Post Reply
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View If This, Why Not That?
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 10:40AM #11
amcolph
Posts: 17,184

Apr 27, 2012 -- 9:41AM, TENAC wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:53AM, nnsecu wrote:


The current screening tests fail everyone.  As an employer yes i do wanna know if the folks under me are under the influence or not.  However i can not test someone acting funny and have it tell me if the guy smoked a J 10 min ago or 10 days ago.  Once the clock strikes 6 and you leave I really dont care about what you do as long as at 9am you are at work able to do your job.  I have NEVER NEVER NEVER had someone get too stoned (except on the harder drugs) the night before to come into work, yet every week i have someone calling out with the 24 hour Jack Daniels flu.  The legal drugs of tobacco and alcohol have cause me way more lost wages and production time then any pot head has. 





I'll use this post for my point.


I have to send a representative to your home and set you up on a piece of medical equipment, say heart monitoring, oxygen or some muscle stim device for a member of your family.  I have two employees I could send, one that willing took a drug test and the other refusing to, but I kept them on anyway, which would you prefer I send?


Lets further say you indicate it would not matter to you.


And of course there is an issue and your loved one dies, are you going to sue depending on which one was sent?




No.  I would sue if I had reason to suppose that the employee was under the influence at the time, but that's not what drug testing is about.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 10:46AM #12
TENAC
Posts: 25,152

Apr 27, 2012 -- 10:40AM, amcolph wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 9:41AM, TENAC wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:53AM, nnsecu wrote:


The current screening tests fail everyone.  As an employer yes i do wanna know if the folks under me are under the influence or not.  However i can not test someone acting funny and have it tell me if the guy smoked a J 10 min ago or 10 days ago.  Once the clock strikes 6 and you leave I really dont care about what you do as long as at 9am you are at work able to do your job.  I have NEVER NEVER NEVER had someone get too stoned (except on the harder drugs) the night before to come into work, yet every week i have someone calling out with the 24 hour Jack Daniels flu.  The legal drugs of tobacco and alcohol have cause me way more lost wages and production time then any pot head has. 





I'll use this post for my point.


I have to send a representative to your home and set you up on a piece of medical equipment, say heart monitoring, oxygen or some muscle stim device for a member of your family.  I have two employees I could send, one that willing took a drug test and the other refusing to, but I kept them on anyway, which would you prefer I send?


Lets further say you indicate it would not matter to you.


And of course there is an issue and your loved one dies, are you going to sue depending on which one was sent?




No.  I would sue if I had reason to suppose that the employee was under the influence at the time, but that's not what drug testing is about.




That is precisely my point, thank you.


As the employer I would insist on drug testing employees to take that information into court to help absolve myself of that responsibility.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 11:12AM #13
amcolph
Posts: 17,184

Apr 27, 2012 -- 10:46AM, TENAC wrote:


 


That is precisely my point, thank you.


As the employer I would insist on drug testing employees to take that information into court to help absolve myself of that responsibility.




I don't think it would be that much help.  All that a random drug test will tell you is whether the guy had blown weed sometime in the last four to six weeks before the test. 


If there was evidence he was under the influence of something that day, an earlier random test for weed won't clear him.


That's why railroad engineers and airline pilots, etc. are given a full-spectrum drug test (something employers of blue collar workers never do even randomly) immediately after an accident even though they do the marijuana tinkle randomly already.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 3:30PM #14
Jasr
Posts: 11,130

I do not have a problem with drug testing as a condition of employment, as long as it is applied equally to all employees, right up to the CEO.


It's not just about impairment. I want my employees to be people who obey the law.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 5:24PM #15
costrel
Posts: 6,226

I don't smoke, drink, chew, or use drugs, so I've never had a problem with submitting to a drug test or to being fingerprinted for a background check. When I entered the teaching profession, teachers even had to submit to tuberculosis skin tests. To me, these are just neccessary procedures potential employees have to perform (and pass) in order to get a job. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 5:43PM #16
TENAC
Posts: 25,152

Apr 27, 2012 -- 5:24PM, costrel wrote:


I don't smoke, drink, chew, or use drugs, so I've never had a problem with submitting to a drug test or to being fingerprinted for a background check. When I entered the teaching profession, teachers even had to submit to tuberculosis skin tests. To me, these are just neccessary procedures potential employees have to perform (and pass) in order to get a job. 




Interesting.


If you pass a tuberculosis test, is that a good thing?


I wonder if thats because a TB test is no longer a standard test and is done to protect you from the mix of students in todays schools that might not have had a TB test required at any point in their childhood?

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 6:06PM #17
costrel
Posts: 6,226

Apr 27, 2012 -- 5:43PM, TENAC wrote:

Interesting.


If you pass a tuberculosis test, is that a good thing?


I wonder if thats because a TB test is no longer a standard test and is done to protect you from the mix of students in todays schools that might not have had a TB test required at any point in their childhood?


Before 2005, when the TB skin test requirement was repealed, all new students and new staff in a South Dakota school district had to have a TB skin test. And yes, testing negative for the skin test was a good thing. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 6:47PM #18
TENAC
Posts: 25,152

Apr 27, 2012 -- 6:06PM, costrel wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 5:43PM, TENAC wrote:

Interesting.


If you pass a tuberculosis test, is that a good thing?


I wonder if thats because a TB test is no longer a standard test and is done to protect you from the mix of students in todays schools that might not have had a TB test required at any point in their childhood?


Before 2005, when the TB skin test requirement was repealed, all new students and new staff in a South Dakota school district had to have a TB skin test. And yes, testing negative for the skin test was a good thing. 





So the test was unnecessary?  A waste of money.


Not to derail my own thread, but this gives occasion to post to something I actually called in to a talk radio station about.  The Heritage Foundation had a representative on discussing how doctor's panels were coming out against unnecessary testing and hospitalization that accounted for 1/3 of medical costs, and we could control our health care by just elminating those.


This is soooo foolish.  But it is the way of obamacare.  Get ready.


Doctor Panels Recommend Fewer Tests for Patients


So had you not been so lucky having taking (and successfully passed!) the TB test?  How many could you have possibly infected?


Think people.


Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 28, 2012 - 3:40PM #19
costrel
Posts: 6,226

Apr 27, 2012 -- 6:47PM, TENAC wrote:

So the test was unnecessary?  A waste of money.


Not to derail my own thread, but this gives occasion to post to something I actually called in to a talk radio station about.  The Heritage Foundation had a representative on discussing how doctor's panels were coming out against unnecessary testing and hospitalization that accounted for 1/3 of medical costs, and we could control our health care by just elminating those.


This is soooo foolish.  But it is the way of obamacare.  Get ready.


Doctor Panels Recommend Fewer Tests for Patients


So had you not been so lucky having taking (and successfully passed!) the TB test?  How many could you have possibly infected?


Think people.


Yes, in hindsight, it can be considered to have been a waste of money. I think of it, though, more as peace of mind. I am a literature teacher, and some canonical English writers died in their 20s and 30s from TB. In fact, a good number of my family members died from TB back in the 1800s as well. At least with the TB skin test I knew I wasn't going to die of TB like John Keats and Emily Bronte and Henry David Thoreau did. And no, I don't know how many people an infected person with TB could possibly infect.


(As for thinking, I do think. I also do what I have to do to get a job. Back then, if I refused the test, I would not have had a teaching job. It's good to think; it's also good to follow the rules. Just look at all the parents, for instance, who don't vaccinate their children. They think that they are thinking by refusing to have their children vaccinated, but in the end, all they are doing is demonstrating their lack of thinking. They should just follow the rules and have their children vaccinated rather than trying to think about so-called "rational" reasons for not having their children vaccinated.)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 4:11PM #20
Jasr
Posts: 11,130

TB tests and drug tests are completely unrelated to each other.


A PPD converter needs to be treated with isoniazid if he/she is going to be in contact with children. You don't get TB from flouting the law, you get it from riding a crowded subway, and if you are in a contagious state you can certainly give it to people you are shut up in a room with for a whole year.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook