Workers at McLane drive forklifts and load hefty boxes into trucks. The grocery supplier, which runs a warehouse in Colorado, needs people who will stay alert - but prospective hires keep failing drug screens.
"Some weeks this year, 90 percent of applicants would test positive for something," ruling them out for the job, said Laura Stephens, a human resources manager for the company in Denver.
Well either they need to change their criteria or shut the F up I guess. I still say if they are going to test for this and that in the guise of whatever..... they need to test for the anger gene too.
I am a firm believer in waiting till after something actually happens to dole out punishments I am funny that way though.
Well either they need to change their criteria or shut the F up I guess. I still say if they are going to test for this and that in the guise of whatever..... they need to test for the anger gene too.
I am a firm believer in waiting till after something actually happens to dole out punishments I am funny that way though.
Wrong.. to pass the osha reg/ you must test for fork lift use.. you need to pass a drug test.. Heck the regs and testing on just a power jack is nuts now.
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 05-23-2017).]
Well either they need to change their criteria or shut the F up I guess. I still say if they are going to test for this and that in the guise of whatever..... they need to test for the anger gene too.
I am a firm believer in waiting till after something actually happens to dole out punishments I am funny that way though.
Civil law suits don't agree with you. If a person is high on dope and an accident happens at work, the business will pay. So, drug screening is a good thing. BTW, firing an employee who brakes the business policy, IS NOT undue punishment. And neither is failure to hire for being high (if that is against policy). Their business, their rules they get to make up their own criteria for any reason they feel like. You don't like it then just get a job somewhere else and don't ***** about businesses that don't hire high people. I am just funny that way though.
I've always been a VERY firm believer in "stay the **** off of my personal time", and that goes right back to grade-school. Just born that way. So long as its legal, what people do on their own personal time is NONE of the companies business.
Now that weed IS legal the problem to sort out (and it will be the courts doing it) is going to how to make company "policy" match legal rights.
We dont have the problem here, because that kind of testing was ruled unconstitutuinal back in the 90's. I was actually involved in an incedent in 2000 when I was marshaling out a B737 and he trurned early, clipping a hanger with his wingtip. It was a US plane with US crew so they had to get tested, but I refused (legally) on the advice of the company lawyer. We didnt want to set a precident. The FAA and charter company were mad as hell, but there wasnt squat they could do since it was on Canadian soil. Thats the kind of jurisdictional battles you guys in the US have coming up now that the stuff is being legalized all over the place.
Another unintended consequence her has been the cost of warehouse space prices have doubled/tripled, it's driven other companies out, I know a couple of people that are considering closing...
I've always been a VERY firm believer in "stay the **** off of my personal time", and that goes right back to grade-school. Just born that way. So long as its legal, what people do on their own personal time is NONE of the companies business.
Now that weed IS legal the problem to sort out (and it will be the courts doing it) is going to how to make company "policy" match legal rights.
We dont have the problem here, because that kind of testing was ruled unconstitutuinal back in the 90's. I was actually involved in an incedent in 2000 when I was marshaling out a B737 and he trurned early, clipping a hanger with his wingtip. It was a US plane with US crew so they had to get tested, but I refused (legally) on the advice of the company lawyer. We didnt want to set a precident. The FAA and charter company were mad as hell, but there wasnt squat they could do since it was on Canadian soil. Thats the kind of jurisdictional battles you guys in the US have coming up now that the stuff is being legalized all over the place.
Problem is weed is NOT legal.. The feds have not said it is legal yet.. only the state level.. until the fed say ok, it's legal.. business owners can and WILL screen for weed.. Want to smoke weed on your own time, great, the pot heads figure out a test that can tell how long ago you got high.. It's in their court, they have the ball, The businesses don't need to research a new test, the pot heads need to foot that huge bill of the test and studies.. They'll need this test for driving also.. a guy got clobbered last week on the highway driving high going 20mph in the left lane.. Around here it's bad all the fish bowl dope going 15mph in a 45mph zone..
While a past cannibus partaker, I still advocate for it personally. I do not go out and protest or rally, just never feel the need to knock it. But, if you own a company, and choose not to hire folks that use, then I feel that is within the owners rights to do so. I just find fault when drunks are allowed to try and function and even accepted in many environments, yet a marijuana user is the devil?
I came from an abusive drunk daddy who never held me enough. I may be slightly slighted by this?
At this point and as I see it, the problem with drug testing for marijuana is that the metabolites may remain in one's system for weeks after usage. There is no reasonable and practical test to determine if the subject is under the influence.
This is not to say that I support or oppose testing, merely that I see a problem with it's current implementation.
They are working on the driving tests here, since it will be legal next year.
They STILL havent figured out how they are going to go about identifying users vs. people exposed to 2nd-hand smoke from it.
I personally dont smoke it but spend a fair amount of time around some who do (they dont use tobacco or vape and spend time around me ) so I would probably test positive even though I fall into the second catagory.
What I see with the tests is they are setting up a legal ostrisization problem, and as soon as the issue is raised in court the entire scheme will be tossed as unconstitutional up here the same way it was for job-testing.
They are working on the driving tests here, since it will be legal next year.
They STILL havent figured out how they are going to go about identifying users vs. people exposed to 2nd-hand smoke from it.
I personally dont smoke it but spend a fair amount of time around some who do (they dont use tobacco or vape and spend time around me ) so I would probably test positive even though I fall into the second catagory.
What I see with the tests is they are setting up a legal ostrisization problem, and as soon as the issue is raised in court the entire scheme will be tossed as unconstitutional up here the same way it was for job-testing.
Because I was responsible for implementation and administration of the federally regulated drug screen program at my last two jobs, I have done a lot of reading on the subject over the years. Second hand smoke is not a problem. If one tests positive, he has directly ingested THC in some form.
Wrong.. to pass the osha reg/ you must test for fork lift use.. you need to pass a drug test.. Heck the regs and testing on just a power jack is nuts now.
Don't care, I don't believe in testing or punishment for a preventative crime that most likely won't happen. Want your panties wadded? How about drunk driving....... sure it is not a good idea and I think everybody knows it, yet literally millions of people do it every single day with zero problems or accidents.
Once you go down the path of what if? and we better dammed well do something regardless....... they will get you on something. What's next on their list.
So nothing on the anger gene? something tells me you would not pass. No public service positions or weapons ownership, lose custody of any children if you fail. Why would anybody think that is unreasonable.
[This message has been edited by Red88FF (edited 05-24-2017).]
While a past cannibus partaker, I still advocate for it personally. I do not go out and protest or rally, just never feel the need to knock it. But, if you own a company, and choose not to hire folks that use, then I feel that is within the owners rights to do so. I just find fault when drunks are allowed to try and function and even accepted in many environments, yet a marijuana user is the devil?
I came from an abusive drunk daddy who never held me enough. I may be slightly slighted by this?
Tony I don't know where you've worked.. but anytime someone has been drinking and comes in looped, they get sent home.. And have to answer for it.. They don't get a free pass..
In an indirect way thats kind of what they are doing with the drug test. Every job i have ever applied for that required a drug test was upfront about it. It would seem to me that if someone applies for a job that advertises that the applicant must pass a drug test, and they go down and take the drug test and fail it, they are very likely either stupid, or did not want the job.
At this point and as I see it, the problem with drug testing for marijuana is that the metabolites may remain in one's system for weeks after usage. There is no reasonable and practical test to determine if the subject is under the influence.
This is not to say that I support or oppose testing, merely that I see a problem with it's current implementation.
And if pot heads want to get high and be employed you'd think with as my pro pot groups out there they fund the research to find a test that can pin point the time of use.. Better than what test is done now..
Don't care, I don't believe in testing or punishment for a preventative crime that most likely won't happen. Want your panties wadded? How about drunk driving....... sure it is not a good idea and I think everybody knows it, yet literally millions of people do it every single day with zero problems or accidents.
Being impaired while in control of equipment that can kill is the crime. And it is that way for a good reason.
quote
Once you go down the path of what if? and we better dammed well do something regardless....... they will get you on something. What's next on their list.
So nothing on the anger gene? something tells me you would not pass. No public service positions or weapons ownership, lose custody of any children if you fail. Why would anybody think that is unreasonable.
But, this is a good debatable point. Here in Ca they are doing a lot of this. They do it in the name of saving lives. Gun control for instance is unconstitutional whereas driving is a privilege and drug testing for employment is the right of the employers to run their own business as they see fit. I see this as 3 totally separate issues. They are not the same.
Don't care, I don't believe in testing or punishment for a preventative crime that most likely won't happen. Want your panties wadded? How about drunk driving....... sure it is not a good idea and I think everybody knows it, yet literally millions of people do it every single day with zero problems or accidents.
Once you go down the path of what if? and we better dammed well do something regardless....... they will get you on something. What's next on their list.
So nothing on the anger gene? something tells me you would not pass. No public service positions or weapons ownership, lose custody of any children if you fail. Why would anybody think that is unreasonable.
To bad, you get caught above the limit driving you get a dui and pay the price.. Same goes for weed.. it still is NOT LEGAL.. per the feds.. The employer makes the rules not the employee.. I can't go into work with a buzz.. nor can I go into work high.. Pot users never see the change in themselves when they ho out on break and toke, and come back to work.. Sorry, it's not safe and has NO PLAce at work..
But, this is a good debatable point. Here in Ca they are doing a lot of this. They do it in the name of saving lives. Gun control for instance is unconstitutional whereas driving is a privilege and drug testing for employment is the right of the employers to run their own business as they see fit. I see this as 3 totally separate issues. They are not the same.
Business has rights? heh, sure, refuse to bake a gay cake and see where that gets you, try and light up in your very own privately owned business see how that works out I could go on and on.
Gun control is unconstitutional? your cracking me up!. Give an inch they take a mile every time.
How about drinking the night before and they pop a random blow test on you. You blow a .01. What now?
You're sent home.. Here is the thing If you know you have to work at 6am and stroll into your front door at 4am plastered, only you are at fault if you blow a0.01 or whatever.. at work..
To bad, you get caught above the limit driving you get a dui and pay the price.. Same goes for weed.. it still is NOT LEGAL.. per the feds.. The employer makes the rules not the employee.. I can't go into work with a buzz.. nor can I go into work high.. Pot users never see the change in themselves when they ho out on break and toke, and come back to work.. Sorry, it's not safe and has NO PLAce at work..
Too bad.... two o's are needed.
Nowhere did I advocate going to work high, getting high, or even using booze at work. Complete and total fail.
Nowhere did I advocate going to work high, getting high, or even using booze at work. Complete and total fail.
Lets review 1) thread is about employment and getting high.. 2) your post was a bout daming the what if's.. i.e. testing for drugs is a "what if" they come to work high..
Business has rights? heh, sure, refuse to bake a gay cake and see where that gets you, try and light up in your very own privately owned business see how that works out I could go on and on.
Gun control is unconstitutional? your cracking me up!. Give an inch they take a mile every time.
I guess then, you seem to know it all and a debate would be fruitless. This is not a perfect World and I have MANY complaints about it, but one way to change it is to accually discuss it. If I had a Bakery, I would bake a cake for whoever I feel like. If I were a Chaplin, I would Mary anyone I feel like or not Mary them. I don't "light up" and don't worry about laws concerning it, but in Ca we have laws that prevent it in workplaces. It is that way for a reason, and to do business here you have to follow the laws weather you agree with them or not.
Lets review 1) thread is about employment and getting high.. 2) your post was a bout daming the what if's.. i.e. testing for drugs is a "what if" they come to work high..
But Cool story Bro..
Cool story bro..... nice try, you simply are just not getting it, that or pretending not to. Or simply reading what you think you want to hear..... very liberal of you.
Don't care, I don't believe in testing or punishment for a preventative crime that most likely won't happen. Want your panties wadded? How about drunk driving....... sure it is not a good idea and I think everybody knows it, yet literally millions of people do it every single day with zero problems or accidents.
Once you go down the path of what if? and we better dammed well do something regardless....... they will get you on something. What's next on their list.
So nothing on the anger gene? something tells me you would not pass. No public service positions or weapons ownership, lose custody of any children if you fail. Why would anybody think that is unreasonable.
It cant be all or nothing. It cant be nothing, it cant be all. Yes clearly we all draw the line in different places. Also different things, different subjects, different circumstances, require different standards.
This statement, isn't a statement, it contradicts itself. So what is your point? "Don't care, I don't believe in testing or punishment for a preventative crime that most likely won't happen. Want your panties wadded? How about drunk driving....... sure it is not a good idea and I think everybody knows it, yet literally millions of people do it every single day with zero problems or accidents. "
If I had a Bakery, I would bake a cake for whoever I feel like. If I were a Chaplin, I would Mary anyone I feel like or not Mary them. I don't "light up" and don't worry about laws concerning it, but in Ca we have laws that prevent it in workplaces. It is that way for a reason, and to do business here you have to follow the laws weather you agree with them or not.
Ignoring the antagonistic beginning of you post and will "discuss" what is pertinent.
I do not disagree with your cake baking attitude one bit! but you might look to people that have done it and talk about their 200,000 dollar plus fines and the ensuing bankruptcy they enjoyed simply not baking for a gay couple.
Not a toker here either, seems we had this discussion years ago.
...It is that way for a reason, and to do business here you have to follow the laws weather you agree with them or not.
Always mumbo jumbo and chest beating on this subject. In the end, this. Respect the laws, and life is fairly damn easy. Break the laws, and if you are not caught, you are perpetually looking over your shoulder uncomfortably. It is an easy choice.
It cant be all or nothing. It cant be nothing, it cant be all. Yes clearly we all draw the line in different places. Also different things, different subjects, different circumstances, require different standards.
This statement, isn't a statement, it contradicts itself. So what is your point? "Don't care, I don't believe in testing or punishment for a preventative crime that most likely won't happen. Want your panties wadded? How about drunk driving....... sure it is not a good idea and I think everybody knows it, yet literally millions of people do it every single day with zero problems or accidents. "
Yes, we too have done this dance.. I do not believe in punishment before any damage has actually incurred. I believe that once somebody has been damaged to throw the f''ing book at them hard. Just that simple.
Cool story bro..... nice try, you simply are just not getting it, that or pretending not to. Or simply reading what you think you want to hear..... very liberal of you.
Whatever, Here is the thing, I've worked with co workers that get baked on break/lunch.. And come back to work,, and can't be productive.. I know when one crushed another employee against the wall with a pallet and just fell overlaugh'n cause he was so baked. I should've joined in.. Not.. I don't care if people get high or drunk on their own time.. but until we can test when a person gets high, Sorry I don't want anyone that test + for drugs working machinery near me.. Don't like that, work on a test that can tell if a person is high.. Now, or 3 hours ago.. or 5 days ago.. not one that welp, he/she got high within the last 30 day blood test or 72 days.. give or take.. hair test.
An acquaintance works at a smoke free campus. Everyday two people smoke marijuana (MJ) in a car while on break. The pair come back to the office wreaking of the unmistakable odor but they seem to function at some level after the break.
So is it still a violation of the smoke-free policy to smoke MJ on campus (MJ is legal on the State level)?
An acquaintance works at a smoke free campus. Everyday two people smoke marijuana (MJ) in a car while on break. The pair come back to the office wreaking of the unmistakable odor but they seem to function at some level after the break.
So is it still a violation of the smoke-free policy to smoke MJ on campus (MJ is legal on the State level)?
If I was aware somebody got high on one of my jobs I would fire them on the spot, might even beat on them.
If you don't want to bake a cake for a gay couple, then open your bakery in Moscow or somewhere else where it's illegal to be gay.
In America though, people are supposed to be treated equally. If you don't like gay people and are afraid you might have to bake a cake for them, then you shouldn't have a bakery. You cannot have equality and bigotry both. You don't get to force your religious beliefs on others. Unless they're asking for an obscene cake or being belligerent, or something of such nature, and they come into your shop to order a pretty standard wedding cake, you should take their money and bake the bloody cake. Or deal with the consequences of refusing to make said sale.
Guess what, life is full of things you don't like. Deal wit it. Deal wit it. Hashtag deal wit it.
Originally posted by spark1: An acquaintance works at a smoke free campus. Everyday two people smoke marijuana (MJ) in a car while on break. The pair come back to the office wreaking of the unmistakable odor but they seem to function at some level after the break.
So is it still a violation of the smoke-free policy to smoke MJ on campus (MJ is legal on the State level)?
Is the "smoke-free" policy also applicable to tobacco? What about vaporizers? Does this only apply in the buildings and on open grounds of the campus? They can't really do anything legally about you smoking in your own car, as long as you don't litter and throw butts on the ground or whatever, right?
THAT one Dobey has been a 30-year battle for me. Even lost a couple extra-cash part-time jobs over it.
My stance is, always has been, always will be, that I bought the car, I pay its operating costs and that makes ME in charge and I'll do pretty much as I ****ing well please in it.
SOME people dont see it that way, they have the attitude "You work for me and I am in power over you and everything you own 24-7-365 and you will do as you are told"
Yeh, the **** I will.
Legally, here there are laws preventing you from smoking with anyone under 18 in the car (even a convertable) AND if a passenger doesnt like you smoking the law is on their side... THAT one was easy to solve. I just dont allow non-smoking passengers or kids.
Problem solved. They can walk, and I will reconsider my stance just as soon as the laws change.
Interestingly enough, on the subject, some cities are banning smoking in your own appartment/ condo (not the common areas, your own unit) and forcing you out on the balcony under threat of some pretty stiff fines and/or eviction. People without balconies are pretty much screwed if they smoke.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 05-24-2017).]
And they sue you and win as you at the moment have no way to legally prove it.. unless you have it on video..
I see your not a lawyer. Sorry but I will do what I want on a job I am running, especially where the safety of my crew is concerned. I can fire anybody for whatever reason I want. Drug use on my job is a no brainer for dismissal.
The beating? well there are work arounds for that one, and I di say might .
I am funny that way though.
