Urine Test

[Ellis]

Random Blog I Found.


I DO HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB.... BUT I AGREE 100%

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I Do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who DON'T have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I Do, however, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their butt doing drugs while I work. Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though. Something has to change in this country -- and soon!

AMEN!!!

Discuss.:laugh:

[MonkeySkin]

If people stop doing drugs, how would the CIA get funding for their black ops?

[GibbsFactor]

So then we'll have to pay for piss tests to pay them?

[DeanCollins]

Abso-forking-lutely agree. I drive on the outskirts of the "hood" to get to the waterfront homes on the SE side of St. Pete during the middle of the day and almost everyone is home hanging out on the street or on their porch drinking and socializing, all smiles life is good (till they see me drive by with that get a f-ing job you lazy biatch look on my face)

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I definitely agree that ANYONE getting state or federal funds should have to take a drug test every time they get a check.

[Larry]

Well, except for that pesky thing about the government demanding that citizens prove that they aren't doing something illegal.

(Well, that and the fact that it shouldn't be illegal.)

[cjcdaman]

This is old, but is so ****ing right-on.

[bobisimo]

Although I strongly disagree with drug testing for employees (though I'm a little more indifferent in regard to using it to screen potential candidates), the topic of drug testing for welfare services is a little more interesting and one I had not previously considered.

My initial reaction is that, under the current system, I am not strictly opposed to requiring drug testing as part of the conditions for receiving welfare - beggars can't be choosers, right? I woujld not make the argument that there is anything wrong with requiring ongoing drug testing.

However, I'd rather see the whole system revised with a living wage and, additionally, marijuana, at least, legalized. Drug testing in a general sense is unnecessary. Employers use it as an excuse to fire under-performing employees. My response is that you shouldn't need an excuse to let an under-performing employee go. And if the employee is performing to expectations or beyond, why on Earth would you let them go for using drugs on their own time?

[DeanCollins]

Drug testing in a general sense is unnecessary. Employers use it as an excuse to fire under-performing employees. My response is that you shouldn't need an excuse to let an under-performing employee go. And if the employee is performing to expectations or beyond, why on Earth would you let them go for using drugs on their own time?


obviously you haven't spent much time in the construction industry where probably 1 in 5 (at least) have a substance abuse problem. And many use during work (or at lunch). A substantial number (I'd like to say majority here but don't have the data) of injuries on the job are inccured by this group, which of course amounts to a costly workman's comp case that should've been avoided. Also using off the job, the night before, doesn't mean that these people are free from the effects, especially in dangerous working conditions.

[#98QBKiller]

Agreed.......................

[bobisimo]

You're right. I have no experience with the construction industry. I have a friend who works in it, but I was not aware of drug abuse as a problem. Honestly, when I made my post, I was thinking along the lines of my industry, i.e. the cubicle warrior. :p Haha. And less so industries where physical precision and heightened alertness is of greater importance.

I don't know a lot about how the other industries work, especially regarding workman's comp. So if those rules are more unique then I'll happily change gears and state that if you want to work in those industries you deal with the stipulations while on the job (even if there are people who can be responsible). I specify "on the job" only to imply that if you are working for 8 months and off for 4, I don't see any reason why you should be required to test for drugs if you are not working.

An exception is pro sports. I completely agree with testing for performance-enhancing drugs in pro sports (though I don't understand why they ban athletes for addictions to pain pills or alcohol, marijuana use) all 12 months of the year - because abuse during the off-season impacts the season and the fairness of competition.

But, ultimately, in a general sense, I stand by my statement. If an employee is under-performing, regardless of reason, you have a conversation, put them on warning or whatever, and then let them go. If they are performing to expectation or beyond, you keep them around. I don't see why drug testing even enters into the equation.

[DeanCollins]

But, ultimately, in a general sense, I stand by my statement. If an employee is under-performing, regardless of reason, you have a conversation, put them on warning or whatever, and then let them go. If they are performing to expectation or beyond, you keep them around. I don't see why drug testing even enters into the equation.


I guess it depends on which industry and which drug. Someone that smokes pot and works in an office, it's probably not a big deal. But someone that smokes crack and has access to a companies financial instruments is a different story. The original topic will never happen, but it's satisfying to contemplate it and the possible outcome :laugh:

[kuraitengai]

wasnt this the subject of a thread a while back? i swear i remember reading it on here. but i tried searching and either couldnt find it, or search was down at the time.