Mixtape Culture Club
- Lazy8 - May 18, 2024 - 7:29am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - May 18, 2024 - 7:08am
Wordle - daily game
- ptooey - May 18, 2024 - 7:05am
NY Times Strands
- ptooey - May 18, 2024 - 7:01am
NYTimes Connections
- Bill_J - May 18, 2024 - 6:40am
The Obituary Page
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 18, 2024 - 4:18am
Radio Paradise Comments
- miamizsun - May 18, 2024 - 4:12am
Paul McCartney
- miamizsun - May 18, 2024 - 4:06am
Virginia News
- Steely_D - May 18, 2024 - 2:51am
Gnomad here. Who farking deleted my thread?
- Red_Dragon - May 17, 2024 - 5:59pm
Israel
- R_P - May 17, 2024 - 4:08pm
The Dragons' Roost
- triskele - May 17, 2024 - 4:04pm
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests
- triskele - May 17, 2024 - 4:01pm
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- ScottFromWyoming - May 17, 2024 - 1:43pm
USA! USA! USA!
- Beaker - May 17, 2024 - 1:28pm
Name My Band
- Isabeau - May 17, 2024 - 10:56am
DIY
- black321 - May 17, 2024 - 9:16am
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- Isabeau - May 17, 2024 - 9:02am
Other Medical Stuff
- Isabeau - May 17, 2024 - 9:00am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Isabeau - May 17, 2024 - 8:44am
TV shows you watch
- Steely_D - May 17, 2024 - 3:14am
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- ScottN - May 16, 2024 - 7:00pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- RPnate1 - May 16, 2024 - 3:33pm
Your Local News
- Proclivities - May 16, 2024 - 12:51pm
Alexa Show
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 12:15pm
What can you hear right now?
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 11:00am
Things You Thought Today
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 10:25am
Joe Biden
- Steely_D - May 16, 2024 - 1:02am
Climate Change
- R_P - May 15, 2024 - 9:38pm
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:13pm
how do you feel right now?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:10pm
China
- R_P - May 15, 2024 - 1:40pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 12:38pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:50am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:48am
Science is bullsh*t
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:44am
NASA & other news from space
- Beaker - May 15, 2024 - 9:29am
Artificial Intelligence
- thisbody - May 15, 2024 - 8:25am
Human Rights (Can Science Point The Way)
- miamizsun - May 15, 2024 - 5:50am
Play the Blues
- Steely_D - May 15, 2024 - 1:50am
Music library
- mbellenberg - May 15, 2024 - 1:01am
Animal Resistance
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:37pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:00pm
Fascism In America
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 4:27pm
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage?
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 1:27pm
Social Media Are Changing Everything
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 8:08am
Internet connection
- ai63 - May 14, 2024 - 7:53am
Congress
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:22pm
Ukraine
- R_P - May 13, 2024 - 5:50pm
What The Hell Buddy?
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 1:25pm
Surfing!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 13, 2024 - 1:21pm
Bad Poetry
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 11:38am
What Did You See Today?
- kurtster - May 13, 2024 - 10:35am
See This Film
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:35am
Podcast recommendations???
- ColdMiser - May 13, 2024 - 7:50am
News of the Weird
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 5:05am
Trump
- Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 3:35pm
Those Lovable Policemen
- R_P - May 12, 2024 - 11:31am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - May 12, 2024 - 9:16am
The All-Things Beatles Forum
- Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 9:04am
Baseball, anyone?
- Red_Dragon - May 12, 2024 - 6:52am
Poetry Forum
- ScottN - May 12, 2024 - 6:32am
Beer
- ScottFromWyoming - May 10, 2024 - 8:58pm
It's the economy stupid.
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 3:21pm
Oh dear god, BEES!
- R_P - May 10, 2024 - 3:11pm
Tornado!
- miamizsun - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
The 1960s
- kcar - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
Marko Haavisto & Poutahaukat
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 7:57am
Living in America
- Proclivities - May 10, 2024 - 6:45am
Outstanding Covers
- Steely_D - May 10, 2024 - 12:56am
Democratic Party
- R_P - May 9, 2024 - 3:06pm
RP on HomePod mini
- RPnate1 - May 9, 2024 - 10:52am
Interesting Words
- Proclivities - May 9, 2024 - 10:22am
Breaking News
- maryte - May 9, 2024 - 7:17am
Guns
- Red_Dragon - May 9, 2024 - 6:16am
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Illegal Drugs
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 19, 20, 21 Next |
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 4, 2009 - 1:11pm |
|
BillnDollarBaby wrote:I used to work for a company that had a drug policy very carefully worded to the effect of, "Dont' do drugs on my time and I won't ask what you do on yours." When I asked the boss about it, his reply was, "I was a cokehead when I wrote that. The insurance savings isn't enough to matter. And I can fire anyone that I even think has violated my policy, no questions asked." It worked wonderfully for him. He's extremely successful and his company has been in business for around 30 years. Another company I worked for had no policy at all. Drug use was rampant among management and employees. They're bankrupt now. Our jobs were a constant mess because our employees were using on the job. The managers knew and said nothing because they were usually a party to it, or at the very least were buying from the employees. It was a clusterf*ck. I think pre-employment and random tests are useless in most cases, but having some drug policy is worthwhile. It would have given company #2 a reason to get rid of a few bad seeds if they wanted to, but they turned a blind eye to everyone because one of the worst offenders was their kid. That is why their company failed. less to do with the drugs, more to do with the lack of structure and ineffectiveness of the biz that carried over into the home. I can understand a drug policy if the workplace safety depends on it. Otherwise, it's b.s. If an employee can come in and do their job responsibly, it's nobody's biz. And, do they do the same for alcoholics?
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 4, 2009 - 1:06pm |
|
Exit2Eden wrote: When it comes to receiving federal funds, those rights go "right" out the window! Corporate whores!
|
|
Exit2Eden
|
Posted:
Mar 4, 2009 - 1:04pm |
|
hippiechick wrote: Wow! I wouldn't want to have my income reliant on that company, because I would not allow anyone to snoop around like that, and I have nothing to hide. I just believe in that old-fashioned thing called FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
When it comes to receiving federal funds, those rights go "right" out the window!
|
|
(former member)
|
Posted:
Mar 4, 2009 - 1:00pm |
|
rosedraws wrote:good stories bdb. We found out that these crazy requirements are from the company (let's call it "B") that hires the contractors for the bigger company (let's call it "A"). So, the poor Art Director at A needs to hire freelancers, and has to use B, although they virtually never deal with office or white collar personnel. We also found that it appears that Company B is submitting to something called the "Drug Free Workplace Act"... which is a government thing that requires companies to do some sort of drug management in their company in order to receive federal funds over $25K. I've never heard of this thing before! Drug testing is not required, but it's one way of proving you're doing something, instead of the messy work of proving that you're providing education and support. None of this explains the extreme privacy release they require for their background check. It's a blanket "you can look anywhere and everywhere for info about me and I will not hold you liable for any consequences that may result from you prodding around." That sucks. Haven't they heard the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" I should probably note that the aforementioned boss is now a long-recovered cokehead. My earlier post may not have been clear about that. Edit: noW, I typed not. As in, "not a long-recovered cokehead" instead of "now a long-recovered cokehead." double
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 4, 2009 - 1:00pm |
|
rosedraws wrote:good stories bdb. We found out that these crazy requirements are from the company (let's call it "B") that hires the contractors for the bigger company (let's call it "A"). So, the poor Art Director at A needs to hire freelancers, and has to use B, although they virtually never deal with office or white collar personnel. We also found that it appears that Company B is submitting to something called the "Drug Free Workplace Act"... which is a government thing that requires companies to do some sort of drug management in their company in order to receive federal funds over $25K. I've never heard of this thing before! Drug testing is not required, but it's one way of proving you're doing something, instead of the messy work of proving that you're providing education and support. None of this explains the extreme privacy release they require for their background check. It's a blanket "you can look anywhere and everywhere for info about me and I will not hold you liable for any consequences that may result from you prodding around." Wow! I wouldn't want to have my income reliant on that company, because I would not allow anyone to snoop around like that, and I have nothing to hide. I just believe in that old-fashioned thing called FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS
|
|
Exit2Eden
|
Posted:
Mar 4, 2009 - 12:54pm |
|
rosedraws wrote:good stories bdb. We found out that these crazy requirements are from the company (let's call it "B") that hires the contractors for the bigger company (let's call it "A"). So, the poor Art Director at A needs to hire freelancers, and has to use B, although they virtually never deal with office or white collar personnel. We also found that it appears that Company B is submitting to something called the "Drug Free Workplace Act"... which is a government thing that requires companies to do some sort of drug management in their company in order to receive federal funds over $25K. I've never heard of this thing before! Drug testing is not required, but it's one way of proving you're doing something, instead of the messy work of proving that you're providing education and support. None of this explains the extreme privacy release they require for their background check. It's a blanket "you can look anywhere and everywhere for info about me and I will not hold you liable for any consequences that may result from you prodding around." From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access < CITE: 41USC701> TITLE 41—PUBLIC CONTRACTS CHAPTER 10—DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE "No Federal agency shall enter into a contract with an individual unless such individual agrees that the individual will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance in the performance of the contract"
|
|
rosedraws
Location: close to the edge Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 4, 2009 - 12:43pm |
|
good stories bdb. We found out that these crazy requirements are from the company (let's call it "B") that hires the contractors for the bigger company (let's call it "A"). So, the poor Art Director at A needs to hire freelancers, and has to use B, although they virtually never deal with office or white collar personnel. We also found that it appears that Company B is submitting to something called the "Drug Free Workplace Act"... which is a government thing that requires companies to do some sort of drug management in their company in order to receive federal funds over $25K. I've never heard of this thing before! Drug testing is not required, but it's one way of proving you're doing something, instead of the messy work of proving that you're providing education and support. None of this explains the extreme privacy release they require for their background check. It's a blanket "you can look anywhere and everywhere for info about me and I will not hold you liable for any consequences that may result from you prodding around."
|
|
(former member)
|
Posted:
Mar 4, 2009 - 12:31pm |
|
I used to work for a company that had a drug policy very carefully worded to the effect of, "Dont' do drugs on my time and I won't ask what you do on yours." When I asked the boss about it, his reply was, "I was a cokehead when I wrote that. The insurance savings isn't enough to matter. And I can fire anyone that I even think has violated my policy, no questions asked." It worked wonderfully for him. He's extremely successful and his company has been in business for around 30 years. Another company I worked for had no policy at all. Drug use was rampant among management and employees. They're bankrupt now. Our jobs were a constant mess because our employees were using on the job. The managers knew and said nothing because they were usually a party to it, or at the very least were buying from the employees. It was a clusterf*ck. I think pre-employment and random tests are useless in most cases, but having some drug policy is worthwhile. It would have given company #2 a reason to get rid of a few bad seeds if they wanted to, but they turned a blind eye to everyone because one of the worst offenders was their kid.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 4, 2009 - 7:29am |
|
rosedraws wrote:Drug testing for contract workers??
One of our larger clients has started requiring all contract employees (freelancers) to have a drug test.
Even us sitting in our home offices at a desk job.
So far, we're refusing. Not only does it seem unreasonable, but I think the company is crossing the line between what constitutes an employee vs a contractor.
Anyone have experience with this?
ALSO... they are requiring a release to do a background check. NFW.
ROSE! I've really missed you! I know that Rotary International here in town requires drug tests before they will even interview a contractor. Lots of designers I know pass on the opportunity to work there. It is unreasonable, but they get to make the rules. I can understand if you are driving heavy machinery or something, but otherwise it sounds like an invasion of privacy. It's nobody's biz what you're doing unless it's affecting your work, imo.
|
|
rosedraws
Location: close to the edge Gender:
|
Posted:
Mar 4, 2009 - 7:22am |
|
Drug testing for contract workers??
One of our larger clients has started requiring all contract employees (freelancers) to have a drug test.
Even us sitting in our home offices at a desk job.
So far, we're refusing. Not only does it seem unreasonable, but I think the company is crossing the line between what constitutes an employee vs a contractor.
Anyone have experience with this?
ALSO... they are requiring a release to do a background check. NFW.
PS... all these forms are the ones they use for persons applying for employment.
|
|
samiyam
Location: Moving North
|
Posted:
Feb 9, 2009 - 1:52pm |
|
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 3:06pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote:We don't. At least half of this is bullshit. Maybe Servo owns his own personal BAC meter (hey, great excuse to stay home from work, btw) but I've been served alcohol by every single employer I've ever worked for, on work premises. This includes Fortune 50 companies and mom & pop shops. Most people won't test positive for ganja after 3 weeks, but that's never been a problem for me—I've never been tested. Ever. Maybe this is just dumb luck, and I missed the wave of pre-employment testing that accompanied the "just say no" era, but I've worked for two multinational corporations and neither ever wanted me to pee in a jar for them. I've had friends who've been tested pre-employment but don't know anybody who had to fill a jar after signing a contract. Admittedly there are jobs where that is an issue—bus drivers, airline pilots, long haul truckers, to name a few—but it is not a widespread problem in Corporate America. Nothing you did while under age is available after you turn 18 unless you were tried as an adult. Unless charges were filed when you got your bong confiscated nobody will be able to find out in a normal check of records. Now I have to add a tedious disclaimer: no, I don't approve of random drug testing for every worker bee. I don't care why you're acting like a crackhead, acting like a crackhead is unacceptable at work, and I don't need a drug test to detect incompetence. This does not constitute legal, medical, or financial advice. See a doctor if symptoms persist. Call your pharmacist—he's probably lonely. Send your mother a card, you never write! And tie your shoes, you look like a bum. Well, I wouldn't call it bs, I would call it an over-generalization. There certainly ARE companies with draconian policies, and Servo may have encountered one or more up close. I think he's stating the more extreme situations, but there is a continuum of policies, from lax to ridiculous. I've had to take pre-employment tests a few times. I wouldn't stand for it now though, because I've been working a long time and I believe my work can stand on its merits. I don't believe in random testing either, although I DO agree with testing under 'just cause' conditions: coming to work very late, obviously smelling of booze or broccoli or whatever, being involved in an accident, stuff like that. Testing workers at random creates an air of fear, but testing when conditions warrant are more likely to create an air of safety. I've worked in machine shops where you could be killed or injured in too many ways to mention: in those environments, an impaired worker is a real danger. Driving a commercial vehicle, same thing: if a driver is involved in an accident, the police are almost certainly going to demand a drug test: there is no reason to think an employer wouldn't do likewise. On the flip side, sitting at a desk all day, writing code or answering phones or whatever, the consequences of being hung over or wakin' and bakin' are not so dire. Yeah, if you come in smelling like you slept with a skunk, that's one thing, but if you come in and DO YOUR JOB, well, it's none of mine what you did last night. Have a beer at lunch if you want, I don't care as long as you get the job done. Even when I worked at Texas Instruments DSEG (Defense Systems) back in the late '80s, it was no big deal to have a beer at lunch. And we had good sense enough not to abuse the privilege. It was simply about common sense, no matter which side of the paycheck you were on. c.
|
|
Sean-E-Sean
Location: Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc
|
Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 3:02pm |
|
BlueHeronDruid wrote:Lemme think: State of NJ didn't drug test. Rohm & Haas required a complete physical (I mean, complete! ) but no drug test. Applied Data Research didn't. Computer Associates didn't. Kraft General Foods did. And. It. Was. Awful! (Think: walk down a public hallway with a skimpy - as in, doesn't cover your naked butt - gown, with cup in hand, to a toilet room that didn't even have a sink.) Affiliated Computer Services did. IBM didn't. Looks like the software companies are where it's at, for you stoners out there. ...seems a lot of R-people are/were in this or some sort of related to this business...hmmm...
|
|
BlueHeronDruid
Location: Заебани сме луѓе
|
Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 3:00pm |
|
Lazy8 wrote: Now I have to add a tedious disclaimer: no, I don't approve of random drug testing for every worker bee. I don't care why you're acting like a crackhead, acting like a crackhead is unacceptable at work, and I don't need a drug test to detect incompetence. This does not constitute legal, medical, or financial advice. See a doctor if symptoms persist. Call your pharmacist—he's probably lonely. Send your mother a card, you never write! And tie your shoes, you look like a bum.
Lemme think: State of NJ didn't drug test. Rohm & Haas required a complete physical (I mean, complete! ) but no drug test. Applied Data Research didn't. Computer Associates didn't. Kraft General Foods did. And. It. Was. Awful! (Think: walk down a public hallway with a skimpy - as in, doesn't cover your naked butt - gown, with cup in hand, to a toilet room that didn't even have a sink.) Affiliated Computer Services did. IBM didn't. Looks like the software companies are where it's at, for you stoners out there.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 2:49pm |
|
Welly wrote: I'm glad I don't live in a place where this is true. Why do you guys put up with it?
We don't. At least half of this is bullshit. Maybe Servo owns his own personal BAC meter (hey, great excuse to stay home from work, btw) but I've been served alcohol by every single employer I've ever worked for, on work premises. This includes Fortune 50 companies and mom & pop shops. Most people won't test positive for ganja after 3 weeks, but that's never been a problem for me—I've never been tested. Ever. Maybe this is just dumb luck, and I missed the wave of pre-employment testing that accompanied the "just say no" era, but I've worked for two multinational corporations and neither ever wanted me to pee in a jar for them. I've had friends who've been tested pre-employment but don't know anybody who had to fill a jar after signing a contract. Admittedly there are jobs where that is an issue—bus drivers, airline pilots, long haul truckers, to name a few—but it is not a widespread problem in Corporate America. Nothing you did while under age is available after you turn 18 unless you were tried as an adult. Unless charges were filed when you got your bong confiscated nobody will be able to find out in a normal check of records. Now I have to add a tedious disclaimer: no, I don't approve of random drug testing for every worker bee. I don't care why you're acting like a crackhead, acting like a crackhead is unacceptable at work, and I don't need a drug test to detect incompetence. This does not constitute legal, medical, or financial advice. See a doctor if symptoms persist. Call your pharmacist—he's probably lonely. Send your mother a card, you never write! And tie your shoes, you look like a bum.
|
|
Sean-E-Sean
Location: Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc
|
Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 2:32pm |
|
Welly wrote:
I'm glad I don't live in a place where this is true. Why do you guys put up with it?
...I think Servo is painting a worst case scenario...a couple of factoid exagerations though as thc will not stay in a system for years...90 days tops if you the use was chronic with an obese person w/a slow metabolism...as low as 15 days if the use was minimal and the person was very healthy...
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 2:29pm |
|
Welly wrote:
I'm glad I don't live in a place where this is true. Why do you guys put up with it? There was a big discussion about it the other day. In the end we decided that it wasn't in our power or best interest to vote Servo off the island. what? Oh, drug testing? Yeah, well generally it's not as bad as Servo makes it out to be there. There are some professions and some corporations that are pretty whacked about it, but in my eperience even in those there are a lot of ways around it. I used to work as a contractor at a machining facility that had government contracts. About once a month ~20% of the staff would call in sick. I'd come in and notice everyone was out, and about then I'd spot the guys in white coats (these guys had REALLY bad jobs, Drug testing was on demand, and they handled everything not physically connected to my person - I couldn't touch the cup). In general, we are too hung up on drugs. But as with most things, there is a big range of reactions and punishments depending on the specifics. Like the man said "I'm shocked to find out gabmling has been going on here".
|
|
Welly
Location: Lotusland Gender:
|
Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 2:18pm |
|
Servo 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.
I'm glad I don't live in a place where this is true. Why do you guys put up with it?
|
|
Sean-E-Sean
Location: Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc
|
Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 2:11pm |
|
...the craigslist dealing weed thing has been going on pretty much since it's inception...I am suprised the cops took as long as they did to bust some of the more obvious people...
|
|
n4ku
Location: --... ...--
|
Posted:
Nov 17, 2008 - 10:51am |
|
New York's special narcotics prosecutor is putting pressure on Craigslist to curb ads for drugs. According to the Daily News, prosecutor Bridget Brennan wants the website to develop "screening mechanisms" to curb the high number of narcotic ads on the site, which are often posted using such slang as "ski" (cocaine) and "Tina Turner tickets" (crystal meth). Cops have been trolling the site and making busts, which include the high-profile arrest of Citigroup vice president Mark Rayner for selling 50 Ecstasy pills and 7 grams of cocaine for $1,200. Brennan says it's "like shooting fish in a barrel," and the crackdown seems to be working already: A quick search of Craigslist this morning didn't turn up any ads for narcotics—just posts like these for weed whackers, and a " Special 420 Yoga Mat with extra thick great comfort for the end of the day when you need that special feeling."
|
|
|