Drug Screen for First Job

Off Topic
101

I feel like some people here arguing against the testing are still ignoring the fact that employees aren’t being forced to work for particular employees. Cap Obli is so wrong about ‘all employers drug testing’. I do now, but as of 2011 I didn’t. And I know many, many, many other employers that don’t.

Another important point: I feel like you don’t even understand your own nanny state argument. I feel like only in a Nanny State would the government create a regulation saying you can’t drug test or whatever it is you’re advocating. You’re actually asking for additional regulations. How is an employer having the right to choose whether they drug test or not a Nanny State? It sounds to me like you’re just a little bitch who thinks the system is screwing people. Because you don’t understand in any capacity what it’s like to be on the other side of employment. I drug test now because it is ESSENTIAL to the safety of my employees.

Also, fyi, I don’t have to fire a dude because he smokes pot. I’m allowed to use discretion. It’s grounds for dismissal, but that doesn’t mean I have to do it. Most employees use such discretion, so your argument that any violation is considered the same is invalid. I would absolutely hire a guy who tested positive for a trace level of pot. I would not hire someone with any level of heroin, meth, prescription drugs not prescribed, whatever.

As for Apok, I understand why Derek asked your age, because when I was reading your arguments, I went to your hub to check this as well. Your biases keep you from understanding that you come off as young and naive.

102

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around the logic that daily, real-time drug testing, is totally cool and not a major privacy concern. While intermittent random drug testing, or a test prior to employment is nanny state privacy invasion that goes beyond an employer’s legal right.

[/quote]

You and me both. [/quote]

I am referring to impairment indices while working. Which I find within the rights of the employer.

Not finding positives via hair or urine from off site usage.

Both of you have made it clear you believe the employer owns the employee. That is your perspective. I however disagree. [/quote]

First of all I’ve made like 3 comments in this whole thread. Can you please not just lump me in with others?

Second, the employer does not own the employee; however, if they employee is free to work wherever he/she wants to than the employer should also be free to hire/fire according to their set policies. Freedom is a two way street.

Third, not all companies drug test. If you want to smoke pot at night and go to work the next day, search for a job without a drug testing policy. That’s all you have to do. After all pot is still illegal in most states.

The NFL drug tests, are you against that? Most companies have a dress code are you against that? That is also discrimination right?

Do you think there should be set laws for hiring/firing or do you think each individual company should be allowed to set their own policy?

103

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around the logic that daily, real-time drug testing, is totally cool and not a major privacy concern. While intermittent random drug testing, or a test prior to employment is nanny state privacy invasion that goes beyond an employer’s legal right.

[/quote]

You and me both. [/quote]

I am referring to impairment indices while working. Which I find within the rights of the employer.

Not finding positives via hair or urine from off site usage.

Both of you have made it clear you believe the employer owns the employee. That is your perspective. I however disagree. [/quote]

False. They have made it clear that the government doesn’t own the employer. And you’re not even talking about employees when you’re referring to drug testing as part of an application. You’re talking about POTENTIAL employees. Do you really think anyone believes that employers ‘own’ potential employees?

104

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

Both of you have made it clear you believe the employer owns the employee. That is your perspective. I however disagree. [/quote]

LOL. Dude, you can’t be reading the posts.

I have said, over and over again: the employee is free to work for a different company. The Employer is not forcing anyone to work for it.

Therefore this statement of yours is utterly false and built on a narrative you’ve created in your mind and not actual posts in this thread.

105

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
In regards to a private business being fully autonomous, I disagree. Most businesses only exist due to federal and state infrastructure. [/quote]

I promise you, if the government didn’t facilitate infrastructure, it would still be there.

And this has nothing, at all to do with being free to choose who you work for.

This isn’t 1896. It is 2013. You, him and everyone is FREE to CHOOSE whom you work for.

If someone doesn’t like the way an employer handles the employees, they can go work else where.

Weren’t you the one that posted the nanny state picture? Let me get this straight:

You: You people saying people are free to work where ever they choose are nanny state goons, and the government should regulate employers actions.

Me: If you don’t like the practices of your employer, go work somewhere else. You don’t need the nanny government to wipe your ass for you. Make the call yourself and do something about it.

[quote] And foul you may cry, nanny state, big government. Just remember when you advocate violating someone’s personal privacy, what ever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
[/quote]

How on Earth is saying that people take personal responsibility for themselves and actively choose the employer that is the best fit for them “advocating violating privacy”. I’m actually advocating freedom, you on the other hand are advocating bigger, more invasive government. [/quote]

The best compromise to this whole debate would be testing that would indicate intoxication and altered states while on the jobsite.[/quote]
Wait, so you think having employees that break the law should not be screened?

Last I checked its not invasion to require a workforce that are not criminals. [/quote]

Certain substance aren’t illegal in many countries and on their way to being decriminalized in several states.
Are you stating that the employer should own the employee’s actions 24/7 even if they are legal?
So you can test impairment levels on a jobsite other than alcohol and differentiate use off site? That is pretty interesting.
[/quote]

Why are you bringing in other countries? I thought we were discussing Murica.

Decriminalization does not change the fact that there are proven impairments from drugs.

The employer has the right to protect its investment yes, just as the employee has the right to protect his job. That being labor laws are in place to protect unfair labor practices. That being said it should go both ways, an employer should have the ability to protect itself from employees who make unwise decisions.

Yes it is amazing what quantifiable lab test can do nowadays. You forget that lab results are being reviewed by Drs and companies like mine use Drs and mid-levels to interpret not only results but the medical facts that go along with that. Its not 1980

106

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

Both of you have made it clear you believe the employer owns the employee. That is your perspective. I however disagree. [/quote]

LOL. Dude, you can’t be reading the posts.

I have said, over and over again: the employee is free to work for a different company. The Employer is not forcing anyone to work for it.

Therefore this statement of yours is utterly false and built on a narrative you’ve created in your mind and not actual posts in this thread. [/quote]

Created in my mind? LOL everyone creates what they write in their mind?

That bold italicized text really turned the corner beans…I’m sold

107

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

Both of you have made it clear you believe the employer owns the employee. That is your perspective. I however disagree. [/quote]

LOL. Dude, you can’t be reading the posts.

I have said, over and over again: the employee is free to work for a different company. The Employer is not forcing anyone to work for it.

Therefore this statement of yours is utterly false and built on a narrative you’ve created in your mind and not actual posts in this thread. [/quote]

Created in my mind? LOL everyone creates what they write in their mind?

That bold italicized text really turned the corner beans…I’m sold

[/quote]

Please tell me you are just kidding at this point?

108

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
In regards to a private business being fully autonomous, I disagree. Most businesses only exist due to federal and state infrastructure. [/quote]

I promise you, if the government didn’t facilitate infrastructure, it would still be there.

And this has nothing, at all to do with being free to choose who you work for.

This isn’t 1896. It is 2013. You, him and everyone is FREE to CHOOSE whom you work for.

If someone doesn’t like the way an employer handles the employees, they can go work else where.

Weren’t you the one that posted the nanny state picture? Let me get this straight:

You: You people saying people are free to work where ever they choose are nanny state goons, and the government should regulate employers actions.

Me: If you don’t like the practices of your employer, go work somewhere else. You don’t need the nanny government to wipe your ass for you. Make the call yourself and do something about it.

[quote] And foul you may cry, nanny state, big government. Just remember when you advocate violating someone’s personal privacy, what ever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
[/quote]

How on Earth is saying that people take personal responsibility for themselves and actively choose the employer that is the best fit for them “advocating violating privacy”. I’m actually advocating freedom, you on the other hand are advocating bigger, more invasive government. [/quote]

The best compromise to this whole debate would be testing that would indicate intoxication and altered states while on the jobsite.[/quote]
Wait, so you think having employees that break the law should not be screened?

Last I checked its not invasion to require a workforce that are not criminals. [/quote]

Certain substance aren’t illegal in many countries and on their way to being decriminalized in several states.
Are you stating that the employer should own the employee’s actions 24/7 even if they are legal?
So you can test impairment levels on a jobsite other than alcohol and differentiate use off site? That is pretty interesting.
[/quote]

Why are you bringing in other countries? I thought we were discussing Murica.

Decriminalization does not change the fact that there are proven impairments from drugs.

The employer has the right to protect its investment yes, just as the employee has the right to protect his job. That being labor laws are in place to protect unfair labor practices. That being said it should go both ways, an employer should have the ability to protect itself from employees who make unwise decisions.

Yes it is amazing what quantifiable lab test can do nowadays. You forget that lab results are being reviewed by Drs and companies like mine use Drs and mid-levels to interpret not only results but the medical facts that go along with that. Its not 1980
[/quote]

Good answer.

I have spent quite a while in oilfields and the number of fuckups, druggies, and just outright trash is amazing.

109

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
In regards to a private business being fully autonomous, I disagree. Most businesses only exist due to federal and state infrastructure. [/quote]

I promise you, if the government didn’t facilitate infrastructure, it would still be there.

And this has nothing, at all to do with being free to choose who you work for.

This isn’t 1896. It is 2013. You, him and everyone is FREE to CHOOSE whom you work for.

If someone doesn’t like the way an employer handles the employees, they can go work else where.

Weren’t you the one that posted the nanny state picture? Let me get this straight:

You: You people saying people are free to work where ever they choose are nanny state goons, and the government should regulate employers actions.

Me: If you don’t like the practices of your employer, go work somewhere else. You don’t need the nanny government to wipe your ass for you. Make the call yourself and do something about it.

[quote] And foul you may cry, nanny state, big government. Just remember when you advocate violating someone’s personal privacy, what ever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
[/quote]

How on Earth is saying that people take personal responsibility for themselves and actively choose the employer that is the best fit for them “advocating violating privacy”. I’m actually advocating freedom, you on the other hand are advocating bigger, more invasive government. [/quote]

The best compromise to this whole debate would be testing that would indicate intoxication and altered states while on the jobsite.[/quote]
Wait, so you think having employees that break the law should not be screened?

Last I checked its not invasion to require a workforce that are not criminals. [/quote]

Certain substance aren’t illegal in many countries and on their way to being decriminalized in several states.
Are you stating that the employer should own the employee’s actions 24/7 even if they are legal?
So you can test impairment levels on a jobsite other than alcohol and differentiate use off site? That is pretty interesting.
[/quote]

Why are you bringing in other countries? I thought we were discussing Murica.

Decriminalization does not change the fact that there are proven impairments from drugs.

The employer has the right to protect its investment yes, just as the employee has the right to protect his job. That being labor laws are in place to protect unfair labor practices. That being said it should go both ways, an employer should have the ability to protect itself from employees who make unwise decisions.

Yes it is amazing what quantifiable lab test can do nowadays. You forget that lab results are being reviewed by Drs and companies like mine use Drs and mid-levels to interpret not only results but the medical facts that go along with that. Its not 1980
[/quote]

Good answer.

I have spent quite a while in oilfields and the number of fuckups, druggies, and just outright trash is amazing.
[/quote]
I will say I have a slanted view on this area of work, because well refineries and energy plants are dangerous fucking places to work.

I dont do testing for Wal-Mart and places of those caliber. Nothing wrong with that but I could really give two shits if the clerk is smoking pot.

110

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

Both of you have made it clear you believe the employer owns the employee. That is your perspective. I however disagree. [/quote]

LOL. Dude, you can’t be reading the posts.

I have said, over and over again: the employee is free to work for a different company. The Employer is not forcing anyone to work for it.

Therefore this statement of yours is utterly false and built on a narrative you’ve created in your mind and not actual posts in this thread. [/quote]

Created in my mind? LOL everyone creates what they write in their mind?

That bold italicized text really turned the corner beans…I’m sold

[/quote]

Please tell me you are just kidding at this point? [/quote]

Yes, there is some humor in my post.

111

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
In regards to a private business being fully autonomous, I disagree. Most businesses only exist due to federal and state infrastructure. [/quote]

I promise you, if the government didn’t facilitate infrastructure, it would still be there.

And this has nothing, at all to do with being free to choose who you work for.

This isn’t 1896. It is 2013. You, him and everyone is FREE to CHOOSE whom you work for.

If someone doesn’t like the way an employer handles the employees, they can go work else where.

Weren’t you the one that posted the nanny state picture? Let me get this straight:

You: You people saying people are free to work where ever they choose are nanny state goons, and the government should regulate employers actions.

Me: If you don’t like the practices of your employer, go work somewhere else. You don’t need the nanny government to wipe your ass for you. Make the call yourself and do something about it.

[quote] And foul you may cry, nanny state, big government. Just remember when you advocate violating someone’s personal privacy, what ever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
[/quote]

How on Earth is saying that people take personal responsibility for themselves and actively choose the employer that is the best fit for them “advocating violating privacy”. I’m actually advocating freedom, you on the other hand are advocating bigger, more invasive government. [/quote]

The best compromise to this whole debate would be testing that would indicate intoxication and altered states while on the jobsite.[/quote]
Wait, so you think having employees that break the law should not be screened?

Last I checked its not invasion to require a workforce that are not criminals. [/quote]

Certain substance aren’t illegal in many countries and on their way to being decriminalized in several states.
Are you stating that the employer should own the employee’s actions 24/7 even if they are legal?
So you can test impairment levels on a jobsite other than alcohol and differentiate use off site? That is pretty interesting.
[/quote]

Why are you bringing in other countries? I thought we were discussing Murica.

Decriminalization does not change the fact that there are proven impairments from drugs.

The employer has the right to protect its investment yes, just as the employee has the right to protect his job. That being labor laws are in place to protect unfair labor practices. That being said it should go both ways, an employer should have the ability to protect itself from employees who make unwise decisions.

Yes it is amazing what quantifiable lab test can do nowadays. You forget that lab results are being reviewed by Drs and companies like mine use Drs and mid-levels to interpret not only results but the medical facts that go along with that. Its not 1980
[/quote]

Good answer.

I have spent quite a while in oilfields and the number of fuckups, druggies, and just outright trash is amazing.
[/quote]
I will say I have a slanted view on this area of work, because well refineries and energy plants are dangerous fucking places to work.

I dont do testing for Wal-Mart and places of those caliber. Nothing wrong with that but I could really give two shits if the clerk is smoking pot. [/quote]

Well don’t let those dumb bastards blow up anything I am sick of 3.50$ a gallon!

112

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
In regards to a private business being fully autonomous, I disagree. Most businesses only exist due to federal and state infrastructure. [/quote]

I promise you, if the government didn’t facilitate infrastructure, it would still be there.

And this has nothing, at all to do with being free to choose who you work for.

This isn’t 1896. It is 2013. You, him and everyone is FREE to CHOOSE whom you work for.

If someone doesn’t like the way an employer handles the employees, they can go work else where.

Weren’t you the one that posted the nanny state picture? Let me get this straight:

You: You people saying people are free to work where ever they choose are nanny state goons, and the government should regulate employers actions.

Me: If you don’t like the practices of your employer, go work somewhere else. You don’t need the nanny government to wipe your ass for you. Make the call yourself and do something about it.

[quote] And foul you may cry, nanny state, big government. Just remember when you advocate violating someone’s personal privacy, what ever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
[/quote]

How on Earth is saying that people take personal responsibility for themselves and actively choose the employer that is the best fit for them “advocating violating privacy”. I’m actually advocating freedom, you on the other hand are advocating bigger, more invasive government. [/quote]

The best compromise to this whole debate would be testing that would indicate intoxication and altered states while on the jobsite.[/quote]
Wait, so you think having employees that break the law should not be screened?

Last I checked its not invasion to require a workforce that are not criminals. [/quote]

Certain substance aren’t illegal in many countries and on their way to being decriminalized in several states.
Are you stating that the employer should own the employee’s actions 24/7 even if they are legal?
So you can test impairment levels on a jobsite other than alcohol and differentiate use off site? That is pretty interesting.
[/quote]

Why are you bringing in other countries? I thought we were discussing Murica.

Decriminalization does not change the fact that there are proven impairments from drugs.

The employer has the right to protect its investment yes, just as the employee has the right to protect his job. That being labor laws are in place to protect unfair labor practices. That being said it should go both ways, an employer should have the ability to protect itself from employees who make unwise decisions.

Yes it is amazing what quantifiable lab test can do nowadays. You forget that lab results are being reviewed by Drs and companies like mine use Drs and mid-levels to interpret not only results but the medical facts that go along with that. Its not 1980
[/quote]

Good answer.

I have spent quite a while in oilfields and the number of fuckups, druggies, and just outright trash is amazing.
[/quote]
I will say I have a slanted view on this area of work, because well refineries and energy plants are dangerous fucking places to work.

I dont do testing for Wal-Mart and places of those caliber. Nothing wrong with that but I could really give two shits if the clerk is smoking pot. [/quote]

Well don’t let those dumb bastards blow up anything I am sick of 3.50$ a gallon!
[/quote]
My exact thought every day driving to work.

113

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

Both of you have made it clear you believe the employer owns the employee. That is your perspective. I however disagree. [/quote]

LOL. Dude, you can’t be reading the posts.

I have said, over and over again: the employee is free to work for a different company. The Employer is not forcing anyone to work for it.

Therefore this statement of yours is utterly false and built on a narrative you’ve created in your mind and not actual posts in this thread. [/quote]

Created in my mind? LOL everyone creates what they write in their mind?

That bold italicized text really turned the corner beans…I’m sold

[/quote]

Well then, rather than be a smart ass, why not explain how on earth you draw the conclusion that I think “the employer owns” the employee?

114

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
In regards to a private business being fully autonomous, I disagree. Most businesses only exist due to federal and state infrastructure. [/quote]

I promise you, if the government didn’t facilitate infrastructure, it would still be there.

And this has nothing, at all to do with being free to choose who you work for.

This isn’t 1896. It is 2013. You, him and everyone is FREE to CHOOSE whom you work for.

If someone doesn’t like the way an employer handles the employees, they can go work else where.

Weren’t you the one that posted the nanny state picture? Let me get this straight:

You: You people saying people are free to work where ever they choose are nanny state goons, and the government should regulate employers actions.

Me: If you don’t like the practices of your employer, go work somewhere else. You don’t need the nanny government to wipe your ass for you. Make the call yourself and do something about it.

[quote] And foul you may cry, nanny state, big government. Just remember when you advocate violating someone’s personal privacy, what ever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
[/quote]

How on Earth is saying that people take personal responsibility for themselves and actively choose the employer that is the best fit for them “advocating violating privacy”. I’m actually advocating freedom, you on the other hand are advocating bigger, more invasive government. [/quote]

The best compromise to this whole debate would be testing that would indicate intoxication and altered states while on the jobsite.[/quote]
Wait, so you think having employees that break the law should not be screened?

Last I checked its not invasion to require a workforce that are not criminals. [/quote]

Certain substance aren’t illegal in many countries and on their way to being decriminalized in several states.
Are you stating that the employer should own the employee’s actions 24/7 even if they are legal?
So you can test impairment levels on a jobsite other than alcohol and differentiate use off site? That is pretty interesting.
[/quote]

Why are you bringing in other countries? I thought we were discussing Murica.

Decriminalization does not change the fact that there are proven impairments from drugs.

The employer has the right to protect its investment yes, just as the employee has the right to protect his job. That being labor laws are in place to protect unfair labor practices. That being said it should go both ways, an employer should have the ability to protect itself from employees who make unwise decisions.

Yes it is amazing what quantifiable lab test can do nowadays. You forget that lab results are being reviewed by Drs and companies like mine use Drs and mid-levels to interpret not only results but the medical facts that go along with that. Its not 1980
[/quote]

Good answer.

I have spent quite a while in oilfields and the number of fuckups, druggies, and just outright trash is amazing.
[/quote]
I will say I have a slanted view on this area of work, because well refineries and energy plants are dangerous fucking places to work.

I dont do testing for Wal-Mart and places of those caliber. Nothing wrong with that but I could really give two shits if the clerk is smoking pot. [/quote]

You would think that working for a fuel test lab my employer would, but the only time they test is if someone gets hurt.

115

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
In regards to a private business being fully autonomous, I disagree. Most businesses only exist due to federal and state infrastructure. [/quote]

I promise you, if the government didn’t facilitate infrastructure, it would still be there.

And this has nothing, at all to do with being free to choose who you work for.

This isn’t 1896. It is 2013. You, him and everyone is FREE to CHOOSE whom you work for.

If someone doesn’t like the way an employer handles the employees, they can go work else where.

Weren’t you the one that posted the nanny state picture? Let me get this straight:

You: You people saying people are free to work where ever they choose are nanny state goons, and the government should regulate employers actions.

Me: If you don’t like the practices of your employer, go work somewhere else. You don’t need the nanny government to wipe your ass for you. Make the call yourself and do something about it.

[quote] And foul you may cry, nanny state, big government. Just remember when you advocate violating someone’s personal privacy, what ever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
[/quote]

How on Earth is saying that people take personal responsibility for themselves and actively choose the employer that is the best fit for them “advocating violating privacy”. I’m actually advocating freedom, you on the other hand are advocating bigger, more invasive government. [/quote]

The best compromise to this whole debate would be testing that would indicate intoxication and altered states while on the jobsite.[/quote]
Wait, so you think having employees that break the law should not be screened?

Last I checked its not invasion to require a workforce that are not criminals. [/quote]

Certain substance aren’t illegal in many countries and on their way to being decriminalized in several states.
Are you stating that the employer should own the employee’s actions 24/7 even if they are legal?
So you can test impairment levels on a jobsite other than alcohol and differentiate use off site? That is pretty interesting.
[/quote]

Why are you bringing in other countries? I thought we were discussing Murica.

Decriminalization does not change the fact that there are proven impairments from drugs.

The employer has the right to protect its investment yes, just as the employee has the right to protect his job. That being labor laws are in place to protect unfair labor practices. That being said it should go both ways, an employer should have the ability to protect itself from employees who make unwise decisions.

Yes it is amazing what quantifiable lab test can do nowadays. You forget that lab results are being reviewed by Drs and companies like mine use Drs and mid-levels to interpret not only results but the medical facts that go along with that. Its not 1980
[/quote]

Good answer.

I have spent quite a while in oilfields and the number of fuckups, druggies, and just outright trash is amazing.
[/quote]
I will say I have a slanted view on this area of work, because well refineries and energy plants are dangerous fucking places to work.

I dont do testing for Wal-Mart and places of those caliber. Nothing wrong with that but I could really give two shits if the clerk is smoking pot. [/quote]

You would think that working for a fuel test lab my employer would, but the only time they test is if someone gets hurt.
[/quote]
What is your injury stats?

Any loss times? Recordables? Fatalities?

116

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

What is your injury stats?

Any loss times? Recordables? Fatalities? [/quote]

We really have a very good injury record, no fatalities and have luck out with the thermal events we have had, in that no one was injured or killed.

117

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

What is your injury stats?

Any loss times? Recordables? Fatalities? [/quote]

We really have a very good injury record, no fatalities and have luck out with the thermal events we have had, in that no one was injured or killed.
[/quote]
How many employees?

I mean reasons for testing are really due to safety. (All bullshit aside)

Reason for safety is the worse the safety record the less chance to get contracts, thus losing money. Pre-employment physicals and drug screening are a tool used to get a “safer” employee.

118

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

You would think that working for a fuel test lab my employer would, but the only time they test is if someone gets hurt.
[/quote]

Same at the shop I’m in. Heavy fabrication- sections and items weighing 50-60 tons per piece being moved through the shop by overhead crane and they aren’t at all interested in spending money to find out things they don’t want to know.

Everybody in there knows that their drug testing is a joke, and the only time that they test after the first one is when there is an accident. The number of positive tests is almost 100%.

Last year after 75 reportable injuries within a 300 person shop, the insurer dropped the company. It was either that or a 1.25 million dollar premium to remain insured by that company.

You’d think they would test a little more stringently, randomly, or frequently after a year like that, but they don’t.

They use that sorting process Apokalyps was talking about.

119

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

What is your injury stats?

Any loss times? Recordables? Fatalities? [/quote]

We really have a very good injury record, no fatalities and have luck out with the thermal events we have had, in that no one was injured or killed.
[/quote]
How many employees?

I mean reasons for testing are really due to safety. (All bullshit aside)

Reason for safety is the worse the safety record the less chance to get contracts, thus losing money. Pre-employment physicals and drug screening are a tool used to get a “safer” employee. [/quote]

Under twenty

120

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

You would think that working for a fuel test lab my employer would, but the only time they test is if someone gets hurt.
[/quote]

Same at the shop I’m in. Heavy fabrication- sections and items weighing 50-60 tons per piece being moved through the shop by overhead crane and they aren’t at all interested in spending money to find out things they don’t want to know.

Everybody in there knows that their drug testing is a joke, and the only time that they test after the first one is when there is an accident. The number of positive tests is almost 100%.

Last year after 75 reportable injuries within a 300 person shop, the insurer dropped the company. It was either that or a 1.25 million dollar premium to remain insured by that company.

You’d think they would test a little more stringently, randomly, or frequently after a year like that, but they don’t.

They use that sorting process Apokalyps was talking about.
[/quote]
You need my company?