dms@ihlpg.UUCP (Spang) (05/19/86)
Re: all this drug testing rhetoric. I'm suprised at myself because I was as big an opponent of this drug- testing business as anyone until yesterday. My husband had been laid off his job 3 months ago along with 140 others. They are starting the call backs now with the condition that each employee take a physical and urine test. My husband is number 92 out of 140 on the list. Part of me is furious about this testing thing and most of me hopes a large number fail so that his chances of returning increase. The job market for factory work is closed and I think that any advantage my husband's abstinance gives him is great. It is easy to moralize but let's be practical. If there is only one job in town and it is between you and someone with possibly illegal habits, you probably would welcome a test. A little less left of center, debra spang ihlpg!dms
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (05/22/86)
> It is easy to moralize but let's be practical. > If there is only one job in town and it is > between you and someone with possibly illegal habits, you probably would > welcome a test. And how would you feel if he flunked even though he wasn't doing anything illegal? These tests aren't perfect, you know.
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (05/22/86)
> My husband had been laid off his job 3 months ago along with 140 others. > They are starting the call backs now with the condition that each employee > take a physical and urine test. My husband is number 92 out of 140 on the > list. Part of me is furious about this testing thing and most of me hopes > a large number fail so that his chances of returning increase. The job market > for factory work is closed and I think that any advantage my husband's > abstinance gives him is great. > It is easy to moralize but let's be practical. > If there is only one job in town and it is > between you and someone with possibly illegal habits, you probably would > welcome a test. Absolutely. I would also hope that the employer was racist and sexist so that as a white male I would have a better chance than other, perhaps better qualified, applicants. It's easy to moralize, but let's be practical. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "When everybody is out to get you, paranoid is just good thinking."
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (05/22/86)
In article <1929@ihlpg.UUCP> Debra Spang writes: >I'm suprised at myself because I was as big an opponent of this drug- >testing business as anyone until yesterday. My husband had been laid >off his job 3 months ago along with 140 others. They are starting the >call backs now with the condition that each employee take a physical >and urine test. My husband is number 92 out of 140 on the list. Part >of me is furious about this testing thing and most of me hopes a large >number fail so that his chances of returning increase. The job market >for factory work is closed and I think that any advantage my husband's >abstinance gives him is great. It is easy to moralize but let's be >practical. If there is only one job in town and it is between you and >someone with possibly illegal habits, you probably would welcome a >test. > >A little less left of center, >debra spang You changed your belief on what is right and just because of how it benefits you today? I can sympathize with your plight, but are you really saying that you think that drug testing is good because it might help your husband get a job? This is so trite I can't believe I'm saying it, but the streets are safer in Moscow than they are here, primarily because nobody expects to get a fair trial, which has the side effect of letting some guilty people go free, and it is harder to investigate a crime if you have to respect people's rights. Does this change your idea of what is right? Practicality has its place, but principles do, too. >If there is only one job in town and it is between you and >someone with possibly illegal habits, you probably would welcome a >test. I wouldn't. I drive over 55. Do you? I wager on sports events with my friends. Do you? If you don't, would you be happy to see people who did rejected from rehiring? Ken Arnold
dms@ihlpg.UUCP (Spang) (05/23/86)
> > between you and someone with possibly illegal habits, you probably would > > welcome a test. > > Absolutely. I would also hope that the employer was racist and sexist so > that as a white male I would have a better chance than other, perhaps better > qualified, applicants. It's easy to moralize, but let's be practical. > > Scott McEwan > {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan > > "When everybody is out to get you, paranoid is just good thinking." It is not illegal or unsafe to be black or female in a factory. Besides in a union shop better or qualified does not make any difference. The only criteria is time at the job. If you had any idea how it must feel to work with someone on a plate shear knowing he's just had a lunch of 2 jays you might see what I mean. Debra Spang ihlpg!dms
dms@ihlpg.UUCP (Spang) (05/27/86)
> > You changed your belief on what is right and just because of how it > benefits you today? I can sympathize with your plight, but are you > really saying that you think that drug testing is good because it might > help your husband get a job? I didn't change my belief I'm just willing to admit that this is not black and white. > > Practicality has its place, but principles do, too. So does common sense and sometime principles and common sense conflict. > > > I wouldn't. I drive over 55. Do you? I wager on sports events with > my friends. Do you? If you don't, would you be happy to see people > who did rejected from rehiring? If I was hiring you to be a school bus driver I would reject you if you were and unsafe driver. If I was hiring you to keep my books I would reject you if you had a gambling history. If I am hiring you to operate heavy machinery I would reject you if it was shown that your reflexes were impaired by illegal drugs. Debra Spang ihlpg!dms
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/28/86)
> It is not illegal or unsafe to be black or female in a factory. Besides > in a union shop better or qualified does not make any difference. The only > criteria is time at the job. If you had any idea how it must feel to > work with someone on a plate shear knowing he's just had a lunch of 2 jays > you might see what I mean. > > Debra Spang > ihlpg!dms And of course, since a four martini lunch could leave someone just as debilitated, you would support firing anyone who had drunk any alcohol within the last month, right? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
dms@ihlpg.UUCP (Spang) (05/29/86)
> > in a union shop better or qualified does not make any difference. The only > > criteria is time at the job. If you had any idea how it must feel to > > work with someone on a plate shear knowing he's just had a lunch of 2 jays > > you might see what I mean. > > > > Debra Spang > > ihlpg!dms > > And of course, since a four martini lunch could leave someone just as > debilitated, you would support firing anyone who had drunk any alcohol within > the last month, right? First - I have no idea what your point is. If you mean would I fire someone who came back from a 4 martini lunch and did not perform thier job duties in a *safe* manner, my answer is this. If it was determined that this person was an alcholic, I would treat it as a disease and make treatment a requirement to continue the job. If it was determined that he/she was not an alcoholic but merely irresponsible I would definitely consider job termination especially if this had happened more than once. If you mean there is some correlation between the lenght of time THC is in your system and alcohol is in your system, I don't believe there is any and I don't believe that has anything to do with my statement. In a nutshell, if you come back from lunch stoned or drunk do not expect any breaks from an employer. I will concede the point that the current tests are not adequate because of the reliability of the results. Being penalized for Friday night fun because of the THC level you exhibit on Monday. HMMMMMMM...I think I have changed my mind again... I am re-converted (no thanks to you Jeff). Flexibly, Debra Spang Please take me off the Eric Mading-Lyndon LaRouche mailing list.
gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (05/30/86)
In article <1929@ihlpg.UUCP> dms@ihlpg.UUCP (Spang) writes: > It is easy to moralize but let's be practical. > If there is only one job in town and it is > between you and someone with possibly illegal habits, you probably would > welcome a test. This sums it up pretty well: the purpose of drug testing laws is to put at a disadvantage those who you don't like, who do things you don't like, regardless of the quality of their work. Doesn't this sound familiar ... ? -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,seismo,hplabs}!amdahl!gam ~ How can I tell you ~ ~ That I love you? ~ ~ ... I can't think of right words to say ~ -- [ This does not represent Amdahl Corporation ]
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (05/31/86)
>>> between you and someone with possibly illegal habits, you probably would >>> welcome a test. >> >> Absolutely. I would also hope that the employer was racist and sexist so >> that as a white male I would have a better chance than other, perhaps better >> qualified, applicants. It's easy to moralize, but let's be practical. > > > It is not illegal or unsafe to be black or female in a factory. Besides > in a union shop better or qualified does not make any difference. The only > criteria is time at the job. If you had any idea how it must feel to > work with someone on a plate shear knowing he's just had a lunch of 2 jays > you might see what I mean. This is taken out of context. Your original article, which I quoted more extensively than you included in your response, contained the lines: > I'm suprised at myself because I was as big an opponent of this drug- > testing business as anyone until yesterday. > ... > list. Part of me is furious about this testing thing and most of me hopes > a large number fail so that his chances of returning increase. The job market > for factory work is closed and I think that any advantage my husband's > abstinance gives him is great. > It is easy to moralize but let's be practical. The main thrust seemed clear enough to me: you consider drug testing to be immoral, *but you favor immoral behavior by your husband's employer if you or your family benifits from it*. That is what my sarcastic reply was aimed at. This response of yours misses the whole point and takes a scattershot approach to try to justify your view, without regard to logic or consistency. If you accept the reasons you state for drug testing, why did you previously oppose it, and why are you "furious about this testing thing"? Do you think that its a good thing that hiring is NOT dependent on competence? If someone on drugs is a potential hazard, isn't an incompetent also a potential hazard? Did You give any thought to your viewpoint, or did you just write down what ever popped into your head? Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "The entire universe is permeated with the smell of turpentine."
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (05/31/86)
>>> in a union shop better or qualified does not make any difference. The only >>> criteria is time at the job. If you had any idea how it must feel to >>> work with someone on a plate shear knowing he's just had a lunch of 2 jays >>> you might see what I mean. >> >> And of course, since a four martini lunch could leave someone just as >> debilitated, you would support firing anyone who had drunk any alcohol within >> the last month, right? > > First - I have no idea what your point is. Simple. The drug testing which you appear to be endorsing would detect any exposure to THC in the last month. If you aggree that alcohol misuse is as dangerous as marijuana misuse, than to be consistent you would have to support the firing of anyone who had used any alcohol up to a month before hiring. > If you mean would I fire someone who came back from a 4 martini lunch and > did not perform thier job duties in a *safe* manner, my answer is this. > > If it was determined that this person was an alcholic, I would treat it > as a disease and make treatment a requirement to continue the job. If it > was determined that he/she was not an alcoholic but merely irresponsible > I would definitely consider job termination especially if this had happened > more than once. Is there any reason to treat other drug usage differently? (Yeah, I know, "it's illegal" - but that argument is ultimately circular since it begs the question "WHY is it illegal?"). > In a nutshell, if you come back from lunch stoned or drunk do not > expect any breaks from an employer. I will concede the point that > the current tests are not adequate because of the reliability of the > results. Being penalized for Friday night fun because of the THC > level you exhibit on Monday. HMMMMMMM...I think I have changed my mind > again... > > I am re-converted (no thanks to you Jeff). Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "The entire universe is permeated with the smell of turpentine."
glenn@c3pe.UUCP (06/03/86)
In article <1958@ihlpg.UUCP>, dms@ihlpg.UUCP (Spang) writes: > > I wouldn't. I drive over 55. Do you? I wager on sports events with > > my friends. Do you? If you don't, would you be happy to see people > > who did rejected from rehiring? > > If I was hiring you to be a school bus driver I would reject you if you were > and unsafe driver. If I was hiring you to keep my books I would reject Driving in excess of 55 MPH does not always constitute unsafe driving. Especialy on roads engineered for >=70 MPH, and especialy in sparse traffic. Or no traffic. At times, yes, [pick a speed] is dangerous, but 55 is not magical. It is arbitrary. (Otherwise, your arguments make more sense than I would like them to. But until you convince me, I will keep looking for the holes. Or looking for ways to make the holes I find into ones big enough to use.) D. Glenn Arthur Jr. ..!seismo!dolqci!hqhomes!glenn
ronc@fai.UUCP (06/03/86)
In article <1965@ihlpg.UUCP> dms@ihlpg.UUCP (Spang) writes: >> > If you had any idea how it must feel to >> > work with someone on a plate shear knowing he's just had a lunch of 2 jays >> > you might see what I mean. >> > Debra Spang >> And of course, since a four martini lunch could leave someone just as >> debilitated, you would support firing anyone who had drunk any alcohol within >> the last month, right? >First - I have no idea what your point is. ** I believe he is pointing out that the current system is to get tested *before* you start your employment to try to determine if you've ever (to the limits of the testing procedure) done illegal drugs. This would then be used as a criteria for your prospective employment. I haven't yet heard of anyone proposing *regular* tests, although I guess it's possible. The plate sheer operator you describe would be 'caught' by regular testing, but they're not doing that. (Although why you didn't consider ratting on him is beyond me.) Employers who are doing this testing are assuming that they can prevent people from doing dangerous drugs on the job by not hiring those who have done dangerous drugs before. Using the same rule, however, one could argue that one should not hire anyone who's ever used alcohol, another drug which if taken on the job in sufficient quantities could make you a hazard to yourself and others. The present criteria for defining a dangerous drug is: drugs that are illegal. No thought is given to testing for dangerous, but legal, drugs such as alcohol, tranks, etc. Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc -or- ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."