Urine tests for welfare recipients

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

You are cracking me UP! Do you think your doc gets drug tested? And what does this have to do with the price of eggs in China again?

I've seen plenty of drunk docs...waited on them at the club. They weren't doctoring. The lawyers weren't lawyering. The business owners weren't business ownering. The gold pros weren't golf proing.

And doctors get the BEST drugs, ya know.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I've seen plenty of drunk docs...waited on them at the club. They weren't doctoring. The lawyers weren't lawyering. The business owners weren't business ownering. The gold pros weren't golf proing.

more often than not ...you tickle me funny bone.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

You are cracking me UP! Do you think your doc gets drug tested? And what does this have to do with the price of eggs in China again?

I've seen plenty of drunk docs...waited on them at the club. They weren't doctoring. The lawyers weren't lawyering. The business owners weren't business ownering. The gold pros weren't golf proing.

Be sure to divide out alcohol abuse from drug abuse. Yes many hospitals require physicians to take drug tests as a condition of employment and they can require them to take one if they are suspected of abusing drugs. There was a time that a greater degree of alcohol abuse may have been tolerated, like in the 1970's, but those times are gone. Acute alcohol intoxication is much harder to cover up in the work place, drug abuse is much easier to cover up as tolerances increase. Any provider who smelled of alcohol would be immediately rated out by an employee. Drug abusers are much harder to discover and deal with. Drug testing only covers some of the available drugs which can be abused in the hospital setting.

[Shawnee123]

Just ask House!

[classicman]

For your information, as a commodity, the price of eggs in China is directly related to the wuantity of booze/illegal substances that medical professionals and/or Tanker truck drivers consume in a given period of time - It's a fact - jsut ask lookout!

[Aliantha]

An employer has the right to put whatever conditions he wants on the people he employs. If he says they have to wear pink shirts with yellow polkadots once a week, or run around the block twice a day that's up to him. If you accept a job with conditions, it's up to you do deal with it or get sacked.

Making people take urine tests to get their welfare check will eventually happen whether you like it or not, and so it should. Particularly those on unemployment with no good reason to not be looking for a job. They shouldn't be getting high. They should be spending every moment of the work hour day working towards getting a job. If they choose not to do so, they can go mooch off someone else who loves them more. That's my opinion.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

An employer has the right to put whatever conditions he wants on the people he employs.

No. No.
I'll have to start calling you Ebeneezer Scrooge? You don't want those Christmas ghosts to come 'a haunting do you Ali?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

An employer has the right to put whatever conditions he wants on the people he employs. If he says they have to wear pink shirts with yellow polkadots once a week, or run around the block twice a day that's up to him. If you accept a job with conditions, it's up to you do deal with it or get sacked.

Making people take urine tests to get their welfare check will eventually happen whether you like it or not, and so it should. Particularly those on unemployment with no good reason to not be looking for a job. They shouldn't be getting high. They should be spending every moment of the work hour day working towards getting a job. If they choose not to do so, they can go mooch off someone else who loves them more. That's my opinion.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

An employer has the right to put whatever conditions he wants on the people he employs.

No...What are you talking about? Whatever conditions implies...whatever conditions.

I'm probably not making any sense..but that's beside the point.
An employer does not have the right to put workers under any conditions he/she wants.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Cicero

No...What are you talking about? Whatever conditions implies...whatever conditions.

I'm probably not making any sense..but that's beside the point.
An employer does not have the right to put workers under any conditions he/she wants.

I'm talking about the sort of conditions that come with any job. For example, if you want to work in a strip club, one of the conditions is that you have to be happy to get your gear off. All jobs have different requirements. I don't see the issue really.

Not making sense is not beside the point because there's no point talking if you're the only one that understands you.

[Aliantha]

Well as has been stated previously, if you don't like the conditions, then don't work for the man. It's pretty simple really.

Here's an example. There's this guy down the street who'll pay me $600/week and all I have to do is dig ditches all day. That's all I have to do. The only problem is, I don't think I'd like to dig ditches every day, so I don't think I'll take that job.

There's this other guy who says he'll pay me $600/week to sit on my arse and do nothing. Sounds like a good idea. The only thing is, I can't drink or get high while I'm doing it. Hmmm...but I like drinking and getting high and the guy who's making me dig ditches doesn't care how high I am as long as I dig ditches. That sounds like a better deal to me.

There's this other guy who'll pay me $800/week to dig ditches, but I also have to submit to a urine sample once a week. That's a lot of money. Maybe it's worth not getting high and drinking every day...

It's a matter of priorities.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Well as has been stated previously, if you don't like the conditions, then don't work for the man. It's pretty simple really.

Here's an example. There's this guy down the street who'll pay me $600/week and all I have to do is dig ditches all day. That's all I have to do. The only problem is, I don't think I'd like to dig ditches every day, so I don't think I'll take that job.

There's this other guy who says he'll pay me $600/week to sit on my arse and do nothing. Sounds like a good idea. The only thing is, I can't drink or get high while I'm doing it. Hmmm...but I like drinking and getting high and the guy who's making me dig ditches doesn't care how high I am as long as I dig ditches. That sounds like a better deal to me.

There's this other guy who'll pay me $800/week to dig ditches, but I also have to submit to a urine sample once a week. That's a lot of money. Maybe it's worth not getting high and drinking every day...

It's a matter of priorities.

There are laws against any conditions....

Your examples are pretty mild. Intentionally? Yes.....

I am in the middle of seeing unfair and possibly illegal work practices as we speak. People have already quit making the jobs of people working here even more difficult, they can quit, but not litigate or have their day in court. Or even have anyone to file a complaint with. Because the boss can get away with it and does.....exploitation of workers is what I'm talking about.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Cicero

...exploitation of workers is what I'm talking about.

Congress has made that situation more possible over the last 20 years. Each administration has favored different industries and provided protections which have eaten away at the rights of the workers. I don't see much changing in the near future.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Congress has made that situation more possible over the last 20 years. Each administration has favored different industries and provided protections which have eaten away at the rights of the workers. I don't see much changing in the near future.

More possible in some ways yes. Nothing changes until a union happens or there is a lawsuit. If you don't see anything changing then you probably aren't trying.

The situation becomes more complex when I have to rely on the masses alongside myself to demand fair treatment, to get it. And people don't care for the idea or want it. (judging from some of the opinions here) It disturbs me when I think of what people had to do to get fair wages and any sense of human rights at the workplace or any compensation when injured.

A lot of you have kids here. I wonder what opinion you would have if you saw your child working under any conditions their boss wants.
heh- This includes harassment folks.....I guess we are back at square one when people revert to the old ways of thinking.

[lookout123]

I don't view asking someone who wants a job working for me (with my files, with my clients, affecting my reputation) to take a piss test or an aptitude test or anything other kind of test, as discriminatory.

Your actions decide whether you will pass a piss test, not your genes or your skin color.

Denying a job due to race, color, creed, sex, or sexual preference is descriminatory. Expecting prospective employees to pass a urine test is not. Honestly, if you aren't smart enough to clean up to the degree necessary to pass a urine test, you're too damn stupid to work at my company anyway.