Natural gas fracking delayed in Ohio

[Felch]

No, I'm not a commie. I'm a Democrat. But your head is so far up your ass you've been mistaking me for a Republican since you reappeared.

People have a right to privacy, and employers have no business prying into that unless it becomes a problem at work. If I get high on the weekends, but show up to work sober, my employer has no more business firing me over it than if I sucked dick on the weekends or prayed towards Mecca. If I show up to work glassy eyed and giggling, that's another story.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Nice theory, and I'm glad my impression of you is confirmed that you pray towards Mecca and suck dick on weekends. Employers (i.e. people in business, directly or as shareholders, who can lose their asses if employees screw up) have a reasonable right to control who works for them (and potentially drives their costs up) so long as they don't contravene public policy. Prospective employees have zero right to be hired for any particular job - if you don't like that an employer has a pee-test policy, don't apply there, apply somewhere else instead. Problem solved.

[Straybow]

I've seen plenty of lay-down yards and narrow access roads where diminished judgment or reaction could become dangerous. It isn't just machinery, it is any tool use. Besides injury to workers it can cause other delays and costs, as MtG said.

Of course, I've also been there when the only on-the-job injury was when a guy tripped over his OSHA-mandated safety lanyards and fell down the stairs.

[Tupac Shakur]

1. I agree, it should be legalized.

2. Calling it harmless is straight-up wrong.

JM

Pac

[Tupac Shakur]

1. I agree, it should be legalized.

2. Calling it harmless is straight-up wrong.

JM

Pac

[DaShi]

Tu

[Tupac Shakur]

Both things are terrible, AH.

Guns, gays, and ganja.

Actually, that's not a bad slogan for a Tupac Party...

[Berzerker]

Libertarian Party already got that slogan, that was how Jim Lehrer of PBS introduced their prez candidate back in '92 (no media bias there)

Its so they cant find enough people to pump god only knows what kind of chemical concoction into the ground to get gas, them stoners just aint safe enough to pollute the water supply and cause earthquakes and sinkholes.

[Alexander's Horse]

the trouble with current drug testing is it shows use not intoxication, unlike alcohol testing

We had kids, English teachers mostly, who came to Korea from those cafes in Amsterdam and got locked up weeks after they left Holland

[Kidlicious]

Mostly harmless?

Not if you smoke all day long, every day.

[Kidlicious]

No, I'm not a commie. I'm a Democrat. But your head is so far up your ass you've been mistaking me for a Republican since you reappeared.

People have a right to privacy, and employers have no business prying into that unless it becomes a problem at work. If I get high on the weekends, but show up to work sober, my employer has no more business firing me over it than if I sucked dick on the weekends or prayed towards Mecca. If I show up to work glassy eyed and giggling, that's another story.

You're a strange kind of libertarian indeed.

edit: at least I thought you were a libertarian with all teh gun and drug rights.

[MRT144]

Someone who drank the night before would still pass. Someone who smoked weed a week earlier would fail.

If you show up to work high, you have a problem. But there's no reason to screw an otherwise qualified applicant because of how he spends his nights and weekends.

I've started smoking pot in lieu of drinking alcohol and theres no ****ing way that smoking a bowl affects my job performance more than drinking the day before. I'm in bed by 10:30 when I smoke, get sound sleep and feel refreshed the next day. Drinking disturbs my sleep, and makes me feel like **** the next day (4-5 drinks).

[MRT144]

Nice theory, and I'm glad my impression of you is confirmed that you pray towards Mecca and suck dick on weekends. Employers (i.e. people in business, directly or as shareholders, who can lose their asses if employees screw up) have a reasonable right to control who works for them (and potentially drives their costs up) so long as they don't contravene public policy. Prospective employees have zero right to be hired for any particular job - if you don't like that an employer has a pee-test policy, don't apply there, apply somewhere else instead. Problem solved.

And employers should STFU about their woes if the general hiring population doesn't meet their criteria based on misconceptions about drug use.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Probably a majority of employers don't care, depending on the occupation. My general impression of the job market is that employers don't typically require testing (since they have to pay for it in most states) unless they have significant potential liability.

wrt your earlier post, depends on the potency of the bowl. 4-5 drinks is a lot in terms of metabolic and neurochemical effect and technical (as opposed to self-perceived) impairment. A company I used to work for had a problem with a powerplant they operated, and I pulled a little unannounced graveyard shift inspection. Turned out the one graveyard operator on duty liked to smoke a little while on duty, then make a munchie run (all sorts of regulatory and contractual issues with failure to monitor a high pressure steam system), and he faked logs and inspection reports to cover his sitting on his ass or being off-site. Trouble is (he was sharp as a bowling ball and twice as dense to begin with) he'd just copy the entries from the end of the swing shift, so it became obvious.

Are there plenty of people who can use drugs recreationally and keep their **** wired tight while at work? Of course. There are also plenty who can't or don't. For an employer which has potential high liability exposure from employee screwups (****ing up inventory in the back of a WalMart is a bit different than working around 1200 PSI superheated steam), that employer is likely to use drug testing, whether it's perfect or not.

[MRT144]

Probably a majority of employers don't care, depending on the occupation. My general impression of the job market is that employers don't typically require testing (since they have to pay for it in most states) unless they have significant potential liability.

wrt your earlier post, depends on the potency of the bowl. 4-5 drinks is a lot in terms of metabolic and neurochemical effect and technical (as opposed to self-perceived) impairment. A company I used to work for had a problem with a powerplant they operated, and I pulled a little unannounced graveyard shift inspection. Turned out the one graveyard operator on duty liked to smoke a little while on duty, then make a munchie run (all sorts of regulatory and contractual issues with failure to monitor a high pressure steam system), and he faked logs and inspection reports to cover his sitting on his ass or being off-site. Trouble is (he was sharp as a bowling ball and twice as dense to begin with) he'd just copy the entries from the end of the swing shift, so it became obvious.

Are there plenty of people who can use drugs recreationally and keep their **** wired tight while at work? Of course. There are also plenty who can't or don't. For an employer which has potential high liability exposure from employee screwups (****ing up inventory in the back of a WalMart is a bit different than working around 1200 PSI superheated steam), that employer is likely to use drug testing, whether it's perfect or not.

You'd have the same issue if he was an alcoholic though. The problem isnt the drugs themselves, its drug abusers and addicts.