Servo wrote: 
In fairness to employers, especially those in the construction trades, their worker's comp insurance rates have continually increased (probably in no small part to juries awarding obscene amounts for cases that went to trial).  If you are stoned or drunk and operating a piece of heavy equipment, you can do a lot of damage in a very small window of time. 
Employers get a better insurance rate if they implement a testing policy.  Whether we like it or not, to your point Servo, "our" jobs belong to the people who hire us and provide us opportunities to make a living, and if you can't make it through an 8-12 hour work day without getting a buzz, it may be time to look for some help.  Better that than endanger the rest of the people around you.

 samiyam wrote: 
I don't blame you, I envy you.  I wish I could say the same.  But by age 18 I had never been given the opportunity to see the other side.


I know that certain kinds of outdoor photography are being cracked down on, to protect female modesty.  And obviously internal searches are restricted, but they always have been that way.  But when it comes to things like pat-down searches, they are now commonplace.  But that's beside the point.

The thing about drug testing in the workplace has absolutely nothing to do with bodily privacy.  The employer isn't asking for access to your body, they're giving you the choice to either give up bodily fluids or a hair sample (that you produce yourself) of your own free will, or go packing.  It's ironic that they can make you give your pee as a condition of employment, but wouldn't dream of having you donate blood.

 samiyam wrote: 
The privacy boat has sailed, never to return to shore. There is no privacy at work, online, through your bank, your dr., nowhere. The Feds can do whatever they want. We can continue to pretend that we still have 4th Amendment rights, but really, they are long gone.

 Servo wrote: 
Don't blame me... I voted for Anderson and Mondale.

And actually, privacy of your body has made some serious comebacks lately in the legal field.

 Isabeau wrote: 
Your personal privacy?  Do you work from home?

If not, then your pseudo-legalese excuse is bullshit.  You have the choice to go to a workplace and abide by their rules in a fair exchange for getting paid, or to sit at home.  You have no rights to privacy outside of the home.

I would like to be judged by the quality of my product, and nothing else.  But reality differs radically from my ideals.  I accept that.  I also accept the fact that my voting record in 1980 and 1984 helped make things the way they are today.  I didn't vote for Zero Tolerance because it wasn't a campaign issue.  But I take responsibility for my tiny part in enabling it to happen.  If you played any part in the same, from 1980 on, then you have no right to complain.  Maybe it was just a mistake, as it was with me.  But we all must live with the consequences of our mistakes.

Next time try to do better.  If you work hard enough to reverse your error, maybe one day you might enjoy a government that actually supports your ideals.

 katzendogs wrote: 
It all depends on who you're working for, in what capacity, and if you have any past that might give them cause to give you special attention.

In case you don't know, all employers regularly do credit and criminal background checks these days.  The information contained in these reports has one singular aim — to give as much damaging information, real or otherwise, about the applicant to the client.

So if you had a bong confiscated in college, or got caught drinking underage, you might as well expect to be red-flagged.

Even if your record is squeaky-clean, say good-bye to cannabis for the rest of your corporate career.  Since THC is fat soluble, it lasts for months, even years.  Don't even hang around people who smoke the stuff; that's enough to test positive.  Pretty much every other illegal drug is felony material, so the risk is too high.  You should be more worried about getting arrested than losing your job on that matter.  Be a grown-up and don't run around being a felon...EVER!

When it comes to drinking, you want to make sure that you test 0.00% always.  If you're the kind who drinks late into the night before a work day, investing in a personal BAC meter is a wise decision.  Use it often.  Never leave for work unless it shows 0.00%.  Unless they suspect you of drinking on the job, they'll test first thing in the morning if they can, so forget about any fudge factor.

If this is too much of a cramp on your style, then you're not cut out to be corporate material.  Start your own business, move back in with the parents, whatever.  The bottom line is that Big Business is a zero tolerance world, and employment is not a Constitutional right.

 Pyro wrote: 
Was making that part of his sentence for playing with himself in the pornos?

 n4ku wrote: 
Thanks for posting this!  I love PeeWee but had never seen this PSA.  Excellent.

 smithson wrote: 
I needed a drink afterwards it was so bad

 Hairfarmer wrote: 

  who knew?

Oh look. Compasionate spam.

Hi for all who are  joined in this forum.

==================================================

smithson

New Jersey Alcohol Addiction Treatment

 

  Hi for all members who are joined in this forum.

===========================================================================================

smithson

New Jersy Alcohol Addiction Treatment

 daviswilson wrote: 
Drumming up business?

hi to all the members of this forum.nice to be with you all.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Davis.

Isabeau wrote:
been hollerin' that for 30 years.

I think it is an infringement on my personal privacy. My performance on the job is what I am receiving a paycheck for.

hippiechick wrote:
It will be labeled as "refused drug test".

 katzendogs wrote: 
My friend's daughter worked at Walgreens for 4 years, until they decided to give everyone a drug test, so she quit rather than take it.