sample is not infallible:

There is good reason to be concerned about the accuracy of the results of employment drug testing:

• Cheap screening kits can yield false positive or error rates of up to 20% in detecting the presence of illegal drugs
• Tests are often administered by untrained personnel
• Specimens can be mislabeled or inadvertently switched from the time the test was administered to the time it was processed in a lab
• Urinalysis testing generally does not indicate whether a person is impaired at the time of testing
• Conversely, some urinalysis tests will identify certain pain remedies, diet pills, herbal teas and even poppy seeds as illegal drugs

http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com … sting.html

Which is why to can understand employees would have major concerns. I've seen some employers treat their employees like shit, and if a test shows a false positive they are within their rights to terminate that employment - and with a 20% chance of a false positive from a cheap kit, it is quite likely they could in reality sack 20% of their workforce even if none of them had every touched an illicit substance in their lifetime.

Any decent employer contracts out their drug screening to a state sanctioned testing facility and that is usually a medical clinic who has no idea who you are or would even care. They do not buy some drug store test kit and hang your future on it. By the way, they only test those they are interested in hiring, so they are not going to risk loosing you on a dime store test kit.

11 Bravo wrote:

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?

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

answer the jarhead's question!

I was waiting for an answer myself.

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

umm this is not the govt. this is a company looking to hire you. the govt. already knows about your criminal record, your credit etc...

Mainly because it is their business to know.

Why should a skilled, experienced and educated person lose their job or be an unsuccessful applicant simply because they had to declare bankruptcy due to investments tied up during the GFC? Stuff that was out of your control because it was in the hands of a stock broker? It is none of the employer's business.

Well it has been my experience that companies only do credit checks upon initial hiring, and recurrent checks come into play if you are trying to get a security clearance. The idea being, if you have money problems you are susceptible to bribes or selling sensitive material or information.

The airlines do not check your credit on a routine basis, if at all. to be honest I do not know if they do credit checks. My back ground has nothing it in to ding me on background checks for a job or security clearances, so I have never been scrutinized above the applications

Look, I can understand if you work in the finance sector like banking, stock broking etc. But if you're a construction worker, a psychologist, a school teacher etc. you are not dealing with money on a daily basis, if at all. So it is none of the employer's business.

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Mainly because it is their business to know.

Why should a skilled, experienced and educated person lose their job or be an unsuccessful applicant simply because they had to declare bankruptcy due to investments tied up during the GFC? Stuff that was out of your control because it was in the hands of a stock broker? It is none of the employer's business.

Well it has been my experience that companies only do credit checks upon initial hiring, and recurrent checks come into play if you are trying to get a security clearance. The idea being, if you have money problems you are susceptible to bribes or selling sensitive material or information.

The airlines do not check your credit on a routine basis, if at all. to be honest I do not know if they do credit checks. My back ground has nothing it in to ding me on background checks for a job or security clearances, so I have never been scrutinized above the applications

Look, I can understand if you work in the finance sector like banking, stock broking etc. But if you're a construction worker, a psychologist, a school teacher etc. you are not dealing with money on a daily basis, if at all. So it is none of the employer's business.

Well my wife is a teacher and she is not regularly tested, I doubt construction workers are either. So there really isn't a problem. the issue is drug users being handed out tax payer money and the solution being testing them for drugs before they get their handout. Do you have a problem with that?

I will add though, even though my wife is a teacher, I would have no problem with the state requiring drug testing for all teachers.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-04 19:00:03)

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well it has been my experience that companies only do credit checks upon initial hiring, and recurrent checks come into play if you are trying to get a security clearance. The idea being, if you have money problems you are susceptible to bribes or selling sensitive material or information.

The airlines do not check your credit on a routine basis, if at all. to be honest I do not know if they do credit checks. My back ground has nothing it in to ding me on background checks for a job or security clearances, so I have never been scrutinized above the applications

Look, I can understand if you work in the finance sector like banking, stock broking etc. But if you're a construction worker, a psychologist, a school teacher etc. you are not dealing with money on a daily basis, if at all. So it is none of the employer's business.

Well my wife is a teacher and she is not regularly tested, I doubt construction workers are either. So there really isn't a problem. the issue is drug users being handed out tax payer money and the solution being testing them for drugs before they get their handout. Do you have a problem with that?

Already covered this some time ago. Did you forget how to read back through the thread or is your memory slipping? Might want to get that one tested by your employer to see if you're still fit to do your job

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Then why would you ask them for a job? Ya see, no matter how you want to approach this issue the potential employee can always be put in the drivers seat. It is ALWAYS your decision as to how you want proceed. If you agree to drug testing then don't bitch about being tested. If you have an issue with drug testing, don't apply for that job or quit it and go find a job that does not require it.

Some people care about their rights at work.
It seems others do not.

What rights at work do you think you have that supersedes the OWNER's rights? Again, if you do not want to get tested, DON'T work there or apply there. It really is THAT simple.

So you believe that employer's rights supersede ALL worker's rights.

Riiiiiiiiiiight... I'm just going over here now, to where the normal people are.

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Some people care about their rights at work.
It seems others do not.

What rights at work do you think you have that supersedes the OWNER's rights? Again, if you do not want to get tested, DON'T work there or apply there. It really is THAT simple.

So you believe that employer's rights supersede ALL worker's rights.

Riiiiiiiiiiight... I'm just going over here now, to where the normal people are.

Nope, there are plenty of rules and regulations an employer must follow in order to keep his workers safe. However, a drug free work force is something an employer has every right to maintain at his place of business.

11 Bravo wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

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?