I focus drug carrying out tests is bullshit, unless you operate or are responsible for immense machinery. Agree?
Why is it anyone elses business? Studies have proven time and time again that drug testing is useless for determining preformance.
Answers:
i can see from both sides.
FOR: it make sense that an employer would not want to hire someone who is an alcoholic, becasue if they get drunk off their *** one hours of darkness, and have to be at work at 8am the next year, how will they perform? if they even come to work?
AGAINST: why is it their business? they dont have to assume that merely because a person does drugs that they are not a hard worker or that they are unreliable.
i be about to try drugs for the first time, and the day beforehand i got a call from target motto that i was hired, and needed to take a drug testing. i had put in my application almost a month ago so i figure they didnt want me, so i said to hell with it and was gonna do it. but i didnt and i get hired. i dont think it should be mandatory, only if within is a suspicion of it, or if like you said, you are operating machinery or something.
Unless of course your drug addicted employee requirements to steal for his next high...............sorry, hiring druggies is too risky for most businesses. I do not agree.
if youre taking drugs then their drug-testing crap might not be a bull-shiit so make the acquaintance of to hellish 21 century ..dont cry...just cheat the drug tests and elapse then shut them up and let you be paid more money for your supporting your habit. good luck to you if youre operating fatty machiery or HOPEFULLY NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT a nuclear power plant withing 200 miles of my home damn it.
I'd like to see your sources on this one. So it would be okay for say a cop to be high-ranking, or a teacher, a bus driver, a taxi driver, the guy working a press, the entity on the high power electrical lines? There are thousands of jobs that could put a natural life in jeopardy if the person doing the job in on drugs.
Hey - generosity to the twenty-first century!
We are in the age of the new prohibition. You are EVIL if you lug drugs - don't you know that? EVIL!!
FP
absouletly not!!
do you know how many drug head i deal with beside daily- im an emt
it bull crap
everyone should be tested
do you want your childrens school teacher on drugs?
how around your doctor?
how about the guy behind you contained by traffic rush hour?
if it were enforced that all human resources be drug tested i believe usage would decrease and the world would be safer
you sound close to you may have a drug problem seeing how you dont want to get caught I don`t know...........
grow up
learn how to live in veracity without the drugs
I think we need a drug free america. We do drug screening on ALL unknown employees and if it comes back positive, we don't hire them plain and simple. I don't perfectionism what job you have in the company. Those that do drugs are less responsible, they show up late, ring up in sick, leave impulsive, steal for drugs. Give me a break. Let me guess, you got turned down for a job because you couldn't go past the drug test, did you forget to study?
I have to disagree with you. If you have a company, you probably would want your employees to be in adjectives their possible 5 senses. You would expect that they be ready to do their jobs, and giving you their 100% or more and not grant you a cruddy performance. There will be times that they might not put their best efforts, but hopefully it is because of valid reason. You probably would want to hire people that will take their undertaking seriously that don't go overboard in alcohol or overdose of forbidden drugs. To me, it's just a way to formulate sure the person you're hiring is of good and moral behaviour and will represent your company in an excellent way...hopefully. I hope my answer help you out. Take care!
if you think drug testing is useless for determining carrying out, why still have it for those operating heavy machinery? it won' t affect their narration either, right? duhhhhhhhhh!
whether you like(use) or dislike(quit use of) drugs, no one can pretend that medication, legal or forbidden, has no side effects. if the known/desired effects did not alter the user, he/she would not use them. Work is work, play is play. I feel that drug carrying out tests should be used to give the consumers/employers what they are paying for. According to your train of thought, drinking booze/beer on the job should be OK too, I don't reflect on so.
Disagree, but only adding that every stinking rotten politician, advocate, judge, and member of the medium be subjected to random alcohol and drug screens only like the rest of us, and upon detection, it should call for their on the spot resignation.
if a person is on drugs nine times out of ten, they're not going to stay employed long at all, so its a refuse of time hiring him
they're slackers and i don't want to have to do more then what im supposed to a moment ago because they stayed up night from their habit
if they do illegitimate drugs then their criminals to me
anyone under the influence of drugs are liable to do anything at any even time
some of them will shutting up stealing from eympoyees or the employer
I absolutely agree beside you! There has been no proven compelling motivation for across the board drug testing, no cost savings, no better productivity, nil. It is just a phallacy that the drug testing labs verbs to propagate across our society.
Not to mention that there is no test to find out in the region of current use of marijuana. The THC stays in your blood (fat cells I think) for up to a month so what are they trialling for? That you ran into a college buddy and managed to mark a joint and then smoked it a month ago? Come on!
On the other side of the coin, I've needed a work and went through drug testing 3 times. I own not used heavy drugs for tons, many years, but used to be a regular pot smoker and I managed to go beyond all 3 of them. Also, I know that the residue from drugs such as cocaine, heroin and meth only stay within your system a few days, so if you fail because you are snorting on the way to your tryout, the the test has worked, because it proves you are stupid!
And finally, I hold always been an outstanding hand that rarely, if ever, calls contained by sick, works twice as hard as others and I am professional in every agency I represent my employer. Kinda blows the theory that drug users cost the company money, doesn't it?
i agree
you mean for a duty??
if the people you work for dont want you to be a druggie...they have every right to theory test you DUH
Drug testing screen for illegal drugs, I can take a soma, lortab and a xanax and elapse a drug test because I have a prescription. I would deliberate that someone who smoked a joing a month ago would be more clearheaded than someone on prescription meds.
I'm not hiring you to do anything. I don't want legal liability if you do something untoward.
Sorry. Get clean.
No, it's not an indication of performance but it is of liability. As a business owner, I see employees who use drugs enjoy more frequent absences, illnesses and tardiness. Also, those who may come to work below the influence are a safety risk to other employees and a detriment to productivity.
I hold fired more than a few people who were not tested beforehand applying for work, but were subject to tests because of their on the brief behavior and performance. If these people be not hired in the first place, it would have save the company a lot of money in administrative and productivity expense.
No I don't agree and the intention they test is because they don't want their employees using crooked substances whether it affects their performance or not. That could really give their business a desperate reputation.
Which statistics are you referring to?
The statistics actually show that body who abuse drugs are costing the employers twice as much on medical and workman comp claims as drug-free workers. Not to mention time loss due to "no show" at work! Source(s): NIDA Info Facts, National clearing house for drug and alcohol information, adjectives sense.
there is also a moral standard here.
doing drugs is across the world considered immoral, and is definitely considered evil. companies dont want to hire people who they feel are corrupt, and have no problem breaking the law. if you're not afraid to dishonestly obtain and use drugs, why would you be afraid of stealing from them?
note, i dont AGREE next to or condone this mindset, but it's simply the truth.
also, because of the stereotypes that have been created chiefly due to hard-drug addicts, ie: crackheads, speed freaks, h-fiends, anyone who uses drugs to any degree is usually typed as a "druggie," characterization you're unreliable, and only want a job so you can earn a check to attain you your next fix.
basically, drugs enjoy a negative stigma, and employers dont want that giving of person.
I agree mostly. The purpose of drug carrying out tests other than pre employment, is so that when someone gets hurt on the opening and comes up dirty the company is not liable and can fire the person. Maybe they should test individuals for being tired or perhaps overworked and stressed too that road they could get out of even more Workman's comp cases. I think you should be tested near a Breathalyzer to see if you are drunk but not drug tested. That is bullshit. If you are drunk on the job you should loose your job, and you really shouldn't be getting big at work. But there is no test to see when you get high only that you have gotten high at some point within the ending month or so. It is also a means to divide and conquer the populace. But lets not procure into that.
I agree. The only caveat is that companies are expected to pay for robustness benefits and the use of drugs (as well as alcohol, prescription drugs and smoking) effect your overall health. This give a company a personal interest in your health which is what they can use to defend testing. If a company isn't paying your health benefits, next they should judge you completely by the quality of the opportunity you do. If your a pothead and a better worker than someone who isn't a pothead, why should drug use matter?
There's this concept called INTEGRITY, which process a heck of a lot more to a prospective employer than your ability to operate a vehicle or sweet machinery. If you can't be trusted to obey the laws of the topography concerning drugs -- laws that were made near YOUR safety as well as the safekeeping of others around you in mind -- can you really be trusted to do a good chore?
I do not agree. Any time someone is making decisions that affect a company, its employees or its clients, it is essential that they own a clear head. Therefore, drug testing is all right to protect the company and its assets.
A person always have the option to refuse a drug testing and not be employed at that place. So if people don't like it, they should find companies that do not do drug carrying out tests.
Would you want your Doctor..wasted as he worked on you..or loved ones?
Related Questions:
How to workout my pecs minus machinery?
When the client ask the salesperson to hold out a suitable machinery, what are the principal information necessitate to know?
I want to start factory of bubble pen and gel pen and panicle also. Do you hold any machinery for it if yes plz.
Who sold Iran the centrifuges and other machinery that give them the potential to bring in nukes ?
When (if ever) is it okay to use all-thread bolts on machinery, and when should you use bolts next to head.?
Answers:
i can see from both sides.
FOR: it make sense that an employer would not want to hire someone who is an alcoholic, becasue if they get drunk off their *** one hours of darkness, and have to be at work at 8am the next year, how will they perform? if they even come to work?
AGAINST: why is it their business? they dont have to assume that merely because a person does drugs that they are not a hard worker or that they are unreliable.
i be about to try drugs for the first time, and the day beforehand i got a call from target motto that i was hired, and needed to take a drug testing. i had put in my application almost a month ago so i figure they didnt want me, so i said to hell with it and was gonna do it. but i didnt and i get hired. i dont think it should be mandatory, only if within is a suspicion of it, or if like you said, you are operating machinery or something.
Unless of course your drug addicted employee requirements to steal for his next high...............sorry, hiring druggies is too risky for most businesses. I do not agree.
if youre taking drugs then their drug-testing crap might not be a bull-shiit so make the acquaintance of to hellish 21 century ..dont cry...just cheat the drug tests and elapse then shut them up and let you be paid more money for your supporting your habit. good luck to you if youre operating fatty machiery or HOPEFULLY NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT a nuclear power plant withing 200 miles of my home damn it.
I'd like to see your sources on this one. So it would be okay for say a cop to be high-ranking, or a teacher, a bus driver, a taxi driver, the guy working a press, the entity on the high power electrical lines? There are thousands of jobs that could put a natural life in jeopardy if the person doing the job in on drugs.
Hey - generosity to the twenty-first century!
We are in the age of the new prohibition. You are EVIL if you lug drugs - don't you know that? EVIL!!
FP
absouletly not!!
do you know how many drug head i deal with beside daily- im an emt
it bull crap
everyone should be tested
do you want your childrens school teacher on drugs?
how around your doctor?
how about the guy behind you contained by traffic rush hour?
if it were enforced that all human resources be drug tested i believe usage would decrease and the world would be safer
you sound close to you may have a drug problem seeing how you dont want to get caught I don`t know...........
grow up
learn how to live in veracity without the drugs
I think we need a drug free america. We do drug screening on ALL unknown employees and if it comes back positive, we don't hire them plain and simple. I don't perfectionism what job you have in the company. Those that do drugs are less responsible, they show up late, ring up in sick, leave impulsive, steal for drugs. Give me a break. Let me guess, you got turned down for a job because you couldn't go past the drug test, did you forget to study?
I have to disagree with you. If you have a company, you probably would want your employees to be in adjectives their possible 5 senses. You would expect that they be ready to do their jobs, and giving you their 100% or more and not grant you a cruddy performance. There will be times that they might not put their best efforts, but hopefully it is because of valid reason. You probably would want to hire people that will take their undertaking seriously that don't go overboard in alcohol or overdose of forbidden drugs. To me, it's just a way to formulate sure the person you're hiring is of good and moral behaviour and will represent your company in an excellent way...hopefully. I hope my answer help you out. Take care!
if you think drug testing is useless for determining carrying out, why still have it for those operating heavy machinery? it won' t affect their narration either, right? duhhhhhhhhh!
whether you like(use) or dislike(quit use of) drugs, no one can pretend that medication, legal or forbidden, has no side effects. if the known/desired effects did not alter the user, he/she would not use them. Work is work, play is play. I feel that drug carrying out tests should be used to give the consumers/employers what they are paying for. According to your train of thought, drinking booze/beer on the job should be OK too, I don't reflect on so.
Disagree, but only adding that every stinking rotten politician, advocate, judge, and member of the medium be subjected to random alcohol and drug screens only like the rest of us, and upon detection, it should call for their on the spot resignation.
if a person is on drugs nine times out of ten, they're not going to stay employed long at all, so its a refuse of time hiring him
they're slackers and i don't want to have to do more then what im supposed to a moment ago because they stayed up night from their habit
if they do illegitimate drugs then their criminals to me
anyone under the influence of drugs are liable to do anything at any even time
some of them will shutting up stealing from eympoyees or the employer
I absolutely agree beside you! There has been no proven compelling motivation for across the board drug testing, no cost savings, no better productivity, nil. It is just a phallacy that the drug testing labs verbs to propagate across our society.
Not to mention that there is no test to find out in the region of current use of marijuana. The THC stays in your blood (fat cells I think) for up to a month so what are they trialling for? That you ran into a college buddy and managed to mark a joint and then smoked it a month ago? Come on!
On the other side of the coin, I've needed a work and went through drug testing 3 times. I own not used heavy drugs for tons, many years, but used to be a regular pot smoker and I managed to go beyond all 3 of them. Also, I know that the residue from drugs such as cocaine, heroin and meth only stay within your system a few days, so if you fail because you are snorting on the way to your tryout, the the test has worked, because it proves you are stupid!
And finally, I hold always been an outstanding hand that rarely, if ever, calls contained by sick, works twice as hard as others and I am professional in every agency I represent my employer. Kinda blows the theory that drug users cost the company money, doesn't it?
i agree
you mean for a duty??
if the people you work for dont want you to be a druggie...they have every right to theory test you DUH
Drug testing screen for illegal drugs, I can take a soma, lortab and a xanax and elapse a drug test because I have a prescription. I would deliberate that someone who smoked a joing a month ago would be more clearheaded than someone on prescription meds.
I'm not hiring you to do anything. I don't want legal liability if you do something untoward.
Sorry. Get clean.
No, it's not an indication of performance but it is of liability. As a business owner, I see employees who use drugs enjoy more frequent absences, illnesses and tardiness. Also, those who may come to work below the influence are a safety risk to other employees and a detriment to productivity.
I hold fired more than a few people who were not tested beforehand applying for work, but were subject to tests because of their on the brief behavior and performance. If these people be not hired in the first place, it would have save the company a lot of money in administrative and productivity expense.
No I don't agree and the intention they test is because they don't want their employees using crooked substances whether it affects their performance or not. That could really give their business a desperate reputation.
Which statistics are you referring to?
The statistics actually show that body who abuse drugs are costing the employers twice as much on medical and workman comp claims as drug-free workers. Not to mention time loss due to "no show" at work! Source(s): NIDA Info Facts, National clearing house for drug and alcohol information, adjectives sense.
there is also a moral standard here.
doing drugs is across the world considered immoral, and is definitely considered evil. companies dont want to hire people who they feel are corrupt, and have no problem breaking the law. if you're not afraid to dishonestly obtain and use drugs, why would you be afraid of stealing from them?
note, i dont AGREE next to or condone this mindset, but it's simply the truth.
also, because of the stereotypes that have been created chiefly due to hard-drug addicts, ie: crackheads, speed freaks, h-fiends, anyone who uses drugs to any degree is usually typed as a "druggie," characterization you're unreliable, and only want a job so you can earn a check to attain you your next fix.
basically, drugs enjoy a negative stigma, and employers dont want that giving of person.
I agree mostly. The purpose of drug carrying out tests other than pre employment, is so that when someone gets hurt on the opening and comes up dirty the company is not liable and can fire the person. Maybe they should test individuals for being tired or perhaps overworked and stressed too that road they could get out of even more Workman's comp cases. I think you should be tested near a Breathalyzer to see if you are drunk but not drug tested. That is bullshit. If you are drunk on the job you should loose your job, and you really shouldn't be getting big at work. But there is no test to see when you get high only that you have gotten high at some point within the ending month or so. It is also a means to divide and conquer the populace. But lets not procure into that.
I agree. The only caveat is that companies are expected to pay for robustness benefits and the use of drugs (as well as alcohol, prescription drugs and smoking) effect your overall health. This give a company a personal interest in your health which is what they can use to defend testing. If a company isn't paying your health benefits, next they should judge you completely by the quality of the opportunity you do. If your a pothead and a better worker than someone who isn't a pothead, why should drug use matter?
There's this concept called INTEGRITY, which process a heck of a lot more to a prospective employer than your ability to operate a vehicle or sweet machinery. If you can't be trusted to obey the laws of the topography concerning drugs -- laws that were made near YOUR safety as well as the safekeeping of others around you in mind -- can you really be trusted to do a good chore?
I do not agree. Any time someone is making decisions that affect a company, its employees or its clients, it is essential that they own a clear head. Therefore, drug testing is all right to protect the company and its assets.
A person always have the option to refuse a drug testing and not be employed at that place. So if people don't like it, they should find companies that do not do drug carrying out tests.
Would you want your Doctor..wasted as he worked on you..or loved ones?
Related Questions: