T1B

About our company drug policy, which is going into effect as of July 1.

As a "supervisor," I had to sign in, pick up a handout, and give away 1 1/2 hours of my life, when I could have been actually working.

This would-be comedian/born-again asshat tried to be talented, I'll give him that much. He spent the better part of an hour trying to get the whole room to laugh, amid complete silence, for the most part. RACK my co-workers.

At any rate, here's what I learned, according to this moron:

1. Marijuana fully impairs you for at least 48 hours after smoking it, and is physically addictive.

2. Casual drinkers are more "dangerous" than regular drinkers.

3. "Oklahoma ditch weed" has the highest concentration of THC than of any marijuana that is available.

4. 3.2 beer, is really no different than "6-point" beer, in Oklahoma. (that was my personal favorite) As in, 1 beer=1 shot =1 glass of wine. "I know what you are thinking," he said, "Oklahooooma beer isn't the same as 6-point beer!" in this sort of, preacher-like voice, "The difference is, with 6 beers, only one beer."

5. I need to be a complete and utter Narc, when it comes to the folks under me. I need to be sure and REPORT any suspicious activity. My folks aren't not looking well? DOCUMENT IT. Late to work? DOCUMENT IT.

6. See, it's all about the "Safety" of everyone else.

Don't know if any of you all have had to go through anything like this, but I'm really, really glad my company is looking out for me. Not to mention the company's insurance costs, when it comes to liability.


Jesus fucking Christ, B-Smack may be right.

Rack this insurance company, late on a few payments:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... rss&feed=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No different from the "national drug policy" -- it's OK to tell outright lie after outright lie.


Too bad you like your job... otherwise you could have asked him for some data to back up his lies.

RadioFan wrote:Jesus fucking Christ, B-Smack may be right.

About the perils of the corporate state? Or just the drug war?

I don't even smoke weed anymore, but I still thank God and god every day that my company doesn't give a fuck when I do on my off time.

BSmack wrote:I don't even smoke weed anymore, but I still thank God and god every day that my company doesn't give a fuck when I do on my off time.

So do you or don't you? :?

Goober McTuber wrote:

BSmack wrote:I don't even smoke weed anymore, but I still thank God and god every day that my company doesn't give a fuck when I do on my off time.

So do you or don't you? :?

I don't. But I still don't want my boss sniffing around my private life.

I guess I am the only one who is all for this.

Working nights for a couple of years, guys would come in under the influence all the time. Especially on Sunday nights. They'd spend all day toking and drinking and then come into work all fucked up.

It made for a long night for the ones who were sober. Prodcution and inebriation don't mix.

My stepdad is an Operations Supervisor of a chemical plant and you just don't have room for error when you are dealing with H2S. The company was performing random drug testing for years, but for some unexplained reason it stopped a couple of years ago. There was an accident that involved a guy turning a valve the wrong way and realeasing a little H2S into the atmosphere. Foortunately, nobody was hurt.

My stepdad was surprised when he heard about the incident and started to monitor everyone's behavior and he noticed over a couple weeks time that the guy who realeased the H2S was acting very strange, so he requested from management that the guy be drug tested. My stepdad's suspicion was dead on. The guy was snorting the coca.

Random drug testing has been implemented back into the plant they have busted 4 guys. Dumbfucks.

RumpleForeskin wrote:I guess I am the only one who is all for this.

Working nights for a couple of years, guys would come in under the influence all the time. Especially on Sunday nights. They'd spend all day toking and drinking and then come into work all fucked up.

It made for a long night for the ones who were sober. Prodcution and inebriation don't mix.

Then fire the guys for not doing their jobs. Problem solved.

I'm all for not showing up to work drunk or high. But prohibition is failing to prohibit. Sure it's lining pockets for some folks but I think decriminalizing marijuana could line the pockets of a whole lot more folks. Drinking, is bad for some people. It's bad for me, so I don't do it anymore. That doesn't mean there aren't people who cannot have a few beers or tie one on and carry on with a responsible life. Same goes for weed. For all the "it's bad for you" crap. What the fuck isn't "bad" for people in some way. Some people can handle it, some people can't. I fall into the latter category unfortunately and if they legalized it tomorrow I wouldn't be able to enjoy getting high, so i consider myself somewhat unbiased in this.

BSmack wrote:Then fire the guys for not doing their jobs. Problem solved.

So your idea of fixing the problem is high turnover and an increase cost in time and training. Yeah, lets hand you the keys to a company and watch the expenses always outperform the revenue.

Idiot.

Nowadays if you want to fire someone and not wind up paying for it, you better do a lot of documentation. Warnings, have the employee sign off that they have been warned, etc. Much easier to implement a drug policy. Pretty cut and dried, no muss, no fuss.

RumpleForeskin wrote:

BSmack wrote:Then fire the guys for not doing their jobs. Problem solved.

So your idea of fixing the problem is high turnover and an increase cost in time and training. Yeah, lets hand you the keys to a company and watch the expenses always outperform the revenue.

Idiot.

You make an example out of a few for the benefit of the many. The rest will fall in line once they realize that there are consequences to not doing ones job. What about that don't you understand?

The rest will fall in line once they realize that there are consequences to not doing ones job

No, they won't. They'll quit or get fired.

That won't solve shit by making an example of a few people. The bottom line is if there is no ppolicy in place, then people will always think, "Just this one time...I won't get caught." With no rule, people always look to push the envelope.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

The rest will fall in line once they realize that there are consequences to not doing ones job

No, they won't. They'll quit or get fired.

Then maybe the problem is that the company has not made their positions attractive for fine upstanding citizens. Reminds me of the "drug policy" we instituted at a scap metal yard I managed. It was a simple policy; we stopped handing out paychecks before lunch on Fridays. It cut absenteeism on Friday afternoons to about 0%.

Goober McTuber wrote:Nowadays if you want to fire someone and not wind up paying for it, you better do a lot of documentation. Warnings, have the employee sign off that they have been warned, etc. Much easier to implement a drug policy. Pretty cut and dried, no muss, no fuss.

People show up late or don't show up consistently due to alcohol as well. Corporate policies might require the bureaucratic method of removing someone but small businesses pretty much can say - pack your bags and get out.


Oh and in my corporate "handbook" if you show up to work drunk or high - you're out, no questions asked. You signed a piece of paper acknowledging this before you started.

Tom In VA wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Nowadays if you want to fire someone and not wind up paying for it, you better do a lot of documentation. Warnings, have the employee sign off that they have been warned, etc. Much easier to implement a drug policy. Pretty cut and dried, no muss, no fuss.

People show up late or don't show up consistently due to alcohol as well. Corporate policies might require the bureaucratic method of removing someone but small businesses pretty much can say - pack your bags and get out.

Maybe where you live, but around here if you haven’t documented that the person was warned, that they understood the possible consequences, that person will collect unemployment. Small company or not. Employers pay into the UC fund based on how much their former workers dip into it. If you have solid documentation on why the individual was dismissed, no UC.

Goober McTuber wrote:Maybe where you live, but around here if you haven’t documented that the person was warned, that they understood the possible consequences, that person will collect unemployment. Small company or not. Employers pay into the UC fund based on how much their former workers dip into it. If you have solid documentation on why the individual was dismissed, no UC.

So you write them up. And you make it known that you will challenge all unemployment claims filled by those terminated for cause. Going back to the scrap yard again, we terminated people all the time and never had to pay unemployment for someone fired "for cause". Think for a second, if someone is stupid enough to be visibly impaired on the job, then they more than likely don't possess the ability to offer a successful defense to a denial of unemployment.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Nowadays if you want to fire someone and not wind up paying for it, you better do a lot of documentation. Warnings, have the employee sign off that they have been warned, etc. Much easier to implement a drug policy. Pretty cut and dried, no muss, no fuss.

People show up late or don't show up consistently due to alcohol as well. Corporate policies might require the bureaucratic method of removing someone but small businesses pretty much can say - pack your bags and get out.

Maybe where you live, but around here if you haven’t documented that the person was warned, that they understood the possible consequences, that person will collect unemployment. Small company or not. Employers pay into the UC fund based on how much their former workers dip into it. If you have solid documentation on why the individual was dismissed, no UC.

Virginia is a "Right to work" state or something so you're probably right about there being differences. I think VA companies can tell you to take a flying leap with or without cause.

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Maybe where you live, but around here if you haven’t documented that the person was warned, that they understood the possible consequences, that person will collect unemployment. Small company or not. Employers pay into the UC fund based on how much their former workers dip into it. If you have solid documentation on why the individual was dismissed, no UC.

So you write them up. And you make it known that you will challenge all unemployment claims filled by those terminated for cause. Going back to the scrap yard again, we terminated people all the time and never had to pay unemployment for someone fired "for cause". Think for a second, if someone is stupid enough to be visibly impaired on the job, then they more than likely don't possess the ability to offer a successful defense to a denial of unemployment.

Like I said, a zero-tolerance drug policy cuts down on the paperwork, and essentially eliminates any viable defense.

Goober McTuber wrote:Like I said, a zero-tolerance drug policy cuts down on the paperwork, and essentially eliminates any viable defense.

And it also creates a whole new layer of bureaucracy and process that serves to diminish overall productivity. Did you see what RF now has to do?

Radio Fan wrote:5. I need to be a complete and utter Narc, when it comes to the folks under me. I need to be sure and REPORT any suspicious activity. My folks aren't not looking well? DOCUMENT IT. Late to work? DOCUMENT IT.

Near as I can tell, he's doing the same thing I would have done in the scrap yard with the difference being that the company will now spring for a drug test before pulling the trigger. For the one or two workers actually able to make an unemployment claim stick after being fired for cause, it just isn't worth it.

No documentation needed in the State of Texas. They can fire you if they think you have a large cucumber stuffed down your pants.

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Like I said, a zero-tolerance drug policy cuts down on the paperwork, and essentially eliminates any viable defense.

And it also creates a whole new layer of bureaucracy and process that serves to diminish overall productivity. Did you see what RF now has to do?

Radio Fan wrote:5. I need to be a complete and utter Narc, when it comes to the folks under me. I need to be sure and REPORT any suspicious activity. My folks aren't not looking well? DOCUMENT IT. Late to work? DOCUMENT IT.

Near as I can tell, he's doing the same thing I would have done in the scrap yard with the difference being that the company will now spring for a drug test before pulling the trigger. For the one or two workers actually able to make an unemployment claim stick after being fired for cause, it just isn't worth it.

It kind of depends on the nature of your business. In an office, some tweaker/toker may not present any real danger. In a chemical plant, the potential liability could far outweigh the costs and additional bureaucracy.

What if some hophead working the crane at the scrapyard had dropped a 1976 Buick Electra 225 on your head? Hey, a fellow can dream, you know.

It sounds like a lot of counter-productive horseshit to me, imposed blindly by the insurance company, with their concerns surmounting the concerns of the client.

Goober McTuber wrote:It kind of depends on the nature of your business. In an office, some tweaker/toker may not present any real danger. In a chemical plant, the potential liability could far outweigh the costs and additional bureaucracy.

What if some hophead working the crane at the scrapyard had dropped a 1976 Buick Electra 225 on your head? Hey, a fellow can dream, you know.

For starters, we were an industrial scrapyard. The appropriate instrument of my demise would have been a 10 ton cast iron water tank. Besides, we had a place for the tweekers and hopheads, it was called the sorting tables. Only a few guys were even allowed out in the yard, much less in the cranes.

But I can agree with you to a point when it comes to cost/benefit. There certainly are some jobs one should not ever do while high. I just think modern American business has defined the scope of those jobs far too widely and that the level of corporate corporate interference in the personal lives of employees is far too great.

BSmack wrote:The appropriate instrument of my demise would have been a 10 ton water pipe.

FTFY

RadioFan wrote:This would-be comedian/born-again asshat ... etc, etc, etc...

5. I need to be a complete and utter Narc, when it comes to the folks under me. I need to be sure and REPORT any suspicious activity. ..

Start off by reporting the would-be comedian/born again asshat. He's very clearly a closet-stoner. (not to mention a cock-sucking faggot)

For instance, one of your employees might have been solicited by him on where to score some of that hi-powered ditchweed. Obviously that employee would be afraid to go on record making such an accusation, so it's only natural that he'd want to report it anonymously. And if that happened, you're totally obligated to pass that report along. Right?

You'll thank me later

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:The appropriate instrument of my demise would have been a 10 ton water pipe.

FTFY

Tell them a hookah-smoking caterpiller has given you the call.

BSmack wrote:But I still don't want my boss sniffing around my private life.

It's not your boss you need to worry about.

Sin,

Damn Terry, here you go, you might need these out there.

The Navy turned a blind eye to drugs for decades, right up until the point that a couple of gunners mates splattered themselves and two other guys all over the mediterannean by loading a 5" gun incorrectly. They ran tests on some of the remaining body scraps and found out that they were all stoners. Pretty soon they were testing everybody all the time.

My workspace was fairly drug free, 'cept for a couple of tweakers. For the most part the rest of us didn't mind, as two or three guys would do all of the painting and cleanup for the day while the rest of us hung out, smoked and played cards. Oh yeah, and all of them eventually got busted and kicked out with an OTH discharge. Good times...

RumpleForeskin wrote:I guess I am the only one who is all for this.

Well, you are pretty dumb.

Prodcution and inebriation don't mix.

The first step to making that extra leap from "dumb" to "really dumb" is the same since the dawn of time...

Step one -- comment on things in which you've refused to educate yourself.

Since if you had, you'd know that for each American worker they "bust," it costs... oh, more than the median annual family income.


What was that about "productivity" again? Isn't "productivity" about cost vs. result?


Guess what... you lose.

Random drug testing has been implemented back into the plant they have busted 4 guys. Dumbfucks.

And what was the average safety rating of those 4 guys?

Hard to say, of course, and 4 is a small sample size.

But here's the catch, you easily-brainwashed fool -- if they were anything like National Average John q. Employee... their incidence of workplace accidents WAS THE EXACT SAME AS THEIR "SOBER" COUNTERPARTS.

Sorry, but the National Academy of Sciences has removed some of their study results (from 1994), and I'm too lazy to find the links to various other studies on the same subject, but since you're in such dire need of education, you should probably go ahead and find some links yourself.


Every study done on the subject ends up the same. The lie of drug testing was blown out of the water 15 years ago, yet te soft-brained still drink from the Trough of Stupid. The numbers behind the psuedo-science (aka "junk science") have never shown an increase in overall workplace safety and drug use in the workplace. Just because you think that logic dictates such a link, it doesn't make it so when it's dumbass logic.

Same goes for productivity -- an outright lie. The main results of studying the matter seem to indicate that the small æffect drug testing has on productivity is NEGATIVE. And why wouldn't it be? Workers are less likely to go beyond the minimum requirements for an employer who makes it clear they don't trust their employees and have the gall to try and monitor their away-from-work life.

This is FACT.


But go ahead and hook me up with any study NOT performed by an insurance/drug testing company that refutes this... go right ahead. Happy hunting, and hope you got Snickers.


Way to be a stooge for Big Brother, you dullible, holier-than-thou douche.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

BSmack wrote:But I still don't want my boss sniffing around my private life.

It's not your boss you need to worry about.

Sin,

Dude, Gonzales hasn't been the AG for about 9 months now.

Update your picture :P :


Michael Mukasey

Rack Fu wrote:Dude, Gonzales hasn't been the AG for about 9 months now.

Update your picture :P :


Michael "Is waterboarding REALLY torture?" Mukasey

FTFY

The FACT that insurance companies WILL fuck you up the ass if you do not have THEIR drug testing policy in place (depending on the type of business naturally).

FTFY

They don't simply ask if you have a good working policy - lately they want the policy to come from them, setting aside whether or not their policies and programs are more effective.

Dinsdale wrote:Way to be a stooge for Big Brother

Are you telling me that there is absolutely NO study out there about a decrease in work related accidents over the pass 60 years? You're just talking out of your ass now.

I took a Safety, Health, and Environmental class for Process Technology and in the book it stated that work related accidents had decreased significantly since OSHA's involvement. Drug testing is imperative in the petro-chemical industry considering what these guys are working with and the danger that is involved should a toxic gas be released into the atmosphere.

Okay, so maybe production isn't aeffected by this by a lost but the danger is still there. I'm not saying this is needed in every industry, but it is needed in some industries where heavy equipment or dangerous gasses are being handled.

RumpleForeskin wrote:You're just talking out of your ass now.

Holy fuck, dumbass.


So, OSHA enforcing stricter rules on safety equipment and procedures and a subsequent drop in workplace accidents is the smoking gun you need to prove that drug testing decreases accidents and start slinging "talking out your ass" about?

Really? That drug testing policy that ran rampant 60 years ago (before the advent of the Breathalizer even) is responsible for the reduced rate of workplace accidents today?


Some sincere advice...

Shut up.

Take a deep breath or two.

THINK.

If that thinking leads you to believe you now have an intelligent take, repeat the previous step as many times as neccessary.


Jeebus, get a grip dude.

No, what you implied was that 'Big Brother' is only for stooges like myself. OSHA prevents accidents like with Phillips in '89. OSHA is probably the governing body that forced the insurance companies hands in dealing with the petro-chemical industries drug testing policies. Its part of safety.

Safety of a work environment is the most important thing. If we still left it up to the business owners to do what they want, then more people would be dead because of it.

Fucking common sense you douche.

RumpleForeskin wrote:Okay, so maybe production isn't aeffected by this

ok...someone stole a password. It was a good one...until you see what's asked of you in a marital sense.

RumpleForeskin wrote:Safety of a work environment is the most important thing. If we still left it up to the business owners to do what they want, then more people would be dead because of it.

Fucking common sense you douche.

Here's another dose of common sense...

If a bunch of people end up dead because of negligent safety conditions in the workplace, that company will be subject to debilitating civil settlements, and will either impliment safety procedures or go bankrupt.

Common sense, douche.

But go ahead and continue on your blind quest to be Big Brother's lackey... the more government the better, right?


Fuggin liberals.