RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP!

RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thishereboi -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (5/27/2013 8:49:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Obviously the public safety condition already mentioned applies in public health jobs. Since no one goes to jail for tobacco, the courts have upheld the testing of employees for smoking. quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Interesting how many people seem to think that in America, you are required to take random drug tests as a condition of employment. Unless you work in one of the TDP's spelled out by the Supreme Court, there is no such requirement after the application stage of the hiring process. Interesting that so many hospitals drug test not only for illegal drugs but for nicotine. Now I suppose you could tell them to go screw themselves when they ask for the sample, but I doubt you will get the job. I'm talking about a job working at home for a hospital. Not really a public health job or a threat to public safety. Everything is done on the computer. And no people don't go to jail for it because smoking is legal, so why uphold testing people.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (5/27/2013 10:12:50 PM)
Note that I'm not saying that there are never any cases where an employer can test for drugs, just that they need a reason that complies with Skinner and other Supreme Court rulings.. If the employer is going to search your person for evidence of a crime with any chance of turning it over to the police, they are what the Court called 'government actors', and they generally need the same things the cops need to conduct such a search. Consent obtained by threatening to fire you isn't that popular in court either. If you aren't dealing with patients or medicine or transportation or firearms, I just don't see where they get their authority. On the other hand, with no jeopardy from criminal charges, the 4th, 5th etc. don't apply, and the employer can randomly check you for compliance with all sorts of rules.

erieangel -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (5/28/2013 12:05:03 AM)
When I started my job, I had to pass a PA criminal background check, a PA child abuse background check and an FBI fingerprint analysis. There was no drug testing involved, not even a hair follicle test for marijuana use. I was recently looking at the possibility of changing jobs because the agency is closing the Lodge [:(] and I wasn't certain I was still going to have a job there. I thought about applying at the hospital that has the medicaid behavioral health inpatient contract. That hospital doesn't hire smokers and I'm a smoker who has no intention of quitting in the near future. So, even though the hospital happens to hiring behavioral health technicians right now, I didn't apply. They do blood tests to ensure employees aren't smoking even on their own time. And tobacco use can get a person fired from the job. I'm not dealing with an employer that is going to dictate my lawful after work activities. Sadly, more and more employers across the country are doing just that when it comes to tobacco use.

tazzygirl -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (5/28/2013 4:09:54 AM)
You can thank all those employment based health insurance policies for that.

Moonhead -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (5/28/2013 2:17:44 PM)
Quite. They wouldn't want to end up having to pay out to treat somebody for lung cancer or heart disease if they can make that less likely by hiring a non smoker, would they?

papassion -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (5/28/2013 2:24:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It's the classic case of cognitive dissonance brought about by hypocrisy. It's WRONG to run a background check on someone when they buy a gun. It's RIGHT to drug test someone when they get benefits to feed their kids. Ah, Unless you have a reading comprehension problem, The constitution CLEARLY says I have the Right to own a gun (that cannot be abridged) If its my constitutional right, why do I need a backround check? All you have to know is that I am an American Citizen! A citizen should have the same right to refuse a backround check as a druggie (receiving tax money) has to refuse a drug test! There is NO Constitutional right to receive free food. If some one prefers to use drugs and can't function as a useful member of society and can't feed his kids, lets not ENABLE the druggie. Feed the kid. Send the self absorbed druggie to drug prevention programs. You don't go to the drug programs, your welfare stops! How can any fair minded person fault this?

mnottertail -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (5/28/2013 2:29:16 PM)
If its my constitutional right, why do I need a backround check (and the constitution does not say that you have the right to own guns, but the people to keep and bear them) To insure that you are a 'We, the People' in good standing, and afforded all the constitutional rights that are afforded to those 'We, the People'.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (5/28/2013 2:31:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: papassion [ Ah, Unless you have a reading comprehension problem, The constitution CLEARLY says I have the Right to own a gun (that cannot be abridged) If its my constitutional right, why do I need a backround check? Do you agree then that felons, other criminals and druggies should be allowed to own guns? That seems to be what you're implying.

tazzygirl -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (5/28/2013 2:54:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Quite. They wouldn't want to end up having to pay out to treat somebody for lung cancer or heart disease if they can make that less likely by hiring a non smoker, would they? Of course not. Not like any other habit has killed many. Not like other habits dont have innocent victims. However, unlike other habits, you can quit and still test positive for nicotine in the blood a month later.

papassion -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (5/29/2013 10:14:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: papassion [ Ah, Unless you have a reading comprehension problem, The constitution CLEARLY says I have the Right to own a gun (that cannot be abridged) If its my constitutional right, why do I need a backround check? Do you agree then that felons, other criminals and druggies should be allowed to own guns? That seems to be what you're implying. I'm saying that the courts have determined that you lose some rights when you break the law. You don't break the law, you have all your rights.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (5/29/2013 10:25:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: papassion quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: papassion [ Ah, Unless you have a reading comprehension problem, The constitution CLEARLY says I have the Right to own a gun (that cannot be abridged) If its my constitutional right, why do I need a backround check? Do you agree then that felons, other criminals and druggies should be allowed to own guns? That seems to be what you're implying. I'm saying that the courts have determined that you lose some rights when you break the law. You don't break the law, you have all your rights. So, yesterday, it was "The constitution CLEARLY says I have the Right to own a gun (that cannot be abridged) " Today, it's "I'm saying that the courts have determined that you lose some rights when you break the law" Make up your mind, willya? Either the 2nd amendment can be abridged or it cannot by ANYTHING. Stop spouting the pablum you get fed and think for yourself.

kalikshama -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (5/29/2013 5:03:43 PM)
quote: They drug test you when you go to get a job In the past 30 years, I've had a wide variety of employment, and the only employer who drug tested me was the USAF, for whom I was a Munitions Systems Specialist.

tazzygirl -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (5/29/2013 5:52:14 PM)
I was drug tested for a cashier position at GFS,

Powergamz1 -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (5/29/2013 6:30:07 PM)
Note that the courts are a lot more tolerant of things like drug testing and polygraphs during the application process, than after you are an employee.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (6/1/2013 10:55:04 PM)
So back to the notion of mandatory drug testing, what precise definition of 'government benefits' would people use? As mentioned, food stamps for families? Tax refunds? Lottery tickets? Workman's comp? Government retirement checks?

JeffBC -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (6/2/2013 11:44:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 So back to the notion of mandatory drug testing, what precise definition of 'government benefits' would people use? As mentioned, food stamps for families? Tax refunds? Lottery tickets? Workman's comp? Government retirement checks? I don't really get the point. Underlying it all is a false premise which is then compounded by ridiculous logic. Yup... it's all those durned hippies with their mouths at the public feeding trough that are ruining our economy. It's just odd that all the actual benefits of their actions goes to bankers and politicians. So I have no clue why I'd want to drug test someone before I employed the social safety net. My goal is to actually provide some safety and whether or not they are a "durned hippy" doesn't really change that. Unless I get more willing to let them die on the streets saying "no assistance for you" just really isn't an option.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (6/2/2013 11:51:42 AM)
Because it is a false premise that has been proposed as law, without bothering to clarify how exactly it would work. In the extreme it would appear to be unconstitutional, but that hasn't stopped legislatures in the past. quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 So back to the notion of mandatory drug testing, what precise definition of 'government benefits' would people use? As mentioned, food stamps for families? Tax refunds? Lottery tickets? Workman's comp? Government retirement checks? I don't really get the point. Underlying it all is a false premise which is then compounded by ridiculous logic. Yup... it's all those durned hippies with their mouths at the public feeding trough that are ruining our economy. It's just odd that all the actual benefits of their actions goes to bankers and politicians. So I have no clue why I'd want to drug test someone before I employed the social safety net. My goal is to actually provide some safety and whether or not they are a "durned hippy" doesn't really change that. Unless I get more willing to let them die on the streets saying "no assistance for you" just really isn't an option.

Moonhead -> RE: Drug Tests GOOD. Background Tests BAD - STUPID GOP! (6/2/2013 12:06:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I was drug tested for a cashier position at GFS, If they started doing drug tests for cashier jobs over here, they'd never get staff for the fast food places.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125