It is currently Wed Nov 27, 2024 10:43 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
t.

had done nothing wrong. was not pre-employment, but it was pre-warranty authorized blah blah. i feel like a fucking retard. even $10/hr jobs almost all require you to prove innocence before youre allowed to do something you dont even want to do but are forced to. holy fuck this system is so fucked up. why are people so fucking stupid? wait, i forgot. this is how the drug system works in the corporate world.

(THEY) = your boss/management/corporate

- they do not give a flying fuck if youre on drugs.

- they only care how well you are performing, and how much money they are making.

- there is a massive amount of money made in employment drug testing. for example, when you administer a test you are paying the company who made the test, and the clinic that does it. also, your insurance companies can give you 'discounts' if you drug test your employees because in court the judge will always rule in favor of the person who isnt high, despite the actual reason for the cause. so right there, everyone wins except you. your boss saves money, the insurance companies dont lose as many claims against them so they make more money, the clinic who gave you your test probably pays all of its bills just from the employment tests alone, and of course the company who makes the drug test kits are raking it in too. just like that, everyone wins except you.

everyone wins because YOU are guilty until proven innocent. and the best part is, these tests work extremely well for marijuana testing- and not very well for anything else. when everything else is actually toxic, their traces dissipate within 48 hours. basically, a couple excuses is all you need to pass any piss test unless you smoke weed. since you cannot realistically make up a reason why you need to wait a month until your tested, the most harmless drug you can find is by far the easiest to detect.

you might think because of the way i am on these boards that i failed the test. this is not the case. why am i still upset even though i passed without issue? because i felt like a god damn slave. i dont have a choice but to work, nobody does. its either work, or chose to be a piece of shit. since i work, now i must have MY urine sampled randomly? why does my employer need to know what i do during the off hours when he is perfectly happy with what i do during his time? i know it sounds extreme for a white guy to call himself enslaved, but my god the line is getting thinner and thinner.... fuck this modern world shit. fuck capitalism really... left unchecked its always grows into fascism.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:28 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79584
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Fuck the Man, Ike! The next time they ask for your urine, walk into the boss' office and piss all over his desk. I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
thats a pretty good idea. even better if they ask for a blood sample. just slit your throat right in front of your boss...

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
IkeSouth wrote:
thats a pretty good idea. even better if they ask for a blood sample. just slit your throat right in front of your boss...



Good idea, try that and get back to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
SomeGuy wrote:
IkeSouth wrote:
thats a pretty good idea. even better if they ask for a blood sample. just slit your throat right in front of your boss...



Good idea, try that and get back to me.


ill slit your ass with my penis you fahg

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
IkeSouth wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
IkeSouth wrote:
thats a pretty good idea. even better if they ask for a blood sample. just slit your throat right in front of your boss...



Good idea, try that and get back to me.


ill slit your ass with my penis you fahg


You're going to forcibly put your penis in my ass? And you're calling me the dong huffer?

Looks like you should lay off the angel dust, Ike, and take a long look in the mirror.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
SomeGuy wrote:

You're going to forcibly put your penis in my ass? And you're calling me the dong huffer?

Looks like you should lay off the angel dust, Ike, and take a long look in the mirror.


did you have to do research to reach that winded conclusion?

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
IkeSouth wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:

You're going to forcibly put your penis in my ass? And you're calling me the dong huffer?

Looks like you should lay off the angel dust, Ike, and take a long look in the mirror.


did you have to do research to reach that winded conclusion?


PUFF PUFF GIVE, IKE.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:28 am
Posts: 11792
Location: Winnetka, Illinois
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Nothing wrong with drug testing. If you haven't done anything you shouldn't, you have nothing to worry about. Employers want to know that they have employees worthy of the investment they make in them and that they are not likely to have accidents caused by the fact they are under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Ballplayers get drug tested all the time.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19925
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
Listen to Steve, Ike, he has words of wisdom for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
Nothing wrong with drug testing. If you haven't done anything you shouldn't, you have nothing to worry about. Employers want to know that they have employees worthy of the investment they make in them and that they are not likely to have accidents caused by the fact they are under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Ballplayers get drug tested all the time.


well you couldnt be more blind... yikes...

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79584
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
Nothing wrong with drug testing. If you haven't done anything you shouldn't, you have nothing to worry about. Employers want to know that they have employees worthy of the investment they make in them and that they are not likely to have accidents caused by the fact they are under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Ballplayers get drug tested all the time.


Ike's employer doesn't own him. All he needs to worry about is his performance on the job. Ballplayers aren't workers. They're entertainers. Someone should drug test Phil Mickelson.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:23 pm
Posts: 16779
pizza_Place: Little Caesar's
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
Nothing wrong with drug testing. If you haven't done anything you shouldn't, you have nothing to worry about. Employers want to know that they have employees worthy of the investment they make in them and that they are not likely to have accidents caused by the fact they are under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Ballplayers get drug tested all the time.


Ike's employer doesn't own him. All he needs to worry about is his performance on the job. Ballplayers aren't workers. They're entertainers. Someone should drug test Phil Mickelson.


:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
I lack the interest or waking ability to even pretend to make a proper reply, but suffice to say I'm not a fan of the whole thing because I fail to see what responsibility one owes to an employer when your time is not purchased by them, period, paragraph.

The garnish to that is the complete lack of reciprocity.

Now, get off my lawn.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 19045
pizza_Place: World Famous Pizza
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
Nothing wrong with drug testing. If you haven't done anything you shouldn't, you have nothing to worry about. Employers want to know that they have employees worthy of the investment they make in them and that they are not likely to have accidents caused by the fact they are under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Ballplayers get drug tested all the time.


In that case do you mind if I or the police come over to your house later and investigate whether or not you have any contraband in your house? After all, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:28 am
Posts: 11792
Location: Winnetka, Illinois
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
SpiralStairs wrote:
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
Nothing wrong with drug testing. If you haven't done anything you shouldn't, you have nothing to worry about. Employers want to know that they have employees worthy of the investment they make in them and that they are not likely to have accidents caused by the fact they are under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Ballplayers get drug tested all the time.


In that case do you mind if I or the police come over to your house later and investigate whether or not you have any contraband in your house? After all, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.


If the police had any reason to believe that there were drugs in my home and asked for my consent to search, I would grant them permission. You....not so much. You have no authority and there would be no reason for me to grant you permission. The only contraband I have ever had in my home was Cuban cigars (Cohiba) that were smoked long ago. They were outstanding though....The point is really that the employer wants to be assured that for safety reasons, he doesn't have people with drug/alcohol problems posing a safety risk while in his employ. Who wants disability claims due to some stoned asshole getting hurt?

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 19045
pizza_Place: World Famous Pizza
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
If the police had any reason to believe that there were drugs in my home and asked for my consent to search, I would grant them permission. You....not so much. You have no authority and there would be no reason for me to grant you permission. The only contraband I have ever had in my home was Cuban cigars (Cohiba) that were smoked long ago. They were outstanding though....The point is really that the employer wants to be assured that for safety reasons, he doesn't have people with drug/alcohol problems posing a safety risk while in his employ. Who wants disability claims due to some stoned asshole getting hurt?


If we want to be sure that people aren't up to no good (ie. growing/smoking weed, downloading music/movies illegally, housing illegal immigrants, running a brothel, tearing mattress tags off, etc.) in their homes or apartments why not make random police searches mandatory for anyone who wants to own a home or rent an apartment?

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:28 am
Posts: 11792
Location: Winnetka, Illinois
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
SpiralStairs wrote:
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
If the police had any reason to believe that there were drugs in my home and asked for my consent to search, I would grant them permission. You....not so much. You have no authority and there would be no reason for me to grant you permission. The only contraband I have ever had in my home was Cuban cigars (Cohiba) that were smoked long ago. They were outstanding though....The point is really that the employer wants to be assured that for safety reasons, he doesn't have people with drug/alcohol problems posing a safety risk while in his employ. Who wants disability claims due to some stoned asshole getting hurt?


If we want to be sure that people aren't up to no good (ie. growing/smoking weed, downloading music/movies illegally, housing illegal immigrants, running a brothel, tearing mattress tags off, etc.) in their homes or apartments why not make random police searches mandatory for anyone who wants to own a home or rent an apartment?


Employers don't test employees just to see if they are up to no good. You want to be sure nobody is coming to work under the influence of drugs/alcohol and presenting a danger to themselves or others. As stated earlier, no employer wants a disability claim made because some druggie gets hurt (or gets someone else hurt) due to the fact they are under the influence of drugs. It's about safety.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:39 am
Posts: 13303
pizza_Place: Lanny Poffo's Sausage and More
We will once again watch the narrow-minded, who are as big a problem as those they look down upon, step in piles.

_________________
Telegram Sam wrote:
I would cover for SHARK, Drop In, Dave in Champaign, my Mom, and Urlacher's Missing Neck. After that, the list gets pretty thin. There are a few people about whom I would definitely fabricate charges.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:33 pm
Posts: 16484
Location: Chicago, Illinois
pizza_Place: Salernos, Oak Park
Adults who are still using drugs need to grow the fuck up. Is it worth losing your job, family, kids, & maybe getting arrested & have to deal with the legal hassle & expense? If the answer is yes, then you are a fucking fool.

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65779
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Elmhurst Steve wrote:

Employers don't test employees just to see if they are up to no good. You want to be sure nobody is coming to work under the influence of drugs/alcohol and presenting a danger to themselves or others. As stated earlier, no employer wants a disability claim made because some druggie gets hurt (or gets someone else hurt) due to the fact they are under the influence of drugs. It's about safety.

Except for the silly little fact that drug tests really don't tell you if someone is coming to work under the influence, do they? You can find out if someone has BEEN under the influence sometime over the last 3-4 days for harder drugs or 30 days for weed, but really not if someone is UNDER the influence currently.
It's not really about safety.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 19045
pizza_Place: World Famous Pizza
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
Employers don't test employees just to see if they are up to no good. You want to be sure nobody is coming to work under the influence of drugs/alcohol and presenting a danger to themselves or others. As stated earlier, no employer wants a disability claim made because some druggie gets hurt (or gets someone else hurt) due to the fact they are under the influence of drugs. It's about safety.


Exactly. If someone's errant spliff lights their house on fire and subsequently burns down my house, or if someone backs over my son in my condo complex while high on goofballs I'm going to sue the perpetrator's insurance company. If I win everyone else's insurance rates go up. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we were able to avoid these claims by having people live under the fear of random searches?

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:28 am
Posts: 11792
Location: Winnetka, Illinois
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Darkside wrote:
Elmhurst Steve wrote:

Employers don't test employees just to see if they are up to no good. You want to be sure nobody is coming to work under the influence of drugs/alcohol and presenting a danger to themselves or others. As stated earlier, no employer wants a disability claim made because some druggie gets hurt (or gets someone else hurt) due to the fact they are under the influence of drugs. It's about safety.

Except for the silly little fact that drug tests really don't tell you if someone is coming to work under the influence, do they? You can find out if someone has BEEN under the influence sometime over the last 3-4 days for harder drugs or 30 days for weed, but really not if someone is UNDER the influence currently.
It's not really about safety.


It allows the employer to know only if that person is using drugs, not necessarily when they were taken/used. But if you know someone is using, the prudent thing to do, is to terminate their employment to ensure that they don't pose a safety risk. Even if one used drugs the night before, the subject may still be under the influence to some degree. Safety is most definitely the number one reason for testing for many employers.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:28 am
Posts: 11792
Location: Winnetka, Illinois
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
SpiralStairs wrote:
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
Employers don't test employees just to see if they are up to no good. You want to be sure nobody is coming to work under the influence of drugs/alcohol and presenting a danger to themselves or others. As stated earlier, no employer wants a disability claim made because some druggie gets hurt (or gets someone else hurt) due to the fact they are under the influence of drugs. It's about safety.


Exactly. If someone's errant spliff lights their house on fire and subsequently burns down my house, or if someone backs over my son in my condo complex while high on goofballs I'm going to sue the perpetrator's insurance company. If I win everyone else's insurance rates go up. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we were able to avoid these claims by having people live under the fear of random searches?


There is no fear of random drug tests, if the employee isn't using any drugs.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65779
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
It allows the employer to know only if that person is using drugs, not necessarily when they were taken/used. But if you know someone is using, the prudent thing to do, is to terminate their employment to ensure that they don't pose a safety risk. Even if one used drugs the night before, the subject may still be under the influence to some degree. Safety is most definitely the number one reason for testing for many employers.

So your opinion is that someone who say smokes pot once a month on a friday night (works monday thru friday), does not deserve to have a job because they're a safety liability?
That's incredibly dense, even for you.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65779
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
There is no fear of random drug tests, if the employee isn't using any drugs.

So can I just kinda come into your bedroom and look thru your drawers? I mean if you have no drugs then obviously there's nothing there that you would have reason to wish privacy over right?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 19045
pizza_Place: World Famous Pizza
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
SpiralStairs wrote:
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
Employers don't test employees just to see if they are up to no good. You want to be sure nobody is coming to work under the influence of drugs/alcohol and presenting a danger to themselves or others. As stated earlier, no employer wants a disability claim made because some druggie gets hurt (or gets someone else hurt) due to the fact they are under the influence of drugs. It's about safety.


Exactly. If someone's errant spliff lights their house on fire and subsequently burns down my house, or if someone backs over my son in my condo complex while high on goofballs I'm going to sue the perpetrator's insurance company. If I win everyone else's insurance rates go up. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we were able to avoid these claims by having people live under the fear of random searches?


There is no fear of random drug tests, if the employee isn't using any drugs.


And there's no fear of random house searches if you aren't using any drugs.

_________________
Seacrest wrote:
The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65779
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
SpiralStairs wrote:
And there's no fear of random house searches if you aren't using any drugs.

Exactly. I suppose neither Steve nor his wife would mind if we searched their bedroom since they're not drug users and don't own illegal weapons. if there's nothing to hide, Steve, let us search your house.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:28 am
Posts: 11792
Location: Winnetka, Illinois
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Darkside wrote:
Elmhurst Steve wrote:
There is no fear of random drug tests, if the employee isn't using any drugs.

So can I just kinda come into your bedroom and look thru your drawers? I mean if you have no drugs then obviously there's nothing there that you would have reason to wish privacy over right?


You are not my employer nor a law enforcement officer, so it makes no sense that you might have any expectation of my consent to search. Employers have reason to expect that employees will consent to drug testing....it's often a requirement that they submit to testing when asked or lose their job. Law enforcement officers might have reason to request permission to search a vehicle or residence if they have cause to believe that drugs might be present. You have no right to expect anything and no authority of any kind.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:52 pm
Posts: 12559
Location: Ex-Naperville, Ex-Homewood, Now Tinley Park
pizza_Place: Oh I'm sorry but, there's no one on the line
Three quick stories about when my company had drug testing... (1999-2009; we were acquired by another company that stopped the practice.)

You had to take a drug test to get hired, and that was no problem for most people. Then once hired, there were monthly random tests. Initially, these random tests were given out by HR, and I forget the %ge that were done. The HR people knew of the day that these tests would be administered (always in the first full week of the month), and if you were friends with a certain group at the time, you'd find out as well. Then there were certain 55 year old women that were randomly getting tested 4 or 5 times a year while the mailroom stoner is never chosen. After about 4 or 5 years of this, they moved it to an external company to do the picking. I should also mention at the beginning of this time, the company was maybe 80 people, so it was like 2 people a month that were getting tested.

Once they outsourced, we had probably 250 people. The outsourcing company modified the testing to be a random day within the month, and they would collect the results of the tests and present them back to multiple HR personnel so there was no covering up for someone. Well, I finally got pulled after about 8 years with never getting pulled, and then I got pulled two months later and then again three months after that. All times tested clean of everything, but during the second test, their Breathalyzer was malfunctioning. The test administrator said "Looks like you'll have to come back tomorrow." I told her and our HR lady that there was zero chance of that happening. This place was twelve miles away and it took like an hour out of the job. By the time the third one happened, I was seriously thinking about submitting an expense form for the miles traveled back and forth from this place.

On a Wednesday, they also pulled another employee who was a VP/Director based out of Waltham, MA and happened to be in town for the week. HR told him to go to the testing station right away, but he said he had a meeting. Then they told him after the meeting, and he said I have one more, and then I'll go. So that meeting comes and goes, and he's nowhere to be found in the office. HR gets a call at the end of the day from this guy, he says, "I've finished my business in Illinois so I flew back early. Since random drug testing is illegal in Massachusetts for non safety-sensitive positions, I won't be taking the test. Thanks."

_________________
"All crowds boycotting football games shouldn't care who sings or takes a knee because they aren't watching." - Nas


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group