Orrin Hatch: Drug Tests for the Unemployed
Wingnuts • Views: 2,798
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has hit on a really classic wingnut idea: drug testing people who apply for unemployment insurance.
Orrin Hatch, man of the people.
568 comments
1 |
Four More Tears Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:17:43pm |
Wouldn’t that, like, cost us more money…?
2 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:17:55pm |
Ha! Mormon ad with fake chat in the Hatch thread!
3 |
wrenchwench Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:18:43pm |
Yeah, right after every Senator and Congressman submits.
/I misread his name as “Onion” Hatch.
| 4 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:19:01pm |
Between Hatch’s “pee in a cup for money” and Feinstein’s “unemployment will discourage people from wanting to find jobs” I don’t hold out a lot of faith that those who need the government most are getting very well served these days.
5 |
Shiplord Kirel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:20:25pm |
I have a better idea: IQ tests for members of Congress.
(This has the same chance of passing that I do of being elected Pope, but that doesn’t change the merits.)
6 |
Varek Raith Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:20:50pm |
Okely dokely chief Hatch.
You first.
Then, a freaking common sense test.
7 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:21:03pm |
re: #3 wrenchwench
Yeah, right after every Senator and Congressman submits.
/I misread his name as “Onion” Hatch.
That was my thought as well. “You first, Mr. Senator.”
| 8 |
Four More Tears Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:21:04pm |
New meme:
Orrin Hatch wants your precious bodily fluids.
9 |
Firstinla Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:21:11pm |
re: #3 wrenchwench
Onion Hatch works as well. This dork has been bringing tears to my eyes for years.
10 |
webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:21:43pm |
This will not end well….
(and really how offensive is this to the working and middle class people who are unemployed?)
| 11 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:22:26pm |
Official Joe Barton apology page is up…here.
Click apology to see next apology.
12 |
Nimed Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:23:01pm |
The important thing to keep in mind here is that the GOP is the party of small government.
13 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:23:40pm |
If this were proposed for people who had been on welfare for a long time, I don’t think I’d oppose. Note: not for people who are temporarily down on their luck due to the economy.
| 14 |
Four More Tears Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:24:55pm |
re: #13 TampaKnight
If this were proposed for people who had been on welfare for a long time, I don’t think I’d oppose. Note: not for people who are temporarily down on their luck due to the economy.
Fine, but I insist they be tested for tobacco, too. They don’t need to be spending our money on smokes.
/
| 15 |
Varek Raith Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:25:22pm |
Fuck it, let’s just drug test everyone!
:rollseyes:
| 16 |
ReamWorks SKG Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:26:01pm |
I have another idea to save taxpayers $$$.
Since Utah has the highest home foreclosure rate in the nation, I think we should audit all stated income (no-doc) loans in Utah and compare the stated income with the amount of money these people reported on their federal income tax.
If they said they made more than their income tax reported, allow them to either pay the tax OR go to jail for mortgage fraud.
| 17 |
Varek Raith Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:26:17pm |
re: #14 JasonA
Fine, but I insist they be tested for tobacco, too. They don’t need to be spending our money on smokes.
/
And breathalyzer tests at every bar!
/
18 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:26:32pm |
Reminder: Wingnuts hate the poor. Don’t feed them or they’ll just breed:
Here’s a little flashback from Jan or so:
Those good old boys in South Carolina sure know how to cut to the chase, especially when they’re chasing poor people. Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer made national headlines after warning lawmakers and citizens at a town hall meeting a few days ago not to give food to poor people or they’ll breed like stray animals.
“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that.”
Bauer later said his remarks were taken out of context, but context only makes him look worse. Bauer said he was talking about “breaking the cycle of dependency” on public assistance. Yet he, as a child of divorce, was raised on free lunches and is now among the frontrunners in the state’s Republican gubernatorial primary race, according to the Associated Press.
His callous remarks reveal his hypocritical, un-Christian hatred of people who, like his mother, must sometimes seek help in order to feed their children. His attitude is particularly despicable in South Carolina, where 12.6 percent of the population is unemployed, according to the latest figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
| 19 |
ReamWorks SKG Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:27:05pm |
How about drug testing people who claim they’re prophets?
| 20 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:28:18pm |
If someone has been on welfare for say, 2 years, I’d say the government absolutely has the right to audit just what the hell is being done with the money dished out.
| 21 |
Varek Raith Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:28:21pm |
22 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:28:55pm |
re: #15 Varek Raith
Fuck it, let’s just test drugs on
test everyoneThe Behemoth!
:rollsredeyes:
FTFM
| 23 |
Four More Tears Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:29:00pm |
re: #18 iceweasel
Reminder: Wingnuts hate the poor. Don’t feed them or they’ll just breed:
Here’s a little flashback from Jan or so:
Pfft. I’ll see your starvation quote and raise you one sterilization.
| 24 |
ReamWorks SKG Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:29:11pm |
re: #13 TampaKnight
Remember that unemployment INSURANCE is a benefit that workers and their employers PAY FOR (more or less; the Government has been increasing benefits lately). It can’t be directly compared to welfare which is a gift from the taxpayers of the United States of America.
| 25 |
webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:29:36pm |
And what really sucks will be how many folks will be all “well why not, they are just lazy bums sitting around wasting my money…I bet they are all high too…if only they prayed a bit harder God would bless them like he blessed me.”
The lack of empathy emanating from the right is just so smug and damaging to this country.
I’ve seen a number of stories lately of people being arrested in certain states (Arkansas being one of them) because of some crappy laws that pertain to debts.
And I mean unsecured credit card debts.
Yes, we do still have debtors prisons in this country.
And they comments that accompany one of these is full of “served them right” should have paid their bills” “got what they had coming” without even thinking for a minute that putting people in prison over an unsecured debt (even one that might have a judgment on it) is something that went out when we created this country.
| 26 |
drool Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:29:38pm |
Another big government Republican. They should give sanity tests for people that believe Jesus was walking around North America.
| 27 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:30:37pm |
re: #25 webevintage
And what really sucks will be how many folks will be all “well why not, they are just lazy bums sitting around wasting my money…I bet they are all high too…if only they prayed a bit harder God would bless them like he blessed me.”
The lack of empathy emanating from the right is just so smug and damaging to this country.
I’ve seen a number of stories lately of people being arrested in certain states (Arkansas being one of them) because of some crappy laws that pertain to debts.
And I mean unsecured credit card debts.
Yes, we do still have debtors prisons in this country.
And they comments that accompany one of these is full of “served them right” should have paid their bills” “got what they had coming” without even thinking for a minute that putting people in prison over an unsecured debt (even one that might have a judgment on it) is something that went out when we created this country.
At some point empathy must be replaced with fiscal reality.
| 28 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:30:38pm |
re: #19 reuven
How about drug testing people who claim they’re prophets?
MRIs and psych evals. Most “prophets” tend to be epileptics or schizophrenics.
Or so I’ve heard.
| 29 |
Varek Raith Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:31:19pm |
re: #28 Slumbering Behemoth
MRIs and psych evals. Most “prophets” tend to be epileptics or schizophrenics.
Or so I’ve heard.
The voice inside my head tells me to Force ZZZAAAPPP you.
| 30 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:31:19pm |
re: #15 Varek Raith
Fuck it, let’s just drug test everyone!
:rollseyes:
Okay…but my bladder’s empty right now…should be ready to go in three to five business days.
| 31 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:31:56pm |
re: #26 drool
Another big government Republican. They should give sanity tests for people that believe Jesus was walking around North America.
He still is, with Elvis.
| 32 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:32:34pm |
We’ve fed the entitlement machine in this nation- since 1965 the Mandatory budget account has grown 5x faster than Discretionary spending.
That’s a problem.
| 33 |
webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:34:04pm |
re: #27 TampaKnight
At some point empathy must be replaced with fiscal reality.
So you think it is ok that in 2010 we are again arresting people for unsecured debt?
criminaljustice.change.org
| 34 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:34:33pm |
re: #33 webevintage
So you think it is ok that in 2010 we are again arresting people for unsecured debt?
[Link: criminaljustice.change.org…]
I wasn’t referring to that particular story, sorry for the mixup.
35 |
tnguitarist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:35:02pm |
re: #27 TampaKnight
At some point empathy must be replaced with fiscal reality.
So…..you’re okay with debtors prisons?
36 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:36:09pm |
re: #23 JasonA
Pfft. I’ll see your starvation quote and raise you one sterilization.
For the greater good!
(If you believe Dawn of War Dark Crusade…)
| 37 |
webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:36:40pm |
re: #34 TampaKnight
I wasn’t referring to that particular story, sorry for the mixup.
OK.
Sorry…
But at what point do we stop being empathetic to others needs?
| 38 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:37:46pm |
re: #32 TampaKnight
We’ve fed the entitlement machine in this nation- since 1965 the Mandatory budget account has grown 5x faster than Discretionary spending.
That’s a problem.
Can I get some number on how the population has grown since then as well?
| 39 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:37:53pm |
re: #23 JasonA
Pfft. I’ll see your starvation quote and raise you one sterilization.
Heh. I was just about to dig up something on that. :)
Sterilization!1! But also, let’s do everything we can to block abortion, emergency contraception, and non-surgical abortion!!
Wingnuts only care about ‘life’ so long as it is currently attached to an umbilical cord.
minnesotaindependent.com
The state of Minnesota is paying for programs that encourage women who are pregnant or think they may be pregnant to forgo abortion. But according to experts, some of these taxpayer-funded programs are intentionally misleading women in crisis by providing inaccurate information about reproductive health options. And a large amount of money in the program goes to overtly religious organizations, some that include Bible study among their grant-funded activities.
| 40 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:38:11pm |
re: #37 webevintage
OK.
Sorry…But at what point do we stop being empathetic to others needs?
Never. I’m empathetic to peoples’ needs every single day.
But the government at some point must stop being the “Spreader of Empathy”.
| 41 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:38:43pm |
re: #37 webevintage
OK.
Sorry…But at what point do we stop being empathetic to others needs?
////When they worship a different god than you… or worship the same god as you but in a different way damn papists….
| 42 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:39:27pm |
re: #38 jamesfirecat
Can I get some number on how the population has grown since then as well?
Um, that’s the point. When you lock in an entitlement into the Mandatory account, you’re then binded by law to feed that appropriations account every single year, regardless of how the nation changes in the process.
That’s a major fiscal problem.
43 |
Kragar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:39:59pm |
44 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:40:34pm |
re: #4 darthstar
Between Hatch’s “pee in a cup for money” and Feinstein’s “unemployment will discourage people from wanting to find jobs” I don’t hold out a lot of faith that those who need the government most are getting very well served these days.
There’s a deeply rooted fear that giving money to the poor will just encourage them.
| 45 |
Drogheda Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:41:00pm |
re: #5 Shiplord Kirel
I have a better idea: IQ tests for members of Congress.
(This has the same chance of passing that I do of being elected Pope, but that doesn’t change the merits.)
Well if not IQ tests then maybe at least some lessons on public speaking and diction. As I was half-listening to the hearing shortly after it began, one of the members reading his prepared statement (the second or third guy after Joe Barton I think) sounded like some junior high school kid reading his book report to the class.
| 46 |
wrenchwench Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:41:23pm |
re: #44 SanFranciscoZionist
There’s a deeply rooted fear that giving money to the poor will just encourage them.
You mean, give them some change and they might have hope?
47 |
alexknyc Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:41:31pm |
re: #39 iceweasel
Barney Frank was quoted as saying that Republicans who were anti-abortion and anti-Head Start and school lunch programs believed life begins at conception and ends at birth.
| 48 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:41:59pm |
re: #43 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Fething Tau.
The Tau Empire will respect your faith, human, if you would only see reason!
| 49 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:42:23pm |
re: #19 reuven
How about drug testing people who claim they’re prophets?
How would a positive drug test indicate that a person was NOT a prophet? I mean, Ezekiel was smoking SOMETHING.
| 50 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:42:34pm |
re: #42 TampaKnight
Um, that’s the point. When you lock in an entitlement into the Mandatory account, you’re then binded by law to feed that appropriations account every single year, regardless of how the nation changes in the process.
That’s a major fiscal problem.
So what solutions do you have in mind?
| 51 |
Varek Raith Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:43:43pm |
re: #48 jamesfirecat
The Tau Empire will respect your faith, human, if you would only see reason!
If by reason you mean lobbing anti-matter warheads at your core worlds then, yes, I see reason.
| 52 |
Kragar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:43:45pm |
re: #48 jamesfirecat
The Tau Empire will respect your faith, human, if you would only see reason!
We’ll see this whole sector burned to ash before letting Xenos scum like the Tau claim it.
53 |
Shazam Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:44:00pm |
Orrin Hatch: He’ll find solutions where there are no problems.
| 54 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:44:18pm |
re: #50 jamesfirecat
So what solutions do you have in mind?
Too many to possibly discuss here. This isn’t a 3 line message board type of discussion.
But in the most simplest of forms: roll back what we’ve decided people are entitled to, so as to at least make them solvent.
Paul Ryan did this nicely, I think, in his Roadmap for America. He sought only to make them solvent while bringing the deficit into balance.
55 |
soap_man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:44:44pm |
Drug tests are incredibly insulting, regardless of whether they are demanded by the government or a private company. Hell, it’s almost worse when it comes from an employer.
Interviewer for the job I currently have (in reality): “Okay, good educational background and a lot of experience. All of your previous supervisors spoke highly of you. You are a great fit for this job. Oh, but before we can offer you the job, you are going to have to take a drug test.”
Interviewer for the job I currently have (in my head): “All evidence suggests you are a professional who takes his work seriously. On the other hand, you are young. So you probably smoke pot. Or maybe you sniff glue. I don’t really know because I’m just operating off of stereotypes. Either way, you shouldn’t be trusted. Hand over your bodily fluids.”
| 56 |
webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:45:19pm |
re: #40 TampaKnight
Never. I’m empathetic to peoples’ needs every single day.
But the government at some point must stop being the “Spreader of Empathy”.
I’m sorry again, i did not mean to imply you were not.
I’m more interested in the need for the gov’t to actually be the “spreader of empathy” because there are many out there who really think that people get what they deserve or they did not work hard enough or God must be punishing them or I want to keep all my money and fuck the rest of y’all…..
And in some states they vote for pols based on the fact that they DO echo those views and do cut benefits to others.
| 57 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:45:26pm |
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has hit on a really classic wingnut idea: drug testing people who apply for unemployment insurance.
This would be like suggesting people should be drug tested before they make withdrawals from their bank account.
I’d like to see him suggest that people should be drug tested prior to receiving Social Security payments. That should go over well.
58 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:45:32pm |
| 59 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:45:41pm |
re: #47 alexknyc
Barney Frank was quoted as saying that Republicans who were anti-abortion and anti-Head Start and school lunch programs believed life begins at conception and ends at birth.
I love it. Definitely stealing it.
Jimmah says I should quote Sarah Silverman for him here: “Helping the homeless just makes them more homeless-y.”
| 60 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:46:09pm |
re: #17 Varek Raith
And breathalyzer tests at every bar!
/
They’re starting a pilot project to put breathalyzers in cars for repeat DUI offenders. No blowy, no go-y.
| 61 |
Ming Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:46:12pm |
People are always looking for painless ways to close the budget deficit. educe waste! Eliminate earmarks! Drug test the unemployed! Sure, that’ll fix all our problems! You betcha!
| 62 |
Kragar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:46:17pm |
re: #51 Varek Raith
If by reason you mean lobbing anti-matter warheads at your core worlds then, yes, I see reason.
Bloody Tau won’t sit still for a proper stand up fight, the cowards.
| 63 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:46:27pm |
re: #57 Slumbering Behemoth
This would be like suggesting people should be drug tested before they make withdrawals from their bank account.
I’d like to see him suggest that people should be drug tested prior to receiving Social Security payments. That should go over well.
Yeah, the Boomers will do well with that.
| 64 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:46:37pm |
re: #53 nonsense
Orrin Hatch: He’ll find solutions where there are no problems.
I don’t care what party you belong to, that’s just funny.
| 65 |
Varek Raith Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:47:09pm |
re: #60 darthstar
They’re starting a pilot project to put breathalyzers in cars for repeat DUI offenders. No blowy, no go-y.
Not gonna comment.
Not gonna comment.
Not gonna comment…
…
| 66 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:47:20pm |
re: #55 soap_man
Drug tests are incredibly insulting, regardless of whether they are demanded by the government or a private company. Hell, it’s almost worse when it comes from an employer.
Interviewer for the job I currently have (in reality): “Okay, good educational background and a lot of experience. All of your previous supervisors spoke highly of you. You are a great fit for this job. Oh, but before we can offer you the job, you are going to have to take a drug test.”
Interviewer for the job I currently have (in my head): “All evidence suggests you are a professional who takes his work seriously. On the other hand, you are young. So you probably smoke pot. Or maybe you sniff glue. I don’t really know because I’m just operating off of stereotypes. Either way, you shouldn’t be trusted. Hand over your bodily fluids.”
If someone is going to pay you, they have every right to know if you’re on drugs or not.
How you argue against this, I don’t know.
| 67 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:48:18pm |
re: #57 Slumbering Behemoth
This would be like suggesting people should be drug tested before they make withdrawals from their bank account.
I’d like to see him suggest that people should be drug tested prior to receiving Social Security payments. That should go over well.
////Hey do you know an old person who isn’t popping some kind of pill or other? They’re all “blood thinner this” and “heart strengthener that….”
| 68 |
webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:48:25pm |
re: #66 TampaKnight
If someone is going to pay you, they have every right to know if you’re on drugs or not.
How you argue against this, I don’t know.
Because unless you have a job that affects public safety they have no need to know what you do when you are not at work.
| 69 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:48:51pm |
re: #68 webevintage
Because unless you have a job that affects public safety they have no need to know what you do when you are not at work.
The law says they do.
Sorry.
| 70 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:49:23pm |
re: #66 TampaKnight
If someone is going to pay you, they have every right to know if you’re on drugs or not.
How you argue against this, I don’t know.
Why? They’re paying me to show up and do a job. Are they also planning to follow me around and see if they can catch me shoplifting? Why exactly, does entering into a work contract give someone the right to check my urine?
| 71 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:49:31pm |
re: #58 Spare O’Lake
Sunset clauses are often a good idea.
So we pay for unemployment up to 2050 and they’re you’re out of luck chuck?
I’m probably getting the wrong impression on how you would want to use Sunset clauses, can you correct me?
| 72 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:49:36pm |
re: #63 SanFranciscoZionist
I was gonna say it would go over like a lead balloon with the Teahadis, but a good number of them have openly stated that they want to abolish Social Security. At least a good number of the younger ones, anyway.
| 73 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:49:38pm |
re: #56 webevintage
I’m sorry again, i did not mean to imply you were not.
I’m more interested in the need for the gov’t to actually be the “spreader of empathy” because there are many out there who really think that people get what they deserve or they did not work hard enough or God must be punishing them or I want to keep all my money and fuck the rest of y’all…
And in some states they vote for pols based on the fact that they DO echo those views and do cut benefits to others.
Why not just argue that one of the legitimate functions of government in a just society is to redistribute income from those who have more to those who have less. It would be more honest to have that discussion than to talk silliness about the government spreading empathy.
| 74 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:50:01pm |
re: #69 TampaKnight
The law says they do.
Sorry.
The law is an ass.
I understand that it’s legal, I persist in believing that it is a really, really bad idea.
| 75 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:50:40pm |
re: #73 Spare O’Lake
Why not just argue that one of the legitimate functions of government in a just society is to redistribute income from those who have more to those who have less. It would be more honest to have that discussion than to talk silliness about the government spreading empathy.
Ooooh. Cute.
| 76 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:50:49pm |
re: #67 jamesfirecat
Buncha gawt-damned, lazy ass junkies, they are.
/
| 77 |
alexknyc Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:50:50pm |
re: #66 TampaKnight
If someone is going to pay you, they have every right to know if you’re on drugs or not.
How you argue against this, I don’t know.
They have every right to know if I come to work high.
What I do on my own time really isn’t their business.
| 78 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:51:02pm |
re: #74 SanFranciscoZionist
The law is an ass.
I understand that it’s legal, I persist in believing that it is a really, really bad idea.
It’s honestly not as bad as you make it out to be.
I work for a defense company and was drug tested ONCE- at hiring.
So stop doing drugs for 1 month and you’re in the clear. Ok?
| 79 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:51:14pm |
re: #66 TampaKnight
If someone is going to pay you, they have every right to know if you’re on drugs or not.
No they don’t. They have every right to expect that the employee meets or exceeds on-the-job expectations of performance.
What happens off the job is none of their business.
| 80 |
albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:51:32pm |
re: #73 Spare O’Lake
Why not just argue that one of the legitimate functions of government in a just society is to redistribute income from those who have more to those who have less. It would be more honest to have that discussion than to talk silliness about the government spreading empathy.
that’s verboten
| 81 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:52:00pm |
re: #79 iceweasel
No they don’t. They have every right to expect that the employee meets or exceeds on-the-job expectations of performance.
What happens off the job is none of their business.
Right. Because so many drug addicts limit their usage to only at home, right?
It’s not their job to figure out when and where you use. Only if you do.
Again, the law says this.
| 82 |
ReamWorks SKG Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:52:03pm |
re: #57 Slumbering Behemoth
Some Democrats have proposed _means testing_ Social Security, which is pretty nasty! fdlaction.firedoglake.com
In fact, I think it’s just as nasty as drug testing for Unemployment Insurance.
It means that some frugal person who scrimped and saved his entire life to be able to earn, say, $75,000/year in interest (would take about $5,000,000 because interest rates are being held artificially low to prop up house prices but that’s another story) after retirement may be NO BETTER OFF than some deadbeat who never saved a penny, but gets full Social Security and Medicare payments….
It would mean there’s NO INCENTIVE to save money, unless you think you’ll be able to save about $20 Million or more to make it exceed the value of Social Security or Medicare.
| 83 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:52:03pm |
re: #78 TampaKnight
It’s honestly not as bad as you make it out to be.
I work for a defense company and was drug tested ONCE- at hiring.
So stop doing drugs for 1 month and you’re in the clear. Ok?
I don’t do any illegal drugs.
I’ve been drug tested for work as well.
I think it is invasive, and offensive. I’ve put up with it, but do not appreciate it.
OK?
| 84 |
Varek Raith Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:52:10pm |
I WANT SMALL GUBMINT!
EXCEPT, WHEN I DON’T!
SURPRISE!
| 85 |
soap_man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:52:18pm |
re: #66 TampaKnight
If someone is going to pay you, they have every right to know if you’re on drugs or not.
How you argue against this, I don’t know.
I don’t have an argument against drug tests if there is reason to suspect an employee is on drugs. If I’m an addict, a boss will be able to notice something is up because it will effect my work. If my performance is strong, then why the hell do they care what I do or don’t do on the weekend? Obviously, a person who does drugs but maintains a strong work performance is not showing up high to work.
In the end, what matters is my productivity. If it is strong, then my personal life is none of their concern. They don’t own me. I just work for them.
(For the record, I don’t do any kinds of drugs. Not since college, and then it was only pot occasionally. This is more of a ethical stance.)
| 86 |
webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:52:29pm |
Next we can pass laws that before you get your SS and Medicare each month that grandma needs to go in and pee in a cup to make sure she is not smoking some weed.
I mean we pay them.
The tax payers have a right to know that their money is not going to support some lay about 65 year old who spends all day playing Bio Shock and smoking blunts.
| 87 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:53:00pm |
re: #73 Spare O’Lake
Why not just argue that one of the legitimate functions of government in a just society is to redistribute income from those who have more to those who have less. It would be more honest to have that discussion than to talk silliness about the government spreading empathy.
Because every time we say that and go on to point out that truly meritocracy based capitalistic society nobody should be denied the tools with which to take a shot at making something of themselves, a guy jumps out of a bush with a knife between his teeth shouting about how I’m a communist and he’ll gut me like a pig…
You really shouldn’t try to scream war cries with a knife between your teeth, it’s done horrible things to his lips.
| 88 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:53:41pm |
re: #85 soap_man
I don’t have an argument against drug tests if there is reason to suspect an employee is on drugs. If I’m an addict, a boss will be able to notice something is up because it will effect my work. If my performance is strong, then why the hell do they care what I do or don’t do on the weekend? Obviously, a person who does drugs but maintains a strong work performance is not showing up high to work.
In the end, what matters is my productivity. If it is strong, then my personal life is none of their concern. They don’t own me. I just work for them.
(For the record, I don’t do any kinds of drugs. Not since college, and then it was only pot occasionally. This is more of a ethical stance.)
Some businesses don’t drug test.
You’re more than free to reject an offer and move on to such a business.
| 89 |
acacia Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:57:20pm |
re: #66 TampaKnight
I’m not for the government forcing drug testing on anyone except its employees. Hatch sounds a bit like Obama by suggesting the government intrude at all and any stage of a private person’s life. Employees though is a completely different situation as in that case it’s like any other employer / employee situation. That’s completely legitimate and is a good use of government funds.
| 90 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:57:37pm |
re: #81 TampaKnight
It’s not their job to figure out when and where you use. Only if you do.Again, the law says this.
So what? There are and have been a lot of stupid laws and this is one of them.
One of the problems here is that pot is treated like crack or heroin and that’s just bullshit.
91 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:58:01pm |
Legalize it
| 92 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:58:58pm |
re: #90 iceweasel
So what? There are and have been a lot of stupid laws and this is one of them.
One of the problems here is that pot is treated like crack or heroin and that’s just bullshit.
Oh, so settled law is now open for debate?
/abortiondebate
| 93 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 2:59:02pm |
re: #71 jamesfirecat
So we pay for unemployment up to 2050 and they’re you’re out of luck chuck?
I’m probably getting the wrong impression on how you would want to use Sunset clauses, can you correct me?
It is a good thing to revisit entitlements regularly in order to make sure that the programs are still necessary and whether they need to be updated or changed to better accomplish their objectives, especially in a world where our underlying assumptions seem to be increasingly shaken up by events.
| 94 |
albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:00:05pm |
drug testing is legit when I high degree of safety or security is a concern…no big deal
| 95 |
Shiplord Kirel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:00:07pm |
Every hard-working wingnut knows that you can support a major drug habit on unemployment and welfare payments, especially if you get food stamps that you can sell at 10 cents on the dollar to buy even more cocaine and heroin.
| 96 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:00:27pm |
re: #88 TampaKnight
Some businesses don’t drug test.
You’re more than free to reject an offer and move on to such a business.
I know that. Doesn’t mean I can’t object to the companies that do drug test.
Besides, jobs are hard to come by these days. Saying “if you don’t like it don’t work there” is easier than it sounds, whether we are talking about drug tests or anything else.
| 97 |
webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:00:39pm |
re: #73 Spare O’Lake
Why not just argue that one of the legitimate functions of government in a just society is to redistribute income from those who have more to those who have less. It would be more honest to have that discussion than to talk silliness about the government spreading empathy.
OK.
I agree with that statement.
In the end not having a % of the population starving and homeless is part of protecting the national welfare.
(and really unemployment and welfare and SS and food stamps are all more about keeping the underclass from rising up and revolting along with making sure WalMart has a steady stream of customers then it is about empathy.)
| 98 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:00:39pm |
re: #89 acacia
I’m not for the government forcing drug testing on anyone except its employees. Hatch sounds a bit like Obama by suggesting the government intrude at all and any stage of a private person’s life. Employees though is a completely different situation as in that case it’s like any other employer / employee situation. That’s completely legitimate and is a good use of government funds.
“Sounds a bit like Obama”
Dude get over it, the Democrats aren’t the only one who want invasive government.
The right (or at least the Socons who seem to make up around 50 to 75% of the right these days) want majorly invasive government also.
What do you say to people who demand a woman (even if she’s been raped) has to get a vaginal probing for an ultra sound before she can get an abortion.
Now that’s INVASIVE GOVERNMENT in every sense of the word!
| 99 |
Nimed Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:00:48pm |
re: #59 iceweasel
I love it. Definitely stealing it.
Jimmah says I should quote Sarah Silverman for him here: “Helping the homeless just makes them more homeless-y.”
Well, if you help the homeless, you’re rewarding homelessness, so you’ll get more homeless people. That’s just common sense. By the same line of reasoning:
- if we have a decent health care system, we’ll get more sick people.
- if we have a good public education, we’ll get more uneducated people.
Jefferson failed to add these self-evident truths to the Declaration of Independence, which is why he’s being rightly excluded from our best History books.
| 100 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:00:59pm |
re: #92 TampaKnight
Oh, so settled law is now open for debate?
/abortiondebate
We aren’t allowed to debate the law? I must have stumbled onto the wrong blog…
| 101 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:01:08pm |
re: #89 acacia
I’m not for the government forcing drug testing on anyone except its employees. Hatch sounds a bit like Obama by suggesting the government intrude at all and any stage of a private person’s life. Employees though is a completely different situation as in that case it’s like any other employer / employee situation. That’s completely legitimate and is a good use of government funds.
I’m gonna regret I asked this, but what has Obama proposed regarding government interference into a person’s private life that you would consider equivalent to Hatch’s proposal?
| 102 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:01:11pm |
re: #96 Soap_Man
I know that. Doesn’t mean I can’t object to the companies that do drug test.
Besides, jobs are hard to come by these days. Saying “if you don’t like it don’t work there” is easier than it sounds, whether we are talking about drug tests or anything else.
Well, you have the choice of either doing the unthinkable and taking a drug test and being paid, or walking away then.
Life is full of choices.
| 103 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:01:24pm |
re: #92 TampaKnight
Oh, so settled law is now open for debate?
/abortiondebate
Isn’t that why we have a supreme court?
| 104 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:01:29pm |
re: #92 TampaKnight
Oh, so settled law is now open for debate?
/abortiondebate
Oh yeah, like abortion is ‘settled’. Check out the LGF tag cloud for a handy list of links about wingnuts and their efforts to roll back r v wade. Several posted in just the last week.
| 105 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:01:38pm |
re: #100 Soap_Man
We aren’t allowed to debate the law? I must have stumbled onto the wrong blog…
Yes, you are.
I’m mocking the instant response that I get whenever I try to debate abortion.
“IT’S SETTLED LAW!”
106 |
Political Atheist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:02:07pm |
Interesting conflict-California doles out unemployment monies. Say somebody on unemployment is a medical marij. patient.
Or say you fail the test. Then no one will hire you. Then you get welfare or just put on the street?!?
| 107 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:03:08pm |
re: #92 TampaKnight
Oh, so settled law is now open for debate?
/abortiondebate
You think someone passes a law and that’s it? Sure it’s open to debate.
Also, LAW is not the single standard by which things are judged. I would not, as an employer, require drug tests, and as an employee, I think a little less of companies that do, without a clear and present need.
I know many people who would argue that abortion is immoral, even though it is not illegal.
Just saying ‘it’s the law’ settles exactly one point—that it’s legal.
| 108 |
Political Atheist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:03:23pm |
re: #104 iceweasel
Iceweasel!
How you been?
Jimmah?
| 109 |
albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:03:54pm |
re: #104 iceweasel
Oh yeah, like abortion is ‘settled’. Check out the LGF tag cloud for a handy list of links about wingnuts and their efforts to roll back r v wade. Several posted in just the last week.
I think R/W is a bad law from a constitutional perspective, many people do…disregarding abortion
| 110 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:03:56pm |
re: #106 Rightwingconspirator
If you have the medical card for that, testing positive for THC can not be held against you for hiring or other benefits, IIRC.
| 111 |
webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:04:04pm |
re: #82 reuven
Some Democrats have proposed _means testing_ Social Security, which is pretty nasty! [Link: fdlaction.firedoglake.com…]
In fact, I think it’s just as nasty as drug testing for Unemployment Insurance.
It means that some frugal person who scrimped and saved his entire life to be able to earn, say, $75,000/year in interest (would take about $5,000,000 because interest rates are being held artificially low to prop up house prices but that’s another story) after retirement may be NO BETTER OFF than some deadbeat who never saved a penny, but gets full Social Security and Medicare payments…
It would mean there’s NO INCENTIVE to save money, unless you think you’ll be able to save about $20 Million or more to make it exceed the value of Social Security or Medicare.
Wow.
My point, proven.
Right there.
Why ask someone with more money pay a bit so that the program that helps those without continues.
Why not?
Because the person with $75,000 in interest worked harder and was frugal.
Jesus.
| 112 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:04:28pm |
re: #108 Rightwingconspirator
Iceweasel!
How you been?
Jimmah?
Hey! How are you?
Things are pretty good here. Jimmah is right here and says hi. :)
113 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:04:46pm |
re: #70 SanFranciscoZionist
Why? They’re paying me to show up and do a job. Are they also planning to follow me around and see if they can catch me shoplifting? Why exactly, does entering into a work contract give someone the right to check my urine?
I don’t understand. As long as you don’t have the drugs in your system, does it matter whether you do them on your own time? I thought the point was to see if a person is under the influence on the job, as opposed to whether they toked up on their vacation to Jamaica?
| 114 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:04:49pm |
Would love to continue this, but I have to go get a haircut.
I have an important meeting tomorrow and I don’t want to meet people for the first time looking like a slob. .
| 115 |
Political Atheist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:05:20pm |
re: #110 Slumbering Behemoth
Actually it can as the company then just claims to be going by Federal OSHA guidelines that darn near require drug tests. One guy just lost his case against WalMart for this. Sorry, lost the link though.
| 116 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:05:27pm |
re: #105 TampaKnight
Yes, you are.
I’m mocking the instant response that I get whenever I try to debate abortion.
“IT’S SETTLED LAW!”
Really? I’ve never seen that particular response used. Why do you have a problem with abortion?
I support it because I believe one’s organs are sacrosanct and we can’t have “private property” if we don’t have the option of killing someone rather than giving them access to something of our own, a harsh but necessary truth of capitalism.
| 117 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:05:51pm |
re: #90 iceweasel
One of the problems here is that pot is treated like crack or heroin and that’s just bullshit.
Yep. Totally agree. It’s not just bullshit, it’s a waste of money. Republicans who aren’t looking here to chop a ton of spending out of government make the back of my hand itch;)
118 |
RadicalModerate Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:05:58pm |
I did a little bit of looking into the history of the “drug testing for unemployment/welfare recipients” idea. I find it interesting where I found one of the first proponents.
Warning on the (obviously cached) link - it’s a well-known white supremacist site.
What’s even scarier is how many of the planks of their platform match up exactly with the one adopted in the recent CPAC conference.
119 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:06:01pm |
In addition to the Featured Pages section, we now have Recent Pages — shows the 10 most recent pages that are not featured.
| 120 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:06:36pm |
re: #116 jamesfirecat
Really? I’ve never seen that particular response used. Why do you have a problem with abortion?
I support it because I believe one’s organs are sacrosanct and we can’t have “private property” if we don’t have the option of killing someone rather than giving them access to something of our own, a harsh but necessary truth of capitalism.
I hear it every single time I try to debate the issue (in person).
And frankly why I do or don’t support abortion isn’t the issue. Allowing the friggin debate to happen is.
| 121 |
Political Atheist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:06:58pm |
re: #112 iceweasel
Hello Jimmah.
Glad to hear you two are finally together. Done with the red tape separations I hope?
| 122 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:07:11pm |
123 |
Ojoe Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:07:33pm |
If you did a drug test on the sons a bitches who tanked the economy, you would find they are addicted to money.
If you did a drug test on the mo fo politicians, you’d find they are addicted to power.
You can’t serve two masters.
If I were very unemployed at the moment, due to the two addict groups mentioned above, well I might drink.
Orin Hatch can go soak his head.
| 124 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:08:31pm |
re: #75 SanFranciscoZionist
If you can’t take the high moral ground from the greedy capitalist swine then what hope is there, really, for humanity?
| 125 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:08:50pm |
re: #120 TampaKnight
I hear it every single time I try to debate the issue (in person).
And frankly why I do or don’t support abortion isn’t the issue. Allowing the friggin debate to happen is.
Oh I can’t vouch for the people you meet in real life only what happens here on LGF, which is obviously far more civilized than real life.
I personally think the violinist argument is really the best argument one can make as it grants that even if you grant you’re killing an innocent life, if we make it illegal we start down the path to the ultimate nanny state….
| 126 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:09:16pm |
re: #119 Charles
In addition to the Featured Pages section, we now have Recent Pages — shows the 10 most recent pages that are not featured.
Cool!
| 127 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:09:29pm |
re: #113 Aceofwhat?
I don’t understand. As long as you don’t have the drugs in your system, does it matter whether you do them on your own time? I thought the point was to see if a person is under the influence on the job, as opposed to whether they toked up on their vacation to Jamaica?
You do have the drugs in your system, though. Pot, opiates, anything fat-soluble, will linger in your system for days, and result in a positive, even if you’re not high.
And, as Tampa pointed out, most companies test once, or maybe annually. Mostly once, at hiring.
So they’re basically spending a lot of money to make sure you didn’t smoke a joint in the week prior to getting hired by them.
| 128 |
Ojoe Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:09:31pm |
re: #113 Aceofwhat?
The active ingredient in pot is fat soluble & it takes weeks for your body to eliminate it completely, so “on your own time” doesn’t mean “on the weekend” in this case.
| 129 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:09:47pm |
re: #97 webevintage
OK.
I agree with that statement.
In the end not having a % of the population starving and homeless is part of protecting the national welfare.(and really unemployment and welfare and SS and food stamps are all more about keeping the underclass from rising up and revolting along with making sure WalMart has a steady stream of customers then it is about empathy.)
Yes that’s right, social programs are good for the wealthy too.
| 130 |
alexknyc Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:09:59pm |
re: #125 jamesfirecat
Oh I can’t vouch for the people you meet in real life only what happens here on LGF, which is obviously far more civilized than real life.
I personally think the violinist argument is really the best argument one can make as it grants that even if you grant you’re killing an innocent life, if we make it illegal we start down the path to the ultimate nanny state…
Violinist argument?
| 131 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:10:45pm |
re: #124 Spare O’Lake
If you can’t take the high moral ground from the greedy capitalist swine then what hope is there, really, for humanity?
Sorry, I never take this bait.
| 132 |
Political Atheist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:11:40pm |
re: #119 Charles
Ten now instead of 5? Better and better.
| 133 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:11:47pm |
re: #121 Rightwingconspirator
Hello Jimmah.
Glad to hear you two are finally together. Done with the red tape separations I hope?
Nope. Unfortunately.
Speaking of drug testing, I have to hand over my biometric data next week. No, they don’t test for drugs but the concept is a little freaky to me generally.
| 134 |
Amory Blaine Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:12:07pm |
They should sterilize them also and make them get a big “L” tattooed on their foreheads.
Oh before I forget…
/sarcasm
| 135 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:12:08pm |
re: #56 webevintage
I’m more interested in the need for the gov’t to actually be the “spreader of empathy” because there are many out there who really think that people get what they deserve or they did not work hard enough or God must be punishing them or I want to keep all my money and fuck the rest of y’all…
What absolutely kills this paragraph is the proven fact that religious Americans are much more charitable than non-religious Americans.
But hey, whatever helps relieve people of ownership of their financial situation and growth…
| 136 |
Ojoe Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:12:13pm |
| 137 |
Political Atheist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:12:28pm |
re: #132 Rightwingconspirator
Ten now instead of 5? Better and better.
Whoops never-mind. I misunderstood. I see them.
| 138 |
albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:12:46pm |
abortion is the ultimate birth control method there is, which is it’s primary function…it’s just disappointing that there has to be so many of them….it’s a money making machine…if people used all the control they want over their bodies, there wouldn’t be so many of them
139 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:13:05pm |
The last time I had a drug screen, is was 11 panels and nothing hit. The place would have hired me if it was just weed.
| 141 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:14:22pm |
re: #87 jamesfirecat
Because every time we say that and go on to point out that truly meritocracy based capitalistic society nobody should be denied the tools with which to take a shot at making something of themselves, a guy jumps out of a bush with a knife between his teeth shouting about how I’m a communist and he’ll gut me like a pig…
You really shouldn’t try to scream war cries with a knife between your teeth, it’s done horrible things to his lips.
If you are afraid to speak the truth your arguments will ring hollow and fall on deaf ears.
142 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:14:29pm |
Orrin Hatch is a shill for the unregulated and deceitful quacks of the health supplements industry, he defended ephedra long after it was known to be poisonous,
The hypocrisy, it’s like staring directly into the sun
| 143 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:14:33pm |
re: #125 jamesfirecat
Oh I can’t vouch for the people you meet in real life only what happens here on LGF, which is obviously far more civilized than real life.
I personally think the violinist argument is really the best argument one can make as it grants that even if you grant you’re killing an innocent life, if we make it illegal we start down the path to the ultimate nanny state…
I don’t think that’s how I’d characterise Judith Jarvis Thomson’s argument, personally, but ok.
I’d agree that it’s certainly the philosophical paper people ought to look at on abortion though.
| 144 |
acacia Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:15:01pm |
re: #101 SanFranciscoZionist
I don’t think any particular program is “equivalent” but the health care legislation intrudes on many, many private decisions. Also, there are an infinite number of federal laws (not just those supported by Obama by any stretch of the imagination) that have “strings” attached to money - speed limits being one quick example that comes to mind. Actually, now that you have me thinking, it appears to be a federal government problem in general and not just Obama.
| 145 |
Political Atheist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:15:10pm |
re: #133 iceweasel
Well hang in there, I can understand your attention to immigration and all. It’s worth it to be together!
After 9/11 a Iranian friend who was in the midst of naturalization was arrested and held for days in a desert facility. Left hand/right hand not connected so his kids saw him hauled away like a criminal. I wrote some harsh essays back then.
| 146 |
webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:15:14pm |
re: #135 Aceofwhat?
What absolutely kills this paragraph is the proven fact that religious Americans are much more charitable than non-religious Americans.
But hey, whatever helps relieve people of ownership of their financial situation and growth…
Are they giving their money to charities or tithing to their church?
| 147 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:15:19pm |
| 148 |
Ojoe Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:15:19pm |
re: #138 albusteve
I think that either life is sacred or it is not, & even as a practical thing, watch out if you start making exceptions here.
149 |
HoosierHoops Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:15:23pm |
re: #140 Cannadian Club Akbar
Late to the party, as usual.
You weren’t late today
You were early for tomorrow..
| 150 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:15:38pm |
re: #130 alexknyc
Violinist argument?
” You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.”
The paper goes onto argue that obviously it wouldn’t be illegal for you to unplug yourself from the violinist and let him die….
It then argues that all pregnancy can be seen in these terms and that having sex does not imply giving consent to carry a child to term, only consenting to carry a child to term (not getting an abortion) can do that.
Thus if we were to argue that abortion is wrong, we’d be arguing that people’s private organs aren’t actually private… and if you can be forced to allow another being to use them without your approval then that opens up a great many options of an invasive government action….
| 151 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:16:02pm |
re: #124 Spare O’Lake
If you can’t take the high moral ground from the greedy capitalist swine then what hope is there, really, for humanity?
You say stupid things
| 152 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:16:02pm |
re: #127 SanFranciscoZionist
You do have the drugs in your system, though. Pot, opiates, anything fat-soluble, will linger in your system for days, and result in a positive, even if you’re not high.
Ah. But other drugs are different, right? So are they really testing to see what you did in your spare time, or is it just that there’s no incentive to develop a test to check for high levels of various compounds?
In other words, do all illegal substances require more than 24 hours to clear out, or is the intrusion you dislike better described as an unintended consequence of a certain kind of drug?
Thanks-
| 153 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:16:16pm |
re: #149 HoosierHoops
You weren’t late today
You were early for tomorrow..
Great. Another NBA thread.:)
| 154 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:17:01pm |
| 155 |
Political Atheist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:17:01pm |
re: #150 jamesfirecat
Threatened with physical violins?
| 156 |
albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:17:06pm |
| 157 |
Shiplord Kirel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:17:17pm |
re: #118 RadicalModerate
I did a little bit of looking into the history of the “drug testing for unemployment/welfare recipients” idea. I find it interesting where I found one of the first proponents.
Warning on the (obviously cached) link - it’s a well-known white supremacist site.
What’s even scarier is how many of the planks of their platform match up exactly with the one adopted in the recent CPAC conference.
A couple of points about these creeps.
Their demand for an end to foreign aid claims that “Hundreds of billions of dollars are sent overseas every year while our people remain in need ….”
This rather reminds me of a wingnut preacher’s claim that “NASA spends hundreds of billions of dollars looking for UFOs.”
Needless to say, the total budget for foreign aid is nowhere near the hundreds of billions, and NASA doesn’t spend anything on UFOs, let alone its whole $18 billion budget.
Apparently, “hundreds of billions” is yokel-speak for “way more than I know how to count.”
They also say that AIDS is “almost inclusive to homosexuals” when they obviously mean “exclusive” and “contacted the virus” when they mean “contracted the virus.”
| 158 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:17:32pm |
re: #145 Rightwingconspirator
Well hang in there, I can understand your attention to immigration and all. It’s worth it to be together!
After 9/11 a Iranian friend who was in the midst of naturalization was arrested and held for days in a desert facility. Left hand/right hand not connected so his kids saw him hauled away like a criminal. I wrote some harsh essays back then.
Oh gosh, that’s horrible! Heard a few horror stories post 9-11 as well.
How’s DL? Send her our love!
(and thanks very much for the good wishes as ever)
| 159 |
acacia Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:17:49pm |
re: #127 SanFranciscoZionist
DOT regulations require testing whenever you’re in an accident. This regulation has legitimacy as it involves providing safety to the public at large.
| 160 |
albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:18:20pm |
re: #150 jamesfirecat
jezzus what a load….how the hell does all that help to clarify anything?
161 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:18:35pm |
What I do when I am at home, after working for the day is nobody’s fucking business save my own.
My employer is entitled to give a shit what my state of mind is when I am working, and at no other time.
| 162 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:18:54pm |
re: #155 Rightwingconspirator
Threatened with physical violins?
Now that’s just as bass as puns get.
| 163 |
Ojoe Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:18:58pm |
re: #147 WindUpBird
I am saying that even to have to talk about income redistribution supposes a pervasive lack of basic person to person charity in a society.
Which mutual aid ought to be there as sort of a bedrock.
So we are talking remedial here, the whole place is a big continuation school.
| 164 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:19:08pm |
Remember Rudy?
Giuliani says that Obama should pay for the offshore drilling moratorium, not BP
Sigh.
| 165 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:19:10pm |
re: #152 Aceofwhat?
Ah. But other drugs are different, right? So are they really testing to see what you did in your spare time, or is it just that there’s no incentive to develop a test to check for high levels of various compounds?
In other words, do all illegal substances require more than 24 hours to clear out, or is the intrusion you dislike better described as an unintended consequence of a certain kind of drug?
Thanks-
I understand that cocaine clears fast, but no, I think the sole point of the test is to determine that there are no illicit substances that they can detect on one particular day around the time of your hiring.
Generally, they ask you to go a clinic, often on the weekend, so the issue is not whether you would have been high at their business or not.
This strikes me as both invasive and pointless.
And, having worked in offices where people showed up high, trust me, you don’t need a urine sample.
| 166 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:19:17pm |
re: #150 jamesfirecat
I’ll take a good fiddle player any day.
| 167 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:19:40pm |
re: #161 Fozzie Bear
What I do when I am at home, after working for the day is nobody’s fucking business save my own.
My employer is entitled to give a shit what my state of mind is when I am working, and at no other time.
You’re also entitled to not work there.
| 168 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:19:42pm |
re: #138 albusteve
You’re forgetting pregnancies that result from people exercising violent control over other people’s bodies.
| 169 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:19:46pm |
re: #164 Killgore Trout
Remember Rudy?
Giuliani says that Obama should pay for the offshore drilling moratorium, not BPSigh.
Is Rudy still searching for relevance?
| 170 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:20:06pm |
re: #113 Aceofwhat?
I don’t understand. As long as you don’t have the drugs in your system, does it matter whether you do them on your own time? I thought the point was to see if a person is under the influence on the job, as opposed to whether they toked up on their vacation to Jamaica?
Weed stays testable in your hair as long as you still have your hair.
of course it shouldn’t matter, but of course an employer makes it their business, just like employers make it their business to stalk their potential employees on social networking sites to catch a glimpse of someone drunking or showing their butt on camera. Thankfully I’m now self employed, I can moon all the cameras I want :D
| 171 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:20:12pm |
re: #160 albusteve
jezzus what a load…how the hell does all that help to clarify anything?
It deals with the point that many people argue “abortion is killing an innocent life!” And says “Yes I agree, now here is why it is okay to kill an innocent life in this situation” Which can force many people who have a religious objection to abortion to rethink their position…. if they’re open to such a thing….
| 172 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:20:24pm |
re: #159 acacia
DOT regulations require testing whenever you’re in an accident. This regulation has legitimacy as it involves providing safety to the public at large.
That’s an area where I can agree it’s a good and necessary safety measure.
| 173 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:20:37pm |
re: #142 WindUpBird
Orrin Hatch is a shill for the unregulated and deceitful quacks of the health supplements industry, he defended ephedra long after it was known to be poisonous,
The hypocrisy, it’s like staring directly into the sun
It’s still legal in Canada…that den of right-wing crackpots/
| 174 |
Political Atheist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:20:42pm |
re: #158 iceweasel
DL is great, we have an all day video shoot together tomorrow. She is becoming a very capable production assistant. This might be a first-SLR HD video of platinum smelting and casting. Then Gold, then silver. All with torches. Should be rich and spectacular. For the company blogs and youtube-12 segment series! Yaay!
| 175 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:20:47pm |
re: #131 SanFranciscoZionist
Sorry, I never take this bait.
If there is one thing that our Judeo-Christian tradition teaches us it is that we ARE our brothers’ keepers.
Bluntly speaking social justice to unbridled capitalism may seem “cute” to you, but to me it is simple honesty and an appeal to man’s better nature.
176 |
bratwurst Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:20:56pm |
re: #138 albusteve
abortion is the ultimate birth control method there is, which is it’s primary function…it’s just disappointing that there has to be so many of them…it’s a money making machine…
Down with Big Abortion!
/
| 177 |
albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:20:56pm |
re: #164 Killgore Trout
Remember Rudy?
Giuliani says that Obama should pay for the offshore drilling moratorium, not BPSigh.
uh, do you actually take him serious?…I think the moratorium is wrong too
178 |
b_sharp Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:21:02pm |
re: #135 Aceofwhat?
What absolutely kills this paragraph is the proven fact that religious Americans are much more charitable than non-religious Americans.
But hey, whatever helps relieve people of ownership of their financial situation and growth…
Proven fact?
| 179 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:21:03pm |
re: #167 TampaKnight
You’re also entitled to not work there.
Because the law is always just and fait, right? I mean, pot MUST be horrible and make you instantly and permanently retarded if the gov’t says so. /
| 180 |
Kragar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:21:09pm |
| 181 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:21:21pm |
re: #146 webevintage
Are they giving their money to charities or tithing to their church?
Total tax-deductible donations
| 182 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:21:22pm |
re: #169 darthstar
Is Rudy still searching for relevance?
Remember when people were actually convinced Rudy had a shot at the presidency? Oh those were fun times
| 183 |
Ojoe Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:21:29pm |
re: #161 Fozzie Bear
Doing pot on the weekends affects you during the week.
| 184 |
albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:21:38pm |
re: #168 Slumbering Behemoth
You’re forgetting pregnancies that result from people exercising violent control over other people’s bodies.
no I’m not….I shouldn’t have to state that
| 185 |
Amory Blaine Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:21:44pm |
re: #152 Aceofwhat?
Peeing in a cup is about worker control. Heaven forbid you work an entire career helping to build something larger than yourself to have it all taken away because of a dirty pee test. Happens all the time.
| 186 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:21:52pm |
re: #167 TampaKnight
You’re also entitled to not work there.
Entirely true, and I have refused jobs based, not on drug testing, but on invasive ‘questionnaires’ that went with the hiring process.
They were really shocked when I explained why.
| 187 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:21:57pm |
re: #150 jamesfirecat
” You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.”
The paper goes onto argue that obviously it wouldn’t be illegal for you to unplug yourself from the violinist and let him die…
It then argues that all pregnancy can be seen in these terms and that having sex does not imply giving consent to carry a child to term, only consenting to carry a child to term (not getting an abortion) can do that.
Thus if we were to argue that abortion is wrong, we’d be arguing that people’s private organs aren’t actually private… and if you can be forced to allow another being to use them without your approval then that opens up a great many options of an invasive government action…
We could also point out that you can’t legally force anyone to donate bone marrow or give blood, even if it would save someone’s life (or many lives). There would be tremendous outrage if anything like that was even suggested, along with lots of high-falutin’ talk about our bodies being sacrosanct, if you don’t have sovereign right over your body then you have nothing…
..but the wingnuts think forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term should be a-ok.
This:
having sex does not imply giving consent to carry a child to term, only consenting to carry a child to term (not getting an abortion) can do that.
Exactly.
| 188 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:22:03pm |
re: #170 WindUpBird
Thankfully I’m now self employed, I can moon all the cameras I want :D
link?
(juuust kidding;)
| 189 |
albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:22:07pm |
| 190 |
Cannadian Club Akbar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:22:10pm |
I turned a place I worked into a drug free zone. Kept liability down. And everyone was doing something. But me.
| 191 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:22:41pm |
re: #179 Fozzie Bear
Because the law is always just and fait, right? I mean, pot MUST be horrible and make you instantly and permanently retarded if the gov’t says so. /
You’re free to work wherever the fuck you want. If you have an ultimate problem with an employer’s terms of them PAYING YOU, then walk away and find another place to work, or not.
This sob story about your entitlement to do drugs and tell companies to shove it is old.
| 192 |
Ojoe Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:22:58pm |
re: #185 Amory Blaine
No poppy seed cake, it will make you test positive for heroin.
| 193 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:23:04pm |
Back to BP for a second…remember how Michael Steele and others accused President Obama of using the oil spill for political gain?
Well, what a difference a day makes.
In a preview of what will no doubt be a prominent line of attack in the run-up to the November midterm election, the Republican National Committee has released a Web ad accusing President Obama of slow action on the Gulf oil spill crisis.
| 194 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:23:23pm |
I think businesses should be allowed to x-ray you and do body cavity searches whenever they want. You can never be too careful, and after all, while you are at work, your employer owns your bodily fluids. /
| 195 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:23:32pm |
re: #178 b_sharp
Proven fact?
yep, linked it here before. i don’t really like to go there on my own time but sometimes the “evil conservatives don’t want to help their fellow man” crap is too much.
hang on. i’ll find it in a minute.
| 196 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:23:44pm |
re: #183 Ojoe
Doing pot on the weekends affects you during the week.
Yes, it does. It makes me a little less stressed.
| 197 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:24:18pm |
re: #159 acacia
DOT regulations require testing whenever you’re in an accident. This regulation has legitimacy as it involves providing safety to the public at large.
It also has legitimacy as its based in a action by the employee (being involved in an accident) such that it is now reasonable that drugs should be tested for in that one individual.
Applying for a job or cashing a paycheck doesn’t seem like sufficient cause for testing to me.
| 198 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:24:21pm |
re: #177 albusteve
uh, do you actually take him serious?…I think the moratorium is wrong too
That’s a valid opinion but it would be like asking Bush to pay for shutting down air travel on 9-11.
BP and the escrow fund has sent the wingnuts over the cliff. BP is going to pay to clean up the spill and they’ll have to pay for the economic impact of the spill. That’s life.
| 199 |
Nimed Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:24:37pm |
| 200 |
Kragar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:24:54pm |
re: #192 Ojoe
No poppy seed cake, it will make you test positive for heroin.
Canned air however does not.
| 201 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:25:22pm |
re: #170 WindUpBird
Weed stays testable in your hair as long as you still have your hair.
of course it shouldn’t matter, but of course an employer makes it their business, just like employers make it their business to stalk their potential employees on social networking sites to catch a glimpse of someone drunking or showing their butt on camera. Thankfully I’m now self employed, I can moon all the cameras I want :D
I had to take a drug test for my last corporate job. What I found funny was the persistent drinking culture both of the office itself, and of the industry (insurance). The brokers would sit around and tell tales of the last time they were drunker than hell at that conference in Vegas, and how Dave totalled the Cadillac, and I’m sitting there thinking, “Yes, I can see how it was totally necessary to make sure I wasn’t a pot smoker before allowing me to enter data into your computers.”
Insurance is quite something, really.
| 202 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:25:30pm |
re: #191 TampaKnight
You’re free to work wherever the fuck you want. If you have an ultimate problem with an employer’s terms of them PAYING YOU, then walk away and find another place to work, or not.
This sob story about your entitlement to do drugs and tell companies to shove it is old.
I’m happy with the job I have, which doesn’t require piss testing. Then again, my boss isn’t an asshole.
It’s funny how many conservatives have no problem with private intrusions into their personal space, but throw a huge shitfit when the government does the same.
| 203 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:25:31pm |
re: #173 Aceofwhat?
It’s still legal in Canada…that den of right-wing crackpots/
I listen to our FDA over shills for the Utah health supplement industry! I know that’s very liberal of me :D
| 204 |
Amory Blaine Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:25:33pm |
I took a pee test for work once and I demanded that the urine be returned to me after they were done with it. The “nurse” was shocked and didn’t know what to say. Never got it back those dirty pee snatchers.
| 205 |
Ojoe Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:25:39pm |
re: #170 WindUpBird
Thankfully I’m now self employed, I can moon all the cameras I want
Rotating Title Nomination
| 206 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:26:03pm |
re: #186 SanFranciscoZionist
Entirely true, and I have refused jobs based, not on drug testing, but on invasive ‘questionnaires’ that went with the hiring process.
They were really shocked when I explained why.
Because for every person like us, there’s 50 who are just happy as clams to hand all that information over. :(
| 207 |
webevintage Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:26:09pm |
Total tax-deductible donations
Giving money to your church is not helping others.
Giving money directly to say “Catholic Charities” is.
| 208 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:26:18pm |
re: #202 Fozzie Bear
I’m happy with the job I have, which doesn’t require piss testing. Then again, my boss isn’t an asshole.
It’s funny how many conservatives have no problem with private intrusions into their personal space, but throw a huge shitfit when the government does the same.
Apparently you’re too dense to understand the difference between private sector companies and government then.
| 209 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:27:18pm |
re: #200 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Canned air however does not.
You can huff all the Pledge you want! :D
| 210 |
Amory Blaine Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:27:22pm |
re: #208 TampaKnight
I prefer my tyranny to be applied equitably please.
| 211 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:27:33pm |
212 |
_RememberTonyC Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:27:55pm |
usually i find orrin hatch to be an OK kind of guy. but when it comes to drugs, i feel the old school approach needs to be scuttled. i really believe that SOME drugs (weed) should be legalized and taxed like crazy. hard stuff (coke, meth, heroin) is different and I’m not in favor of legalizing those. but if weed were legalized, there are many benefits that could occur.
1. drug gang activity would be reduced since weed is a major item for them.
2. by controlling the quality, selling weed like cigarettes, and taxing the shit out of it, the govt stands to earn much revenue.
3. that revenue could help pay for the new health care programs that will be very expensive.
someone needs to think out of the box on this issue.
| 213 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:27:56pm |
re: #182 WindUpBird
Remember when people were actually convinced Rudy had a shot at the presidency? Oh those were fun times
Catholic, Italian, New Yorker, three times divorced, SoLib.
Maybe in another time, another place, but in 2008, Rudy Giuliani wasn’t getting the Republican nomination for President.
End of Story.
| 214 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:28:04pm |
re: #208 TampaKnight
Apparently you’re too dense to understand the difference between private sector companies and government then.
Congratulations Einstein, you completely missed the point of his statement
| 215 |
Ojoe Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:28:15pm |
re: #207 webevintage
If that kind of charity wasn’t there the results would be really bad.
I can see some of this because I work at a food bank.
| 216 |
Nimed Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:28:24pm |
re: #150 jamesfirecat
A pleasure to see the violinist argument here, though I don’t like it very much. I think a reasonable argument can be made that you should be forced to save the violinist life in such circumstances.
(note that I’m pro-choice, but for a bunch of other reasons mainly concerning the personhood of the fetus)
| 217 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:28:39pm |
re: #214 WindUpBird
Congratulations Einstein, you completely missed the point of his statement
Really? Please explain what I missed then.
| 218 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:28:51pm |
| 219 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:28:58pm |
re: #185 Amory Blaine
Peeing in a cup is about worker control. Heaven forbid you work an entire career helping to build something larger than yourself to have it all taken away because of a dirty pee test. Happens all the time.
Really? It happens all the time to otherwise successful people who know their employer checks but neither (a) take the time to find another employer if drugs are such a central part of their leisure time or (b) decide that maybe they just shouldn’t do drugs?
Good grief. Employers are allowed to know if you’re high or not. At my company, we don’t test non-driving employees. We test employees who drive under our auspices. Is that sooo draconian?
| 220 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:29:06pm |
re: #191 TampaKnight
You’re free to work wherever the fuck you want. If you have an ultimate problem with an employer’s terms of them PAYING YOU, then walk away and find another place to work, or not.
This sob story about your entitlement to do drugs and tell companies to shove it is old.
You know, you seem to be responding to some stuff people here haven’t actually said.
| 221 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:29:11pm |
re: #184 albusteve
no I’m not…I shouldn’t have to state that
I’m sorry, but you kinda did.
re: #138 albusteve
abortion is the ultimate birth control method there is, which is it’s primary function…it’s just disappointing that there has to be so many of them…it’s a money making machine…if people used all the control they want over their bodies, there wouldn’t be so many of them
| 222 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:29:26pm |
re: #213 SanFranciscoZionist
Catholic, Italian, New Yorker, three times divorced, SoLib.
Maybe in another time, another place, but in 2008, Rudy Giuliani wasn’t getting the Republican nomination for President.
End of Story.
The America’s Mayor schtick probably could have done him okay on some political track, but president?
| 223 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:29:37pm |
| 224 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:29:40pm |
re: #192 Ojoe
No poppy seed cake, it will make you test positive for heroin.
I’ve always wondered about that. Is it urban myth, or can poppyseeds really show a positive for opiates?
| 225 |
albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:29:44pm |
re: #202 Fozzie Bear
I’m happy with the job I have, which doesn’t require piss testing. Then again, my boss isn’t an asshole.
It’s funny how many conservatives have no problem with private intrusions into their personal space, but throw a huge shitfit when the government does the same.
how many?
| 226 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:29:51pm |
| 227 |
Kragar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:29:51pm |
re: #209 WindUpBird
You can huff all the Pledge you want! :D
We had a Staff Sergeant written up because he was going thru a case of canned air a week. My Battalion ended up treating the cans like a controlled substance, had to keep it under lock and key, log books of who had access, usage, etc, it was crazy.
| 228 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:30:23pm |
| 229 |
alexknyc Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:30:48pm |
re: #143 iceweasel
I don’t think that’s how I’d characterise Judith Jarvis Thomson’s argument, personally, but ok.
I’d agree that it’s certainly the philosophical paper people ought to look at on abortion though.
I bookmarked that. It’s fascinating logic and I’ll certainly revisit it.
Although, I do have to say, she, like many others, got the Kitty Genovese story wrong.
230 |
goddamnedfrank Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:31:12pm |
re: #224 SanFranciscoZionist
I’ve always wondered about that. Is it urban myth, or can poppyseeds really show a positive for opiates?
They really can.
| 231 |
albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:31:36pm |
re: #218 jamesfirecat
///Yeah up with mom and pop abortion shops!
are you funny?….are you trying to insult me?
if so you have a long way to go
| 232 |
brookly red Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:31:46pm |
re: #224 SanFranciscoZionist
I’ve always wondered about that. Is it urban myth, or can poppyseeds really show a positive for opiates?
yes… if you work for example for NYC transit they give you a list of foods you can’t eat as well as OTC drugs you cant take.
| 233 |
foobear2 Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:31:55pm |
I apologize in advance for the interruption, but I would like to make one public attempt at trying to resolve an LGF issue.
I’ve been a pretty regular LGF reader since the Rathergate episode. I find myself disagreeing with some of Charles’ recent positions — AGW in particular — but have consistently appreciated the site’s straightforward and honest treatment of issues regarding Israel.
A couple of years ago, I managed to visit LGF during a “door opens” period and registered for an account — “foobear”. I didn’t do any posting, pretty much just a lurker, but I thought it would be great to have an account, should I find myself inspired to actually contribute to the discussion.
In mid-2009, if I remember correctly, I finally decided to weigh in on a topic and logged in for the first time since I had created my account. I spent probably 30 minutes composing my comment, reviewing it for spelling and relevance, then proudly submitted it, only to receive a message that I was no longer logged in.
When I tried to log in again, I found that my account had been blocked. I sent a couple of emails over the next few weeks to the webmaster email address (the only address I could find that seemed to be related to user questions), but never received a reply. I finally concluded that perhaps the delay in using my account had triggered some automatic blocking script or something.
I continued to visit LGF several times a day, hoping that I might once again stumble upon an open door, but no such luck. I also periodically clicked the “register” button, but consistently was directed to a page noting that registrations were closed.
Then, a few days ago, I clicked the “register” button and — voila! — there was the registration form! Figuring that my old account name would be unavailable, I happily registered a new account - “teh_foo”. Success! I logged in and read a couple of posts, but just as I was about to contribute, I had to leave for an appointment.
When I tried logging in again later, I found that my new account had been blocked. Hmm…
“Third time’s a charm”, I thought, and tried registering once more, this time with the name “teros”. This time, as soon as I got my confirmation email, I posted a reply — to the Obama BP speech thread. I don’t think I posted anything insulting or offensive; I even got a couple of friendly replies a few posts down the thread.
I had just clicked “submit” on my next contribution to the discussion when I got the message that I was, once again, no longer logged in. Sure enough, my account had been blocked. I sent another email to the webmaster, but like my earlier attempts, received no reply.
As I mentioned, my views are decidedly not the same as the majority of LGF posts I have read on a number of issues, but it’s not been my experience as a reader that folks are banned for simply disagreeing. However, I’m at a real loss to explain why I have been banned. Well, that’s not really true. At this point, I suspect that I’m being locked out because I am repeatedly registering new accounts. However, with no feedback from the webmaster, and a genuine desire to be part of the conversation, I decided to take the chance.
So, here I am. I’ve registered one last time and posted this comment, though it’s clearly off topic. I also realize that my post may well come across as whining, though it is not my intent. It’s just that I feel that this site is worth the effort. LGF moderators may feel, however, that I am not worth the effort, and will be once again banned, with no explanation or recourse. They’re obviously within their rights, as banning is clearly at the discretion of LGF. If so, I apologize for wasting anyone’s time.
It’s also quite possible that this post will be deleted. If so, I’ll finally take the hint and bid farewell to LGF.
Thanks for your time — we now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.
— Tony
| 234 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:32:05pm |
re: #191 TampaKnight
You’re free to work wherever the fuck you want. If you have an ultimate problem with an employer’s terms of them PAYING YOU, then walk away and find another place to work, or not.
This sob story about your entitlement to do drugs and tell companies to shove it is old.
| 235 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:32:22pm |
re: #202 Fozzie Bear
I’m happy with the job I have, which doesn’t require piss testing. Then again, my boss isn’t an asshole.
It’s funny how many conservatives have no problem with private intrusions into their personal space, but throw a huge shitfit when the government does the same.
Because i can walk away from one of them.
Really. Is that distinction so invisible to you? Elementary, my dear Fozzie.
| 236 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:32:44pm |
re: #196 Fozzie Bear
Yes, it does. It makes me a little less stressed.
A guy I briefly dated had an interesting experience with an employer. He was a computer programmer, and had been working for this company for several months. They liked his work, and asked if he’d consider taking a full-time job, which he said he might be interested in.
They said he had to take a drug test. That day.
He said “If I take a drug test today, it will show that I have marijuana in my system. Can I come back in two weeks and take a drug test?”
They said “Today.”
He said “Well, that’s too bad. I guess I can’t take the job.”
They were really rather upset.
| 237 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:32:44pm |
re: #212 _RememberTonyC
usually i find orrin hatch to be an OK kind of guy. but when it comes to drugs, i feel the old school approach needs to be scuttled. i really believe that SOME drugs (weed) should be legalized and taxed like crazy. hard stuff (coke, meth, heroin) is different and I’m not in favor of legalizing those. but if weed were legalized, there are many benefits that could occur.
1. drug gang activity would be reduced since weed is a major item for them.
2. by controlling the quality, selling weed like cigarettes, and taxing the shit out of it, the govt stands to earn much revenue.
3. that revenue could help pay for the new health care programs that will be very expensive.
someone needs to think out of the box on this issue.
Don’t forget once we made weed legal we’d be able to do far more studies on how effective it is at fighting various diseases and make it something to easily perscribe if you’re enrolled in our new health care program!
238 |
Romantic Heretic Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:32:58pm |
re: #12 Nimed
The important thing to keep in mind here is that the GOP is the party of small government.
Only when it involves people like themselves, the true leaders of humanity. The finest and wisest men (mostly men) who have ever walked this planet. Our species perfectly evolved nobles.
We mere peasants must be watched all the time because we’re not nearly smart enough to look after ourselves.
| 239 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:33:00pm |
re: #215 Ojoe
If that kind of charity wasn’t there the results would be really bad.
I can see some of this because I work at a food bank.
Yep. Let’s not pretend that american churches don’t do a ton of good every day, without excusing their warts.
| 240 |
Political Atheist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:33:10pm |
re: #222 WindUpBird
Why I liked him as a prospect-Even though I changed my mind about him in particular.
I liked his record as a former prosecutor.
I thought judicial branch experience would be great for a President to have in his CV. I still think running states and huge mega cities is worthwhile experience for a President to have. Divorces? I could care less. Not as bad as cheating and affairs.
| 241 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:33:11pm |
re: #234 darthstar
Fixed…second link had a trailing slash….
| 242 |
Ojoe Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:33:31pm |
re: #224 SanFranciscoZionist
Although the drug opium is produced by “milking” latex from the unripe fruits (“seed pods”) rather than from the seeds, all parts of the plant can contain or carry the opium alkaloids, especially morphine and codeine. This means that eating foods (e.g., muffins) that contain poppy seeds can result in a false positive for opiates in a drug test. The test is true positive in that it indicates the presence of the drug correctly; it is false only in the sense that the drug was not taken in the typical manner of abuse.
BBL
| 243 |
HoosierHoops Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:34:24pm |
re: #224 SanFranciscoZionist
I’ve always wondered about that. Is it urban myth, or can poppyseeds really show a positive for opiates?
It’s bullshit…20 years building Subs and being pee tested, Blood Tested, Chest X-Rays..and blowing in a little tube every month and turning in a TLD every day to measure radioactive exposure as a nuke worker..Th Navy never said ‘Lay off the poppy’s.. You’ll be positive’
| 244 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:34:25pm |
re: #207 webevintage
Giving money to your church is not helping others.
Giving money directly to say “Catholic Charities” is.
bullshit. depends on the church.
| 245 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:34:33pm |
re: #216 Nimed
A pleasure to see the violinist argument here, though I don’t like it very much. I think a reasonable argument can be made that you should be forced to save the violinist life in such circumstances.
(note that I’m pro-choice, but for a bunch of other reasons mainly concerning the personhood of the fetus)
I’d argue that if you’re forced to save his life, then in theory the next obvious step would be that people should start being forced to donate certain amounts of their livers/one of their kidneys.
If we’re giving up use of our organs to save lives, why should it mater if we know whose life we’re saving?
| 246 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:34:35pm |
re: #191 TampaKnight
You’re free to work wherever the fuck you want. If you have an ultimate problem with an employer’s terms of them PAYING YOU, then walk away and find another place to work, or not.
This sob story about your entitlement to do drugs and tell companies to shove it is old.
This is sounding suspiciously like Rand Paul’s points about how the Civil Rights Act is just so unfair to business— that and ADA compliance.
“If a business doesn’t want to serve black people, that’s their right! Shop somewhere else if you’re black!”
“If a business doesn’t want to spend the money building a wheelchair ramp, that’s their right! Roll off somewhere else!”
“If a business wants to demand invasive information from employees, that’s their right! Just work somewhere else!”
I’m seeing a whole lot of concern for the rights of corporations lately, not so much for the rights of entities that genuinely have rights— like individual persons.
*I am not implying that you in any way endorse Paul’s wackiness or agree with him, but pointing out the parallel. You’re going to need a better philosophical justification for drug testing than what you’re coming up with so far, otherwise Paul’s points appear to follow from your own.
| 247 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:35:25pm |
re: #246 iceweasel
This is sounding suspiciously like Rand Paul’s points about how the Civil Rights Act is just so unfair to business— that and ADA compliance.
“If a business doesn’t want to serve black people, that’s their right! Shop somewhere else if you’re black!”
“If a business doesn’t want to spend the money building a wheelchair ramp, that’s their right! Roll off somewhere else!”
“If a business wants to demand invasive information from employees, that’s their right! Just work somewhere else!”I’m seeing a whole lot of concern for the rights of corporations lately, not so much for the rights of entities that genuinely have rights— like individual persons.
*I am not implying that you in any way endorse Paul’s wackiness or agree with him, but pointing out the parallel. You’re going to need a better philosophical justification for drug testing than what you’re coming up with so far, otherwise Paul’s points appear to follow from your own.
This is absolutely nothing like barring blacks from working somewhere.
Terrible, terrible comparison.
| 248 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:35:31pm |
re: #208 TampaKnight
Apparently you’re too dense to understand the difference between private sector companies and government then.
Or, you’re baffled by people who want companies to follow a social standard we would also ask of government.
| 249 |
albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:36:12pm |
if the feds legalize pot then tax it, the should also allow a certain amt to be grown for personal use…if not, fuck them, I’m fed up with their irrational hypocricy
| 250 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:36:13pm |
re: #248 SanFranciscoZionist
Or, you’re baffled by people who want companies to follow a social standard we would also ask of government.
And you’re baffled to find that private companies have their own rights under law?
| 251 |
brookly red Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:36:58pm |
re: #243 HoosierHoops
It’s bullshit…20 years building Subs and being pee tested, Blood Tested, Chest X-Rays..and blowing in a little tube every month and turning in a TLD every day to measure radioactive exposure as a nuke worker..Th Navy never said ‘Lay off the poppy’s.. You’ll be positive’
well a lot depends on the type of testings the cheaper ones can be fooled either way pretty easily.
| 252 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:37:10pm |
re: #222 WindUpBird
The America’s Mayor schtick probably could have done him okay on some political track, but president?
I rather like Giuliani, but when he got up at the RNC and started doing the schtick about Small Town America I nearly lost it.
| 253 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:37:32pm |
re: #216 Nimed
A pleasure to see the violinist argument here, though I don’t like it very much. I think a reasonable argument can be made that you should be forced to save the violinist life in such circumstances.
(note that I’m pro-choice, but for a bunch of other reasons mainly concerning the personhood of the fetus)
Yeah. The violinist argument is Thomson basically making the strongest possible wingnut case (let’s grant the fetus personhood)— and we can still show that abortion is justified.
It’s excellent for that, but in reality there is zero reason to endow a fetus with the status of a person. Nor should we.
| 254 |
Political Atheist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:38:03pm |
re: #233 foobear2
Hang in there. I had some similar trouble but it was technical. And certain emails
get bounced. Like my yahoo. Always bounces back. But my work email gets through when needed. In my experience-Our host is strict about his blog (thank heavens) yet is very fair man. I do have personal experience with that on my account here.
| 255 |
alexknyc Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:38:25pm |
re: #224 SanFranciscoZionist
I’ve always wondered about that. Is it urban myth, or can poppyseeds really show a positive for opiates?
Apparently, the first drug tests conflated the two but more recent ones seem to know the difference.
| 256 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:38:33pm |
re: #253 iceweasel
Yeah. The violinist argument is Thomson basically making the strongest possible wingnut case (let’s grant the fetus personhood)— and we can still show that abortion is justified.
It’s excellent for that, but in reality there is zero reason to endow a fetus with the status of a person. Nor should we.
Right, because it’s no different than an elbow.
| 257 |
albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:38:43pm |
re: #252 SanFranciscoZionist
I rather like Giuliani, but when he got up at the RNC and started doing the schtick about Small Town America I nearly lost it.
I know how you feel, I felt the same way during BOs campaign….miles and miles of pablum
| 258 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:38:49pm |
re: #233 foobear2
Good grief.
I’m going to leave your account open, but yes, you were blocked because the correlator discovered your other accounts. There are good reasons for this. And unfortunately, it isn’t possible for me to respond to every complaint from a user who is blocked. Most of the time it’s best not to respond, in fact.
So I’ll leave your account open for now, since you don’t seem to be nuts (like a lot of the people who register multiple accounts are).
| 259 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:38:49pm |
re: #227 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
We had a Staff Sergeant written up because he was going thru a case of canned air a week. My Battalion ended up treating the cans like a controlled substance, had to keep it under lock and key, log books of who had access, usage, etc, it was crazy.
You’re serious? What is it, the propellant gas?
I’ve been told kids use whipped cream in cans for that, but most of my students have settled for more mundane drugs.
Ever smelled Juicy Juice mixed with tequila, warm?
| 260 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:39:05pm |
re: #253 iceweasel
It’s excellent for that, but in reality there is zero reason to endow a fetus with the status of a person. Nor should we.
You mean at first, right? At some point between conception and birth it’s a person, isn’t it?
| 261 |
brookly red Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:39:10pm |
re: #250 TampaKnight
And you’re baffled to find that private companies have their own rights under law?
the one I don’t get is the credit check for employment…
“gee, we would love to give you a chance to work & make some money but unfortunately we checked & you don’t have any… sorry”
| 262 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:39:49pm |
re: #247 TampaKnight
This is absolutely nothing like barring blacks from working somewhere.
Terrible, terrible comparison.
Now you’re just being dense, and here I went out of my way to be charitable to you.
I see you have no answer, and I’m not surprised.
| 263 |
albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:39:54pm |
re: #253 iceweasel
Yeah. The violinist argument is Thomson basically making the strongest possible wingnut case (let’s grant the fetus personhood)— and we can still show that abortion is justified.
It’s excellent for that, but in reality there is zero reason to endow a fetus with the status of a person. Nor should we.
when does a fetus become a person?…do you have any kids?
| 264 |
Political Atheist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:39:59pm |
re: #249 albusteve
California lets MMR patients may grow (strictly) their own. I imagine the Feds would do the same, it only makes sense.
| 266 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:40:59pm |
re: #256 TampaKnight
Right, because it’s no different than an elbow.
Ah, now I see why you wanted to bring abortion up. You’re really just a little rageball aching for a fight, aren’t you?
| 267 |
albusteve Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:41:06pm |
re: #264 Rightwingconspirator
California lets MMR patients may grow (strictly) their own. I imagine the Feds would do the same, it only makes sense.
I don’t care about MMR patients….they don’t count
| 268 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:41:07pm |
re: #262 iceweasel
Now you’re just being dense, and here I went out of my way to be charitable to you.
I see you have no answer, and I’m not surprised.
No, I get your argument no matter how bad it is.
“Paul says that companies should have the ultimate right to refuse to hire blacks….this is similar to not hiring people who smoke weed!”
Your problem is that the CRA of 1964 says they can’t. The current law says they CAN test for drugs.
| 269 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:41:41pm |
re: #266 iceweasel
Ah, now I see why you wanted to bring abortion up. You’re really just a little rageball aching for a fight, aren’t you?
Hmm….you’re the one who inserted the rather inflammatory remark about abortion.
I think it’s the other way around.
270 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:42:16pm |
re: #249 albusteve
I don’t think they’d ever allow that. Making your own wine and stuff for personal use is fairly complicated.
Everybody’d grow their own, and the gubmint wouldn’t get none of that.
They’ll stomp on it, and I mean hard.
Give them revenuers something new to chase.
| 271 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:42:22pm |
re: #266 iceweasel
Ah, now I see why you wanted to bring abortion up. You’re really just a little rageball aching for a fight, aren’t you?
eh. you might be right here.
please feel free to disregard my question if it’s better to peter pan out of this discussion into a warmer pool-
| 272 |
_RememberTonyC Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:42:38pm |
re: #233 foobear2
Sounds like a series of instances of bad luck, but not any prejudice against your views. I’m frequently in the minority, and while a number of people might not like my views, luckily Charles is very willing to endure views that are opposed to his own. As long as they’re expressed respectfully.
| 273 |
Ojoe Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:42:54pm |
re: #269 TampaKnight
Charles used to have a rule that abortion was not a topic here & maybe he still does.
| 274 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:43:26pm |
re: #273 Ojoe
Charles used to have a rule that abortion was not a topic here & maybe he still does.
Fine by me.
The leger clearly shows that the first “fetus remark” was issued via iceweasel.
| 275 |
Kragar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:43:27pm |
re: #259 SanFranciscoZionist
You’re serious? What is it, the propellant gas?
I’ve been told kids use whipped cream in cans for that, but most of my students have settled for more mundane drugs.
Ever smelled Juicy Juice mixed with tequila, warm?
They were huffing the cans and getting high off it. He got caught because he was using his government credit card and using command funds to buy the stuff. $192 a week worth of canned air, for at least 4 months. They couldn’t bust him on the huffing, no physical evidence, but he couldn’t account for why he was going thru so much or why his office even needed it, so they nailed him under waste, fraud and abuse charges.
| 276 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:43:39pm |
re: #264 Rightwingconspirator
California lets MMR patients may grow (strictly) their own. I imagine the Feds would do the same, it only makes sense.
My dad is allowed to distill his own beer, I’m pretty sure you can grow your own tobacco, if pot was made a legal drug like those two I could forsee any reason you couldn’t grow as much of it as you wanted….
| 277 |
foobear2 Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:44:05pm |
re: #258 Charles
I can appreciate your situation — thanks a bunch!
| 278 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:44:09pm |
Nope, abortion is a fair topic, and I’m not in the middle on it. I’m strongly pro-choice.
| 279 |
ReamWorks SKG Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:44:14pm |
re: #150 jamesfirecat
Now if it were a violist, there would be no ambiguity: pull the plug!
| 280 |
HoosierHoops Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:44:37pm |
re: #251 brookly red
well a lot depends on the type of testings the cheaper ones can be fooled either way pretty easily.
You know Red..After my mom died of Cancer I was sitting in her bedroom checking out her Jewelry box and found a joint in the bottom…
I know mom was anti drug..I know she was in intense pain in the last days..I know she couldn’t eat…She lost her appetite…Finding that she had to hide her only hope to eat in the bottom of a jewelry is a shame…
| 281 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:44:53pm |
re: #250 TampaKnight
And you’re baffled to find that private companies have their own rights under law?
Ah, you’re still not getting it. A private company has rights. That does not mean that I need to approve of their actions. Even their legal actions.
“I disapprove,” does not necessarily mean, or even imply ‘There oughtta be a law’.
Why are you so offended by the fact that I think drug-testing is invasive? I can see that you disagree, but you also seem to be reading a shitload of other stuff into this.
| 282 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:45:20pm |
re: #273 Ojoe
Charles used to have a rule that abortion was not a topic here & maybe he still does.
Really I thought we gave it a pretty good working over during the entire Scott Roder/Doctor Tiller thing….
| 283 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:45:24pm |
re: #229 alexknyc
I bookmarked that. It’s fascinating logic and I’ll certainly revisit it.
Although, I do have to say, she, like many others, got the Kitty Genovese story wrong.
How so? It’s been awhile since I read it.
| 284 |
Political Atheist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:45:29pm |
re: #272 _RememberTonyC
See #258.
And I’m a tiny bit embarrassed about my #254. Just for being a inadequately skeptical I guess.
| 285 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:45:36pm |
re: #257 albusteve
I know how you feel, I felt the same way during BOs campaign…miles and miles of pablum
We survived!
| 286 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:45:44pm |
re: #281 SanFranciscoZionist
Ah, you’re still not getting it. A private company has rights. That does not mean that I need to approve of their actions. Even their legal actions.
“I disapprove,” does not necessarily mean, or even imply ‘There oughtta be a law’.
Why are you so offended by the fact that I think drug-testing is invasive? I can see that you disagree, but you also seem to be reading a shitload of other stuff into this.
I get that you think it’s invasive. I wouldn’t totally disagree.
But at the end of the day it’s 100% their call.
| 287 |
_RememberTonyC Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:46:20pm |
re: #275 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
They were huffing the cans and getting high off it. He got caught because he was using his government credit card and using command funds to buy the stuff. $192 a week worth of canned air, for at least 4 months. They couldn’t bust him on the huffing, no physical evidence, but he couldn’t account for why he was going thru so much or why his office even needed it, so they nailed him under waste, fraud and abuse charges.
whippets were big when i was in college way back when …
| 288 |
Four More Tears Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:46:43pm |
re: #281 SanFranciscoZionist
Ah, you’re still not getting it. A private company has rights. That does not mean that I need to approve of their actions. Even their legal actions.
“I disapprove,” does not necessarily mean, or even imply ‘There oughtta be a law’.
Why are you so offended by the fact that I think drug-testing is invasive? I can see that you disagree, but you also seem to be reading a shitload of other stuff into this.
Screw drug tests, I want credit checks gone from all but the most sensitive of jobs.
| 289 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:47:21pm |
re: #268 TampaKnight
No, I get your argument no matter how bad it is.
”
Your problem is that the CRA of 1964 says they can’t. The current law says they CAN test for drugs.
Before the CRA, employers could discriminate on the basis of race—that didn’t make it all right.
Not comparing the two, but baffled that you seem to think that the passage of a law settles a moral or social issue.
| 290 |
alexknyc Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:47:33pm |
re: #280 HoosierHoops
You know Red..After my mom died of Cancer I was sitting in her bedroom checking out her Jewelry box and found a joint in the bottom…
I know mom was anti drug..I know she was in intense pain in the last days..I know she couldn’t eat…She lost her appetite…Finding that she had to hide her only hope to eat in the bottom of a jewelry is a shame…
When my father was dying of lung cancer, he became anemic. The doctor told him he had to eat but my father had no appetite.
So there I was, in a city half a world away from my own, offering to go find him some pot.
| 291 |
Kragar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:47:37pm |
re: #287 _RememberTonyC
whippets were big when i was in college way back when …
I always just got my own ca…I mean, I have no idea what whippets are.
| 292 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:47:47pm |
re: #273 Ojoe
Charles used to have a rule that abortion was not a topic here & maybe he still does.
We’ve discussed it before, a bunch of times.
| 293 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:47:48pm |
re: #274 TampaKnight
Fine by me.
The leger clearly shows that the first “fetus remark” was issued via iceweasel.
Meh. You picked it right up though, didn’t you?
You’re having a meltdown over people not agreeing with you on the drug test issue, and appear to be lashing out.
| 294 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:47:52pm |
re: #288 JasonA
Screw drug tests, I want credit checks gone from all but the most sensitive of jobs.
I had to go through credit and FBI background checks for my current job. (Software, IT, Security shit).
| 295 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:47:57pm |
re: #279 reuven
Now if it were a violist, there would be no ambiguity: pull the plug!
If he was a world famous accordionist you’d probably get a medal.
At least as long as he isn’t this one…
| 296 |
_RememberTonyC Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:48:08pm |
re: #284 Rightwingconspirator
See #258.
And I’m a tiny bit embarrassed about my #254. Just for being a inadequately skeptical I guess.
you didn’t say anything to be embarrassed about …
| 297 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:48:18pm |
re: #293 iceweasel
Meh. You picked it right up though, didn’t you?
You’re having a meltdown over people not agreeing with you on the drug test issue, and appear to be lashing out.
Meltdown? I’m debating and adding counter views.
Sorry if this doesn’t sit well with you.
| 299 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:48:39pm |
re: #279 reuven
Now if it were a violist, there would be no ambiguity: pull the plug!
Hey—my BFF from high school plays the viola!
| 300 |
Four More Tears Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:48:59pm |
re: #294 darthstar
I had to go through credit and FBI background checks for my current job. (Software, IT, Security shit).
Well, I understand it in your case. I wouldn’t trust you… :P
| 301 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:49:05pm |
re: #128 Ojoe
The active ingredient in pot is fat soluble & it takes weeks for your body to eliminate it completely, so “on your own time” doesn’t mean “on the weekend” in this case.
Okay. Back from my haircut.
The irony is that the harder drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc.) are not detectable by urine tests after 48-72 hours. Pot can stay detectable for up to a month.
You are less likely to get busted if you do coke than if you smoke pot.
| 302 |
brookly red Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:49:25pm |
re: #280 HoosierHoops
You know Red..After my mom died of Cancer I was sitting in her bedroom checking out her Jewelry box and found a joint in the bottom…
I know mom was anti drug..I know she was in intense pain in the last days..I know she couldn’t eat…She lost her appetite…Finding that she had to hide her only hope to eat in the bottom of a jewelry is a shame…
Sorry about your mom.
I approve of medical use absolutely yes, and I admit banning recreational is unenforcible… I do believe that if someone endangers others by doing something like driving while under the influence the penalty should be harsh. I also feel that way about booze.
| 304 |
alexknyc Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:49:32pm |
re: #283 iceweasel
How so? It’s been awhile since I read it.
The first news report said her neighbors all ignored her.
The follow-ups showed that many of her neighbors actually did call the police.
And that the cops had taken too long to get there.
| 305 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:49:34pm |
re: #271 Aceofwhat?
eh. you might be right here.
please feel free to disregard my question if it’s better to peter pan out of this discussion into a warmer pool-
Yeah, I’m TOTALLY up for you and me having that discussion another time though— next abortion thread or related topic, or some open thread on a quiet night. :)
| 306 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:49:38pm |
re: #286 TampaKnight
I get that you think it’s invasive. I wouldn’t totally disagree.
But at the end of the day it’s 100% their call.
Eh, all right then.
| 307 |
Varek Raith Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:49:44pm |
re: #294 darthstar
I had to go through credit and FBI background checks for my current job. (Software, IT, Security shit).
I had to go through a credit and background check to work a freaking Target.
Lol.
| 309 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:49:50pm |
Charles’ debate partner Carol Conn from the Heritage Foundation sez….
Joe Barton is Right: There Was a $20 Billion Shakedown in the White House
It’s absolutely amazing that these people refuse to stop digging.
| 310 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:50:00pm |
re: #288 JasonA
Screw drug tests, I want credit checks gone from all but the most sensitive of jobs.
Now there I am totally in agreement with you.
| 312 |
HoosierHoops Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:50:24pm |
re: #290 alexknyc
When my father was dying of lung cancer, he became anemic. The doctor told him he had to eat but my father had no appetite.
So there I was, in a city half a world away from my own, offering to go find him some pot.
There is nothing sadder to see a parent waste away with cancer..
I’m sorry for your dad
| 313 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:51:04pm |
re: #298 Ojoe
Whippits are fast dogs.
When I lived in the UK, a blue-ribbon (from the great dog show they have there) Whippet escaped from its crate at Heathrow airport. The search (and attempts at catching the fast little fucker) was on the news for a month. Finally, they let the dog’s “parents” join the search team at the airport, and the dog came when called…
| 314 |
wrenchwench Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:51:08pm |
re: #309 Killgore Trout
Charles’ debate partner Carol Conn from the Heritage Foundation sez…
Joe Barton is Right: There Was a $20 Billion Shakedown in the White HouseIt’s absolutely amazing that these people refuse to stop digging.
Fair enough!
| 315 |
Kragar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:51:38pm |
| 316 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:51:56pm |
re: #309 Killgore Trout
Charles’ debate partner Carol Conn from the Heritage Foundation sez…
Joe Barton is Right: There Was a $20 Billion Shakedown in the White HouseIt’s absolutely amazing that these people refuse to stop digging.
I still love the budgetary research they produce, particularly with their defense spending charts.
| 317 |
_RememberTonyC Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:52:04pm |
re: #298 Ojoe
Whippits are fast dogs.
one time when i was a freshman, a kid got really drunk in my dorm room, started doing whippets, and puked on my case of records. Thankfully I had a cover on the box and the records were spared. But that kid never set foot in my room again.
| 318 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:52:14pm |
re: #281 SanFranciscoZionist
Ah, you’re still not getting it. A private company has rights. That does not mean that I need to approve of their actions. Even their legal actions.
“I disapprove,” does not necessarily mean, or even imply ‘There oughtta be a law’.
Why are you so offended by the fact that I think drug-testing is invasive? I can see that you disagree, but you also seem to be reading a shitload of other stuff into this.
Unless you believe that employees have the right to come to work drunk or stoned, why be so offended if the employer exercises a legal method to discourage this type of counterproductive and often dangerous conduct?
319 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:52:52pm |
re: #309 Killgore Trout
Charles’ debate partner Carol Conn from the Heritage Foundation sez…
Joe Barton is Right: There Was a $20 Billion Shakedown in the White HouseIt’s absolutely amazing that these people refuse to stop digging.
They want to see Obama as a Chicago Thug, and won’t let facts stand in their way.
| 320 |
ReamWorks SKG Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:53:04pm |
re: #310 SanFranciscoZionist
I credit check my employees.
| 321 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:53:06pm |
re: #313 darthstar
When I lived in the UK, a blue-ribbon (from the great dog show they have there) Whippet escaped from its crate at Heathrow airport. The search (and attempts at catching the fast little fucker) was on the news for a month. Finally, they let the dog’s “parents” join the search team at the airport, and the dog came when called…
What was it eating? Oh, wait, Heathrow. I think I know.
Friends of mine have a pair of whippets. They’re weird-ass looking little dogs, and frankly, I think that aerodynamic head shaved a bit too much brain off. But sweet.
I got to dog-sit one summer when the female went into heat. I still have nightmares.
| 322 |
Varek Raith Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:53:19pm |
re: #318 Spare O’Lake
Unless you believe that employees have the right to come to work drunk or stoned, why be so offended if the employer exercises a legal method to discourage this type of counterproductive and often dangerous conduct?
Include alcohol and tobacco and I just might agree with you.
| 323 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:53:26pm |
re: #307 Varek Raith
I had to go through a credit and background check to work a freaking Target.
Lol.
I hate Target. Not because they sell shit, but because they let some idiot get a credit card and the fake phone number she gave them happened to be my mobile number. So for six fucking months those assholes called me every day asking for “Juanita” and when I told them they got screwed by some girl and that the number wasn’t hers, they’d call me back again…and again. I finally just got a new phone number.
| 324 |
alexknyc Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:53:32pm |
re: #318 Spare O’Lake
Unless you believe that employees have the right to come to work drunk or stoned, why be so offended if the employer exercises a legal method to discourage this type of counterproductive and often dangerous conduct?
If drug testing only showed what you did at work, you’d be right.
But it shows what you do outside of work as well and, more often than not, that’s not your employer’s business
| 325 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:53:34pm |
re: #305 iceweasel
Yeah, I’m TOTALLY up for you and me having that discussion another time though— next abortion thread or related topic, or some open thread on a quiet night. :)
Cheers, sweetie! You can even gang up on me with Jimmah - i promise not to whine-
| 326 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:54:09pm |
Credit checks are completely legit if you’re going to be receiving a company charge card.
| 327 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:54:26pm |
| 328 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:54:31pm |
re: #319 Dark_Falcon
They want to see Obama as a Chicago Thug, and won’t let facts stand in their way.
He doesn’t even look like a thug. If anything, he looks like a Jehovah’s Witness.
| 329 |
jamesfirecat Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:54:35pm |
re: #319 Dark_Falcon
They want to see Obama as a Chicago Thug, and won’t let facts stand in their way.
Let’s put on our “wing nut glasses” and see what they see when they look at the president….
AHHH!
| 330 |
Nimed Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:54:41pm |
re: #191 TampaKnight
You’re free to work wherever the fuck you want. If you have an ultimate problem with an employer’s terms of them PAYING YOU, then walk away and find another place to work, or not.
This sob story about your entitlement to do drugs and tell companies to shove it is old.
Do you know what’s older still? The notion that only the State can meaningfully curtail your freedoms. People are also “entitled” to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace, racial discrimination, absence of minimal health and safety standards, and so on. But all this stuff is useless according to your logic — people just have to pick a nice employer who spontaneously obeys all the existing legislation.
| 331 |
Varek Raith Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:54:45pm |
re: #326 TampaKnight
Credit checks are completely legit if you’re going to be receiving a company charge card.
I suppose, but I was stocking freaking shelves.
:)
| 332 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:55:45pm |
| 333 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:55:49pm |
re: #318 Spare O’Lake
Unless you believe that employees have the right to come to work drunk or stoned, why be so offended if the employer exercises a legal method to discourage this type of counterproductive and often dangerous conduct?
Because the contents of my precious bodily fluids is not the business of my employer.
| 334 |
Kragar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:56:00pm |
re: #331 Varek Raith
I suppose, but I was stocking freaking shelves.
:)
And if your credit was bad, you would be stealing!
/
| 335 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:56:02pm |
| 336 |
Four More Tears Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:56:14pm |
re: #326 TampaKnight
Credit checks are completely legit if you’re going to be receiving a company charge card.
Well yeah, it makes a lot of sense to do a credit check for something you would normally get checked for.
| 337 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:56:15pm |
re: #319 Dark_Falcon
They want to see Obama as a Chicago Thug, and won’t let facts stand in their way.
To quote a friend, in response to a similar Obama is a Thug comment: “Obama is a pansy by Chicago standards.”
And then he spit. (Not to disrespect Obama. He just does that after he says something strongly-worded. Maybe he thinks it adds emphasis.)
He also didn’t say pansy. I had to clean it up.
| 338 |
brookly red Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:56:27pm |
re: #328 darthstar
He doesn’t even look like a thug. If anything, he looks like a Jehovah’s Witness.
Great now I have this picture of him ringing doorbells & passing out the Watchtower suck in my mind…
| 339 |
bratwurst Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:56:33pm |
re: #318 Spare O’Lake
Unless you believe that employees have the right to come to work drunk or stoned, why be so offended if the employer exercises a legal method to discourage this type of counterproductive and often dangerous conduct?
Ah, a page from the “as long as you are not doing anything wrong, there is nothing to fear from invasions of privacy” playbook!
| 340 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:56:37pm |
re: #240 Rightwingconspirator
Why I liked him as a prospect-Even though I changed my mind about him in particular.
I liked his record as a former prosecutor.
I thought judicial branch experience would be great for a President to have in his CV. I still think running states and huge mega cities is worthwhile experience for a President to have. Divorces? I could care less. Not as bad as cheating and affairs.
FYI, Rudy *was* having an affair— and his wife found out he was divorcing her at the press conference.
On the evening after announcing his cancer diagnosis, reporters observed Giuliani having “a romantic dinner” with Judith Nathan, the woman who would be identified as his lover. [13] Just one more week later, Rudy Giuliani announced that he and Hanover were officially separated at a press conference on May 10. Per friends of Ms. Hanover, Giuliani had neglected to tell Hanover either of his decision or of the press conference and moments later, with cameras filming her reaction, reporters at her residence apparently shocked her with this info and she was visibly distraught by the unexpected news.[14]
| 341 |
Varek Raith Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:57:02pm |
re: #338 brookly red
Great now I have this picture of him ringing doorbells & passing out the Watchtower suck in my mind…
Dammit, so do I!
It’s your Bush’s fault.
| 342 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:57:42pm |
re: #311 Dark_Falcon
Hi, ice! What are we talking about?
All kinds of stuff! What’s new? Good news on the job front I hope?
| 344 |
Political Atheist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:58:36pm |
re: #310 SanFranciscoZionist
Hmm. In general I agree.In the jewelry industry we used to take pre employment polygraphs. Banned. We used to depend on references. Legal liabilities prevent the old employer from passing on any negative data.
So we do drug tests at many employers and credit checks too. Tough call. Diamond brokers, gold dealers, the inventory is vulnerable to temptation. I have really mixed feelings about this.
| 346 |
HoosierHoops Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:59:23pm |
re: #342 iceweasel
All kinds of stuff! What’s new? Good news on the job front I hope?
Hi Cutie! Tell Jimmah said hi!
Warming up to pregame..I hope today finds you well
| 347 |
ReamWorks SKG Thu, Jun 17, 2010 3:59:40pm |
re: #335 SanFranciscoZionist
I run a consulting firm for the Entertainment (Theme Park and Movie) industry. We do custom photo and video effects, stereo photography, and digital asset management consulting.
(Though most of my life is spent sitting at airports, as I am now…. :-) )
| 348 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:00:17pm |
re: #318 Spare O’Lake
Unless you believe that employees have the right to come to work drunk or stoned, why be so offended if the employer exercises a legal method to discourage this type of counterproductive and often dangerous conduct?
Because that method is deeply flawed, and results in people who eat poppy seed muffins or smoked a joint on vacation 2 weeks ago to lose their jobs.
| 349 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:00:33pm |
re: #326 TampaKnight
Credit checks are completely legit if you’re going to be receiving a company charge card.
Or if you are going to be handling money.
Saw a disaster in the making last month. Was in a customer’s home who works at a check cashing store. She told me that over the past few years her credit has gotten horrible, and she doesn’t know what she’s going to do.
(didn’t know why the hell I was there)
Anyway, there is a HUGE amount of cash in a check cashing store. They credit check their employees… but don’t do it enough.
They credit check her? She’s gone.
| 350 |
darthstar Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:00:36pm |
In a speech on the House floor on Sept. 19, 2006, as he talked about school safety, Mr. Kirk spoke about “the kids who were the brightest lights of our country’s future, and I also remember those who bore scrutiny as people who might bring a gun to class.”
| 351 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:01:46pm |
re: #324 alexknyc
If drug testing only showed what you did at work, you’d be right.
But it shows what you do outside of work as well and, more often than not, that’s not your employer’s business
If you show up for your shift with your ability impaired to work productively and safely, then your employer needs to have the right to send you home.
The better argument against testing is that someone who is not impaired may yet have trace amounts of alcohol or drugs in their bodies, and it is this information which the employer should not be entitled to keep or use in any way.
| 352 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:02:26pm |
re: #348 Fozzie Bear
Because that method is deeply flawed, and results in people who eat poppy seed muffins or smoked a joint on vacation 2 weeks ago to lose their jobs.
Some types of medications come up as a false positive too. I don’t know if “deeply flawed” is the right term, but yeah, shit gets screwed up.
| 353 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:02:57pm |
re: #348 Fozzie Bear
Because that method is deeply flawed, and results in people who eat poppy seed muffins or smoked a joint on vacation 2 weeks ago to lose their jobs.
Ok, but then shouldn’t your angle be “the drug tests need to be vastly improved” versus “drug tests are bad, mmmkay”?
That’s kinda where i am. I don’t like the company wondering what i do on my time. It’s just that i have an even greater dislike for a tolerance of substance abuse on the job.
| 354 |
brookly red Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:03:12pm |
re: #344 Rightwingconspirator
Hmm. In general I agree.In the jewelry industry we used to take pre employment polygraphs. Banned. We used to depend on references. Legal liabilities prevent the old employer from passing on any negative data.
So we do drug tests at many employers and credit checks too. Tough call. Diamond brokers, gold dealers, the inventory is vulnerable to temptation. I have really mixed feelings about this.
About a year ago I was asked to be a reference for a friend in the military (I have no clue as to what for) but getting a letter from the DoD scared the crap outta me.
| 355 |
Amory Blaine Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:03:18pm |
re: #349 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Or if you are going to be handling money.
You mean like bankers and stockbrokers?
| 356 |
ReamWorks SKG Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:03:20pm |
While I do credit checks, I do NOT drug test. Go figure
| 357 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:04:35pm |
Most places drug test once: at time of hiring.
So basically you gotta get “clean” for one drug test, and then you can land the job you want and continue the habit.
Pragmatically speaking, that’s pretty fair.
| 358 |
Political Atheist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:04:39pm |
re: #340 iceweasel
Well that’s too bad. I did not know that. Of course only the wingnuts wanted Bill out over Monica. If every man or woman that has cheated on a spouse is out of contention we may give up some otherwise very capable people.
Anyway I was in support of those qualifications, which he has. But the failings have become too much. Too bad.
Still looking for that sensible tough minded moderate to vote for. Still liking judicial experience to contrast legislators getting in. In principle.
| 359 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:04:42pm |
re: #344 Rightwingconspirator
the inventory is vulnerable to temptation
Very nice phrasing there. Good. I struggled how to say that.
| 360 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:04:42pm |
re: #325 Aceofwhat?
Cheers, sweetie! You can even gang up on me with Jimmah - i promise not to whine-
hey no prob— no ganging up or nasty fight in the offing either!
It’d be cool to discuss personhood in the abstract; I definitely don’t think it needs to get heated at all.
I don’t even know for certain what Jimmah’s position would be.
There’s two separate issues anyway: the abstract discussion of personhood, and the issue of abortion. (Thomson’s argument shows that even if you grant the 1 week old fetus personhood you can still justify abortion.)
| 361 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:04:50pm |
Evening, fellow lizards. What’s the good word?
| 362 |
Four More Tears Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:05:00pm |
re: #356 reuven
While I do credit checks, I do NOT drug test. Go figure
Uh… you don’t know why you do one but not the other?
| 363 |
Varek Raith Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:05:04pm |
Forget drug and credit checks…
I DEMAND THAT ALL GO THROUGH IDIOT CHECKS.
///
| 364 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:05:41pm |
re: #363 Varek Raith
Forget drug and credit checks…
I DEMAND THAT ALL GO THROUGH IDIOT CHECKS.
///
3/4 of Americans would be fired on the spot.
| 365 |
HoosierHoops Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:05:58pm |
re: #361 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds
Evening, fellow lizards. What’s the good word?
It’s all about you baby and game 7 tonight!
What up?
| 366 |
brookly red Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:06:12pm |
re: #363 Varek Raith
Forget drug and credit checks…
I DEMAND THAT ALL GO THROUGH IDIOT CHECKS.
///
there was a time those were called elections…
| 367 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:06:51pm |
re: #365 HoosierHoops
It’s all about you baby and game 7 tonight!
What up?
Meh, I got burned out on hoops this year after UK crashed and burned in the Elite Eight. Screwed my brackets all to hell.
368 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:07:15pm |
re: #356 reuven
While I do credit checks, I do NOT drug test. Go figure
Really. I worked for a drug testing supplier… I showed up at many companies with a testing kit and orders to test employees on the spot, not just new hires… the company I work for right now can drug test on demand.
I know this for fact… I ran into a lot of surprised pissed off people doing that sort of work.
| 369 |
Varek Raith Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:07:33pm |
re: #364 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds
3/4 of Americans would be fired on the spot.
Heh, I spent a lot longer in line at the store because the cashier couldn’t use the register properly.
Kept adding it up wrong.
How does one even do that?!?!
/Rant.
| 370 |
TampaKnight Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:08:28pm |
I just read the Barney Frank / Ron Paul “report” on defense cuts.
I’ve never laughed so hard in my life. Utterly ridiculous.
| 371 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:08:51pm |
re: #360 iceweasel
hey no prob— no ganging up or nasty fight in the offing either!
It’d be cool to discuss personhood in the abstract; I definitely don’t think it needs to get heated at all.
I don’t even know for certain what Jimmah’s position would be.There’s two separate issues anyway: the abstract discussion of personhood, and the issue of abortion. (Thomson’s argument shows that even if you grant the 1 week old fetus personhood you can still justify abortion.)
Indeed. And both are very interesting issues, and my current position on them is unemotional. Should be fun- help me remember!
| 372 |
Targetpractice Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:09:43pm |
re: #369 Varek Raith
Heh, I spent a lot longer in line at the store because the cashier couldn’t use the register properly.
Kept adding it up wrong.
How does one even do that?!?!
/Rant.
The only thing that tops that is when they have to take an extra 5-10 minutes to call up the manager and ask him/her to fix their frak-up.
373 |
Eclectic Infidel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:10:01pm |
re: #44 SanFranciscoZionist
There’s a deeply rooted fear that giving money to the poor will just encourage them.
What these senators don’t get is that ue checks and welfare just keep people afloat…barely. There needs to be more $$$ for grants for education; heck education really ought to be subsidized for those who can’t afford it anyway. If we can spend billions on credit for foreign wars, I don’t see the problem with this. There needs to be better sources for child care too. Oh but wait, that’s all socialism, isn’t it? Never mind, that’s not the _American_ way.
| 374 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:10:02pm |
re: #337 Soap_Man
To quote a friend, in response to a similar Obama is a Thug comment: “Obama is a pansy by Chicago standards.”
And then he spit. (Not to disrespect Obama. He just does that after he says something strongly-worded. Maybe he thinks it adds emphasis.)
He also didn’t say pansy. I had to clean it up.
Chicago has hand gang leaders like Johnny Torrio who were not personally violent, but such men have always been willing to have someone else use force of their behalf. Obama could fit that mold, using others to carry the hatchet for him. But that would still obviate the ‘thug’ moniker, because no one would confuse Torrio with a violent thug.
| 375 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:10:52pm |
re: #357 TampaKnight
Most places drug test once: at time of hiring.
So basically you gotta get “clean” for one drug test, and then you can land the job you want and continue the habit.
Pragmatically speaking, that’s pretty fair.
Storytime!
Right after college, I looked for about four months with no luck. So I took a little breather from looking. Then I was abruptly brought in for an interview for a company I forgot I applied at.
At that time in my life, I rarely smoked pot. Maybe once every few months. But I did a few weeks before the interview, at a party. I was interviewed, hired and given a drug test. I figured I was fine, but I refused to tell anyone (not even my parents) that I was hired pending a drug test. I was scared shitless that it would come back positive.
It didn’t. So I told my mom that I got a job (which was actually offered to me two weeks earlier.) She asked when I started and I told her “tomorrow.” “That fast!?!?” she said. “They need someone right away I guess,” I said.
| 376 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:11:00pm |
| 377 |
RadicalModerate Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:11:31pm |
Well, it appears today’s story of a Republican senator’s “Honest guys, I didn’t know that the guy who I had dinner with last night was a gay porn star.” story comes from the great state of Minnesota.
State lawmaker has dining date with porn star
A minnesotaindependent.com article states that a gay porn news website, The Sword, quotes Koering as saying: “Do I think that being a porn star is the best thing? No. But that’s his choice. I think he’s a nice guy.”
Wilde has starred in films such as “My Brother’s Hot Friend” and “Cruiser Boys,” according to the minnesotaindependent.com, and he divides his time between Brainerd, Minn., and West Hollywood, Calif.
The website also quotes Minnesota state GOP chair Tony Sutton as saying the dinner showed poor judgment by Koering.
The question Koering did not raise during our interview is whether a heterosexual politician’s dinner with a tweety porn star would have raised any eyebrows.
The answer: Oh yeah.
| 378 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:11:50pm |
re: #366 brookly red
there was a time those were called elections…
But people still elected assholes and idiots. Elections only work if the public is actually paying attention.
| 379 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:12:04pm |
re: #333 SanFranciscoZionist
Because the contents of my precious bodily fluids is not the business of my employer.
Would you not agree, though, that there are some jobs which would justify testing? How about breathalyzer testing for truck drivers or fork lift operators?
| 380 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:12:18pm |
re: #377 RadicalModerate
The gay news site is called “The Sword”? That’s hilarious.
| 381 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:15:10pm |
re: #379 Spare O’Lake
Would you not agree, though, that there are some jobs which would justify testing? How about breathalyzer testing for truck drivers or fork lift operators?
I don’t want to speak for the entire crowd that is speaking against drug testing, but I think most of us have said that it is okay in many situations. Like if there is a reasonable suspicion or if the job is sensitive or dangerous.
It’s the automatic drug testing that bugs me, being asked to turn over your piss without evidence you have actually done anything to arouse suspicion.
Sorry to butt in.
| 382 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:16:01pm |
re: #345 Soap_Man
Eeek. Never heard that.
Yeah, there’s an awful lot of dirt on Rudy that would make a national candidacy problematic. (The personal life stuff isn’t even the major issue, but it always is anyway).
I know lefties in nyc who have been hoping and wishing that he would be a nominee at some point, because there’s just loads of old and awful dirt that would come up.
(i think he’s off the hook for those expenses etc detailed in the politico article from 2007, but it gives you a taste.)
And Judy Nathan = serious liability.
| 383 |
ReamWorks SKG Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:16:14pm |
re: #362 JasonA
Uh… you don’t know why you do one but not the other?
re: #362 JasonA
I just think it’s invasive and not necessarily indicative of anything. I don’t like recreational drug use, but since I personally won’t pee in a jar for someone else, I can’t expect my employees to.
I may feel differently for different sorts of business. (For example, in his book amazon.com Sam Carpenter, who runs a call center operation, said that Drug Testing made a big difference…)
Since my people tend to be either “Creative” types or social-oddities (MIT Ph.Ds), drug testing is a poor indicator of performance. We’re not looking for uniformity, we’re looking to create specific impressions with clients.
384 |
prairiefire Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:17:56pm |
re: #382 iceweasel
I remember the SNL skit that had someone portraying Rudy speaking with Judith Nathan hiding behind a potted plant.
| 385 |
Four More Tears Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:18:11pm |
re: #383 reuven
re: #362 JasonA
I just think it’s invasive and not necessarily indicative of anything. I don’t like recreational drug use, but since I personally won’t pee in a jar for someone else, I can’t expect my employees to.
I may feel differently for different sorts of business. (For example, in his book [Link: www.amazon.com…] Sam Carpenter, who runs a call center operation, said that Drug Testing made a big difference…)
Since my people tend to be either “Creative” types or social-oddities (MIT Ph.Ds), drug testing is a poor indicator of performance. We’re not looking for uniformity, we’re looking to create specific impressions with clients.
Okay, but I really don’t see how a credit-check helps you pick out the best of the creative-crop, either. *shrug* Not looking to start a fight over it, it just doesn’t make sense to me. Help me see the light :)
| 386 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:18:56pm |
re: #383 reuven
re: #362 JasonA
I just think it’s invasive and not necessarily indicative of anything. I don’t like recreational drug use, but since I personally won’t pee in a jar for someone else, I can’t expect my employees to.
I may feel differently for different sorts of business. (For example, in his book [Link: www.amazon.com…] Sam Carpenter, who runs a call center operation, said that Drug Testing made a big difference…)
Since my people tend to be either “Creative” types or social-oddities (MIT Ph.Ds), drug testing is a poor indicator of performance. We’re not looking for uniformity, we’re looking to create specific impressions with clients.
Bravo for that.
| 387 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:19:33pm |
re: #340 iceweasel
That’s character!
| 388 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:19:39pm |
re: #382 iceweasel
Yeah, there’s an awful lot of dirt on Rudy that would make a national candidacy problematic. (The personal life stuff isn’t even the major issue, but it always is anyway).
I know lefties in nyc who have been hoping and wishing that he would be a nominee at some point, because there’s just loads of old and awful dirt that would come up.
(i think he’s off the hook for those expenses etc detailed in the politico article from 2007, but it gives you a taste.)And Judy Nathan = serious liability.
It’s a pity. He’s got some excellent leadership qualities, but you’re right that he has too much dirty laundry for either party to nominate him for president.
| 389 |
Nimed Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:19:40pm |
re: #379 Spare O’Lake
Would you not agree, though, that there are some jobs which would justify testing? How about breathalyzer testing for truck drivers or fork lift operators?
There are jobs out there that justify discrimination on just about anything, as long as it can be shown that the basis of discrimination is important for job performance. Think models, athletes or actors.
| 390 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:21:35pm |
re: #342 iceweasel
All kinds of stuff! What’s new? Good news on the job front I hope?
Sorry I didn’t see this one before. I had two interview today, the first of them being a second interview that went very well. I should know if I got the job tomorrow, or Monday at the latest.
| 391 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:22:11pm |
re: #379 Spare O’Lake
Would you not agree, though, that there are some jobs which would justify testing? How about breathalyzer testing for truck drivers or fork lift operators?
Well, no kidding. We’re not talking about heavy machinery, we’re talking about people who are being tested for no reason. Whether I toke up on the weekend has nothing to do with my ability to rig Maya models on Monday.
| 392 |
ReamWorks SKG Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:22:42pm |
re: #385 JasonA
It’s really just my personal bias. IMHO, our current economic collapse was caused by bad behavior from mortgage lenders *AND* millions of Americans who lied on their mortgage applications and/or bought houses they couldn’t possibly afford.
Because these deadbeats are getting all sorts of handouts (for example, there’s no more income tax on forgiven mortgage debt! Outrageous, IMHO), I want to make things more “fair”. So if there’s evidence that someone had a mortgage they couldn’t afford, for example, I will avoid hiring them. It’s just an idiosyncrasy of mine.
Now, mind you, my company has only 4 full time employees and about a dozen subcontractors. So the issue doesn’t come up that much. And I don’t care about the subs, just my employees.
| 393 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:23:35pm |
re: #391 WindUpBird
Well, no kidding. We’re not talking about heavy machinery, we’re talking about people who are being tested for no reason. Whether I toke up on the weekend has nothing to do with my ability to rig Maya models on Monday.
If a company don’t want certain chemicals in your body while at work… they have all the right in the world to tell you that… and make sure you don’t.
| 394 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:23:59pm |
re: #389 Nimed
There are jobs out there that justify discrimination on just about anything, as long as it can be shown that the basis of discrimination is important for job performance. Think models, athletes or actors.
Porn stars
| 395 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:24:00pm |
re: #389 Nimed
There are jobs out there that justify discrimination on just about anything, as long as it can be shown that the basis of discrimination is important for job performance. Think models, athletes or actors.
I can’t remember what this is from, but:
Director: You can’t accuse us of discrimination for not giving you the part.
Actor: Oh yeah? Why not.
Director: Well, you’re white.
Actor: Did you ever hear of reverse discrimination?
Director: I have. But the part you auditioned for is Kareem Abdul Jabaar.
| 396 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:24:12pm |
re: #393 Walter L. Newton
If a company don’t want certain chemicals in your body while at work… they have all the right in the world to tell you that… and make sure you don’t.
Quite Concur.
| 397 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:24:28pm |
re: #381 Soap_Man
I don’t want to speak for the entire crowd that is speaking against drug testing, but I think most of us have said that it is okay in many situations. Like if there is a reasonable suspicion or if the job is sensitive or dangerous.
It’s the automatic drug testing that bugs me, being asked to turn over your piss without evidence you have actually done anything to arouse suspicion.
Sorry to butt in.
No problem with your clarification, thanks. Since alcohol or prescription drugs are not illegal substances there should be very little concern for invasion of privacy, since who really cares if someone has trace amounts of legal substances in their system?
The really difficult area is illegal drugs since an employee who shows up to work sober but with trace amounts of cocaine or marijuana in their blood would legitimately fear that the information could be used against them. On the other hand, how much sympathy should we have for the concerns of people who voluntarily choose to ingest illegal substances?
| 398 |
ReamWorks SKG Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:25:33pm |
re: #395 Soap_Man
Maybe it’s because I’m sitting in the ORD UA RCC right now, but you’re going to start a whole sub-thread of “Airplane” references
Joey : Wait a minute! I know you. You’re Kareem Abdul-Jabar.
You played basketball for the Los Angeles Lakers.
Murdock : I’m sorry son, but you must have me confused with some-
one else. My name is Roger Murdock. I’m the co-pilot.
Joey : You are Kareem! I’ve seen you play. My dad’s got
season tickets.
Murdock : I think you should go back to your seat now Joey.
Right Clarence?
| 399 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:26:15pm |
re: #393 Walter L. Newton
If a company don’t want certain chemicals in your body while at work… they have all the right in the world to tell you that… and make sure you don’t.
Sorry, no. It’s ridiculous, and no, they don’t get that right. Think medication.
“Sorry, we don’t hire people who have X health problem. Please give us an itemized list of every medication you have taken in the last five years.”
But really, it all just motivates me to make sure I never have to answer to an employer again.
| 400 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:27:17pm |
re: #399 WindUpBird
Sorry, no. It’s ridiculous, and no, they don’t get that right. Think medication.
“Sorry, we don’t hire people who have X health problem. Please give us an itemized list of every medication you have taken in the last five years.”
But really, it all just motivates me to make sure I never have to answer to an employer again.
Amen to that.
| 401 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:27:20pm |
re: #396 Dark_Falcon
Does the company you work for have the right to demand all your medical records?
For a bunch of people who are at least theoretically into personal freedom, you sure seem gleefully willing to give up all your freedoms to a company.
| 402 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:28:26pm |
re: #391 WindUpBird
Well, no kidding. We’re not talking about heavy machinery, we’re talking about people who are being tested for no reason. Whether I toke up on the weekend has nothing to do with my ability to rig Maya models on Monday.
In fairness to Spare, i must have missed that distinction upthread as well.
| 403 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:28:31pm |
re: #399 WindUpBird
Sorry, no. It’s ridiculous, and no, they don’t get that right. Think medication.
“Sorry, we don’t hire people who have X health problem. Please give us an itemized list of every medication you have taken in the last five years.”
But really, it all just motivates me to make sure I never have to answer to an employer again.
You’re choice… just like it’s their choice to drug test or tell you want chemicals they DON’T want in your body while on the clock… and if what you do at home leaves a residual in your body… and you are at work… and they find it… tough shit… you know the rules.
| 404 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:28:43pm |
re: #346 HoosierHoops
Hi Cutie! Tell Jimmah said hi!
Warming up to pregame..I hope today finds you well
Hey Hoops! Are you and Winston all excited for the game?
Jimmah says hi too and we send our love. :)
well, he would say hi if he weren’t sleeping. I’ve been making him get up at crazy hours to visit various landmarks—
brooklyn bridge
etc. :)
| 405 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:28:45pm |
re: #397 Spare O’Lake
No problem with your clarification, thanks. Since alcohol or prescription drugs are not illegal substances there should be very little concern for invasion of privacy, since who really cares if someone has trace amounts of legal substances in their system?
The really difficult area is illegal drugs since an employee who shows up to work sober but with trace amounts of cocaine or marijuana in their blood would legitimately fear that the information could be used against them. On the other hand, how much sympathy should we have for the concerns of people who voluntarily choose to ingest illegal substances?
So you’ve uh been missing all the stories about employers snooping peoples’ personal lives on social networking sites and canning then because they did something legal but unseemly to Joe Meddle Manager?
| 406 |
ReamWorks SKG Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:29:08pm |
The other thing is, I can do a credit check and public records check non-invasively. Public records checks are handy; before getting into a contractual arrangement with someone, it’s nice to see if they had filed any lawsuits in your county/state, etc….
| 407 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:29:16pm |
re: #401 WindUpBird
Does the company you work for have the right to demand all your medical records?
For a bunch of people who are at least theoretically into personal freedom, you sure seem gleefully willing to give up all your freedoms to a company.
SO… what do you think of smoke free work places and eateries and such laws?
| 408 |
Four More Tears Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:29:52pm |
re: #397 Spare O’Lake
No problem with your clarification, thanks. Since alcohol or prescription drugs are not illegal substances there should be very little concern for invasion of privacy, since who really cares if someone has trace amounts of legal substances in their system?
The really difficult area is illegal drugs since an employee who shows up to work sober but with trace amounts of cocaine or marijuana in their blood would legitimately fear that the information could be used against them. On the other hand, how much sympathy should we have for the concerns of people who voluntarily choose to ingest illegal substances?
How about legal substances? Can we have sympathy for them?
However, it seems that some corporations want to move beyond smoke-free workplaces to entirely smoke-free workforces. In January 2006, Weyco, Inc=, a medical-benefits administration company, began random tobacco breathalyzer tests to determine whether employees have been smoking on or off the job. Employees who failed the test were fined $50 if not enrolled in a smoking cessation program. Four employees who opted out of the test were fired. Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has declared that it will begin firing smokers in October 2006.
| 409 |
ReamWorks SKG Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:29:54pm |
Ok! Need to get on a plane! Maybe someday we can discuss the TSA and their nude-o-scope.
| 410 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:30:01pm |
There seems to be a bit too little emphasis on “negative freedoms” (freedom from) in our politics as a nation, imo.
| 411 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:31:09pm |
re: #407 Walter L. Newton
SO… what do you think of smoke free work places and eateries and such laws?
Smoke free eateries don’t demand that employees and customers don’t smoke ever, just that they don’t smoke there.
| 412 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:31:35pm |
re: #399 WindUpBird
Sorry, no. It’s ridiculous, and no, they don’t get that right. Think medication.
“Sorry, we don’t hire people who have X health problem. Please give us an itemized list of every medication you have taken in the last five years.”
But really, it all just motivates me to make sure I never have to answer to an employer again.
C’mon, be honest. The real concern is that recreational users of illegal drugs do not want to lose their right to get stoned when they’re not at work. The solution, by the way, is to legalize recreational drugs like pot in order to remove the stigma.
| 413 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:31:57pm |
re: #402 Aceofwhat?
In fairness to Spare, i must have missed that distinction upthread as well.
Do you really think ANYONE here, especially someone as level-headed as SFZ would honestly say that a heavy machinery operator should not ever be tested for impairment?
I don’t like the rhetorical playing-stupid act, and Spare does it constantly.
| 414 |
RayGunIsDead Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:33:22pm |
re: #412 Spare O’Lake
“The solution, by the way, is to legalize recreational drugs like pot in order to remove the stigma.”
Lets legalize all drugs. Lets give it a whack. Prisons are expensive.
| 415 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:33:28pm |
re: #397 Spare O’Lake
No problem with your clarification, thanks. Since alcohol or prescription drugs are not illegal substances there should be very little concern for invasion of privacy, since who really cares if someone has trace amounts of legal substances in their system?
The really difficult area is illegal drugs since an employee who shows up to work sober but with trace amounts of cocaine or marijuana in their blood would legitimately fear that the information could be used against them. On the other hand, how much sympathy should we have for the concerns of people who voluntarily choose to ingest illegal substances?
The users aren’t the people I worry about, it’s the people who don’t. I think peeing in a cup to get a job is insulting. But it’s not like you can refuse.
I do want to add that I don’t find this to be a major concern of mine. I just think the rights of the individual should usually override the rights of a company or a government. When both sides have a legitimate argument (which both do, in this case) then I think the rights should be awarded to the individual. Err on the side of the citizen.
Again, not a major issue, but this is a small aspect of a larger argument for me.
| 416 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:33:38pm |
re: #411 Fozzie Bear
Smoke free eateries don’t demand that employees and customers don’t smoke ever, just that they don’t smoke there.
But they want to control what you put into your body while in their PRIVATE BUSINESS… and the left has no problem with passing laws requiring ex amount of salt or sugar and all the other intrusive areas that the left wants to control in regards to health… but drugging at home is ok… even if you come to work fro a PRIVATE BUSINESS with that substance in you body.
Typical hypocrites.
| 417 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:33:50pm |
re: #399 WindUpBird
Sorry, no. It’s ridiculous, and no, they don’t get that right. Think medication.
“Sorry, we don’t hire people who have X health problem. Please give us an itemized list of every medication you have taken in the last five years.”
Bah. HIPAA. Not all regulation is bad. Your health information is protected so tightly that HIPAA info leak lawsuits are sooo easy to pursue. (Ask your dad;)
They can ask for a doctor’s assurance that your medication is causing the positive, but only a select few people can hear of it. I am strictly barred from knowing anything about my employees’ conditions outside of how it directly affects their job.
Good regulation at work!
| 418 |
b_sharp Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:34:02pm |
re: #256 TampaKnight
Right, because it’s no different than an elbow.
Is the blastocyst, or the pharyngula a person, or a potential person? Both are also potential natural abortions.
What is the difference between a fetus and an elbow?
| 419 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:34:21pm |
re: #401 WindUpBird
Does the company you work for have the right to demand all your medical records?
For a bunch of people who are at least theoretically into personal freedom, you sure seem gleefully willing to give up all your freedoms to a company.
We are free to walk away. That’s what you’re missing.
| 420 |
ReamWorks SKG Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:34:21pm |
re: #413 WindUpBird
Ok! One more comment!
IMPAIRMENT, yes!
I always thought it would be much better, and accurate, to give machine operators, drivers, etc, random PERFORMANCE tests. What if commercial truck drivers had to sit down in driving simulators, or people operating heavy machines were routinely checked on some sort of simulator or coordination tester?
This would not only find drugs, but other conditions that may be impacting safety….
| 421 |
Nimed Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:34:36pm |
re: #395 Soap_Man
I can’t remember what this is from, but:
Director: You can’t accuse us of discrimination for not giving you the part.
Actor: Oh yeah? Why not.
Director: Well, you’re white.
Actor: Did you ever hear of reverse discrimination?
Director: I have. But the part you auditioned for is Kareem Abdul Jabaar.
LOL
I thought about including Othello as an example in the previous comment. Now I’m glad I didn’t.
| 422 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:34:44pm |
re: #407 Walter L. Newton
SO… what do you think of smoke free work places and eateries and such laws?
The same way I think about workplaces where there aren’t razor blades strewn on the ground and feral rottweilers everywhere. (though I think bars should be able to allow smoking with a variance)
Smoke in the workplace is an air pollutant. I’m pretty sure weed I smoked on Sunday at home is not affecting the office air quality on Wednesday.
| 423 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:35:33pm |
re: #402 Aceofwhat?
In fairness to Spare, i must have missed that distinction upthread as well.
Thanks. Don’t worry, some would rather posture than discuss in good faith.
| 424 |
b_sharp Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:35:41pm |
re: #260 Aceofwhat?
You mean at first, right? At some point between conception and birth it’s a person, isn’t it?
When? What is the definition of personhood?
| 425 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:35:50pm |
re: #401 WindUpBird
There should be an exception for medication for which you have a prescription and every company I have ever worked for has such an exception. Also, why did you downding me for agreeing with Walter, but not downding Walter himself?
| 426 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:36:27pm |
re: #416 Walter L. Newton
But they want to control what you put into your body while in their PRIVATE BUSINESS… and the left has no problem with passing laws requiring ex amount of salt or sugar and all the other intrusive areas that the left wants to control in regards to health… but drugging at home is ok… even if you come to work fro a PRIVATE BUSINESS with that substance in you body.
Typical hypocrites.
hahahaha what? I like how I’m a hypocrite because I think that we shouldn’t allow poisons in our food
HYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITE
HYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITE
HYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITE
If you’re all butthurt about the FDA, don’t know what to tell you
| 427 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:36:45pm |
re: #425 Dark_Falcon
There should be an exception for medication for which you have a prescription and every company I have ever worked for has such an exception. Also, why did you downding me for agreeing with Walter, but not downding Walter himself?
An oversight!
| 428 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:36:50pm |
re: #422 WindUpBird
The same way I think about workplaces where there aren’t razor blades strewn on the ground and feral rottweilers everywhere. (though I think bars should be able to allow smoking with a variance)
Smoke in the workplace is an air pollutant. I’m pretty sure weed I smoked on Sunday at home is not affecting the office air quality on Wednesday.
My point… PRIVATE BUSINESS has the right to what is on their premise… and if they don’t want an employee to smoke or a patron to smoke, or they don’t want an employee with any illegal chemicals in their body, or patrons stoned in their business… then they have every right to prevent it… and if you don’t like that… so?
| 429 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:36:55pm |
re: #416 Walter L. Newton
But they want to control what you put into your body while in their PRIVATE BUSINESS… and the left has no problem with passing laws requiring ex amount of salt or sugar and all the other intrusive areas that the left wants to control in regards to health… but drugging at home is ok… even if you come to work fro a PRIVATE BUSINESS with that substance in you body.
Typical hypocrites.
Um, no. I don’t demand that I can go everywhere naked. I just demand that I am allowed to be naked in my own time, at my own home, to use an analogy.
| 430 |
Walter L. Newton Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:37:26pm |
re: #426 WindUpBird
hahahaha what? I like how I’m a hypocrite because I think that we shouldn’t allow poisons in our food
HYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITE
HYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITE
HYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEHYPOCRITEIf you’re all butthurt about the FDA, don’t know what to tell you
Yawn.
| 431 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:37:55pm |
This debate reminds me of a news story here in Chicago. A high school girl runs over another girl on accident. She panics and drives home. She is rightfully charged with hit and run.
A few days later, it comes out that they did a drug test right when she was arrested and found THC. The reports indicate that it found “trace elements” meaning she wasn’t high when it happened. (She admitted to smoking the night before.) They add another charge: DUI.
I think she should be charged with the hit and run. But I’m not sure about the DUI. I don’t think her smoking pot caused what happened that day and therefore is not a relevant charge.
Just my $.02.
| 432 |
Nimed Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:38:28pm |
re: #394 WindUpBird
Porn stars
OMG you shouldn’t have said that! Now Walter is going to argue that every private business has a right to discriminate based on the length of one’s wang.
| 433 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:38:28pm |
re: #413 WindUpBird
Do you really think ANYONE here, especially someone as level-headed as SFZ would honestly say that a heavy machinery operator should not ever be tested for impairment?
I don’t like the rhetorical playing-stupid act, and Spare does it constantly.
Sweeping generalizations are what is “stupid”, my nasty young fellow.
| 434 |
b_sharp Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:39:47pm |
re: #289 SanFranciscoZionist
Before the CRA, employers could discriminate on the basis of race—that didn’t make it all right.
Not comparing the two, but baffled that you seem to think that the passage of a law settles a moral or social issue.
They still do here. Apps that are obviously from aboriginals sometimes get tossed in the garbage. I’ve seen it happen.
| 435 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:40:52pm |
re: #413 WindUpBird
Do you really think ANYONE here, especially someone as level-headed as SFZ would honestly say that a heavy machinery operator should not ever be tested for impairment?
I don’t like the rhetorical playing-stupid act, and Spare does it constantly.
I know that i’ve asked the question at least twice in the past hour, and didn’t get an answer, although i may well have missed it.
But yeah, Spare does like the lighter-fluid approach to discussion…
| 436 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:43:05pm |
re: #424 b_sharp
When? What is the definition of personhood?
It’s an excellent question. It’s also wholly unrelated to the initial exchange of O2 and CO2 in an infant’s lungs.
Other than that, i’m going to follow Ice’s lead and postpone this interesting question for a quieter thread, when logic > emotion for all in the periphery.
Cheers-
| 437 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:43:29pm |
re: #429 Fozzie Bear
Um, no. I don’t demand that I can go everywhere naked. I just demand that I am allowed to be naked in my own time, at my own home, to use an analogy.
close the drapes…
| 438 |
RayGunIsDead Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:45:04pm |
“When? What is the definition of personhood?”
When thy person hood is viable, as in can live outside a mothers womb…
| 439 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:45:07pm |
re: #424 b_sharp
When? What is the definition of personhood?
Good question. Ace and I have a date to discuss it later. You’re invited! :)
| 440 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:45:22pm |
re: #437 Aceofwhat?
close the drapes…
hahahahaha
“Why are you arresting me officer??? I’m being repressed!!!!” /
| 441 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:45:31pm |
re: #431 Soap_Man
This debate reminds me of a news story here in Chicago. A high school girl runs over another girl on accident. She panics and drives home. She is rightfully charged with hit and run.
A few days later, it comes out that they did a drug test right when she was arrested and found THC. The reports indicate that it found “trace elements” meaning she wasn’t high when it happened. (She admitted to smoking the night before.) They add another charge: DUI.
I think she should be charged with the hit and run. But I’m not sure about the DUI. I don’t think her smoking pot caused what happened that day and therefore is not a relevant charge.
Just my $.02.
I agree with you on this one. DUI means actually under the influence. What has happened with the case since?
| 442 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:45:33pm |
| 443 |
WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:45:36pm |
re: #425 Dark_Falcon
There should be an exception for medication for which you have a prescription and every company I have ever worked for has such an exception. Also, why did you downding me for agreeing with Walter, but not downding Walter himself?
So here we are with all the exceptions. Walter starts with a concrete THIS IS WHAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO and then slowly we walk it back into something resembling reason.
My life belongs to me. Not the company I work for. No employer will ever tell me what to do when I’m on their clock.
Freedom! I like it. The real stuff, not the abstract GOP boilerplate gibberish, not the rhetorical bludgeon. Not the Salute Our American Apple Pie Mom Soldier American Eagle Freedom(tm).
The real thing. That I currently enjoy. Which you don’t seem to value so much, because only Dirty Evil Socialist Liberals smoke weed and drink and post pictures of themselves on MySpace, right? And you seem overjoyed to root for entities taking away your freedoms every day, because your ideology and your tribalism and your patterns of behavior dictate that you Cheer For Private Industry.
| 444 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:46:58pm |
re: #423 Spare O’Lake
Thanks. Don’t worry, some would rather posture than discuss in good faith.
So are you “pot” or “kettle” in this case?
| 445 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:47:00pm |
re: #436 Aceofwhat?
It’s an excellent question. It’s also wholly unrelated to the initial exchange of O2 and CO2 in an infant’s lungs.
Other than that, i’m going to follow Ice’s lead and postpone this interesting question for a quieter thread, when logic > emotion for all in the periphery.
Cheers-
You and Ice are right. Abortion is a very emotional issue, and its best to save discussion of it for when the mood is calm enough to prevent the discussion turning into a flame war.
| 446 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:47:28pm |
re: #441 Dark_Falcon
I agree with you on this one. DUI means actually under the influence. What has happened with the case since?
Nothing, really. The girl who got hit was hurt pretty bad, but I think she has since been released. The girl who was arrested couldn’t post bond, (the judge doubled it after the DUI charge) but was released after an anonymous donor posted for her.
That was about a week ago. Haven’t heard anything since.
| 447 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:47:34pm |
| 448 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:47:36pm |
re: #435 Aceofwhat?
I know that i’ve asked the question at least twice in the past hour, and didn’t get an answer, although i may well have missed it.
But yeah, Spare does like the lighter-fluid approach to discussion…
Sorry you feel that way. Now I’m gonna have to open a file on you too.
| 450 |
Soap_Man Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:48:57pm |
Dinner time. Good discussion my friends.
Later folks.
| 451 |
b_sharp Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:49:41pm |
re: #436 Aceofwhat?
It’s an excellent question. It’s also wholly unrelated to the initial exchange of O2 and CO2 in an infant’s lungs.
Other than that, i’m going to follow Ice’s lead and postpone this interesting question for a quieter thread, when logic > emotion for all in the periphery.
Cheers-
OK.
| 452 |
b_sharp Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:50:14pm |
re: #439 iceweasel
Good question. Ace and I have a date to discuss it later. You’re invited! :)
Let me know when.
| 453 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:50:51pm |
re: #446 Soap_Man
Nothing, really. The girl who got hit was hurt pretty bad, but I think she has since been released. The girl who was arrested couldn’t post bond, (the judge doubled it after the DUI charge) but was released after an anonymous donor posted for her.
That was about a week ago. Haven’t heard anything since.
She’ll likely end up taking a plea to drop the DUI. That’s likely part of the reason the charge was added. Prosecutors often add as many charges as they can to push people to plea-bargain. It normally works, because even people who genuinely haven’t done anything wrong will agree to a much-reduced sentence rather than risk a multi-year prison term.
| 454 |
prairiefire Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:51:13pm |
re: #438 RayGunIsDead
“When? What is the definition of personhood?”
When thy person hood is viable, as in can live outside a mothers womb…
Welcome to LGF.
| 455 |
Nimed Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:51:20pm |
re: #424 b_sharp
When? What is the definition of personhood?
I had a pretty solid concept just a couple of hours ago. I’m currently redefining it to exclude Walter.
| 456 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:51:52pm |
re: #443 WindUpBird
You know I agree with you on this issue, but I have to object to characterising DF’s opinions (ever) as purely tribalist. We definitely have tribalists here and I think you’re right to point out the tribalism on the right generally (in the broader world, i mean). But DF is genuinely one of the most rational people here imo. Unlike a tribalist, he will listen to opposing viewpoints, and TOTALLY unlike a tribalist, he has no problem changing his mind when he thinks it’s warranted.
He’s also one of the most fair people here in terms of sticking up for people when he thinks they’re being unfairly picked on or targeted, regardless of their ideology, and he’s not at all biased at calling out bad behaviour— regardless of who exhibits it.
So, no downding but lodging a very strong objection to that part of your comment. :)
| 457 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:52:28pm |
re: #444 Aceofwhat?
So are you “pot” or “kettle” in this case?
That comment is going straight into your file, you HATER!
| 458 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:54:15pm |
re: #452 b_sharp
Let me know when.
Oh totally— next time we’re all around and it’s quiet and won’t get flame-war ish or trolled to death by others. Also I subscribed to your blog but haven’t had a chance to keep up on it— i’ll be back!
| 459 |
RayGunIsDead Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:54:17pm |
“Mr. Obama used a commencement address at the University of Notre Dame to call for more “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words” in a debate that has polarized the country for decades.”
Wow he has great words. Just like you know who.
| 460 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:55:00pm |
re: #443 WindUpBird
So here we are with all the exceptions. Walter starts with a concrete THIS IS WHAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO and then slowly we walk it back into something resembling reason.
My life belongs to me. Not the company I work for. No employer will ever tell me what to do when I’m on their clock.
Freedom! I like it. The real stuff, not the abstract GOP boilerplate gibberish, not the rhetorical bludgeon. Not the Salute Our American Apple Pie Mom Soldier American Eagle Freedom(tm).
The real thing. That I currently enjoy. Which you don’t seem to value so much, because only Dirty Evil Socialist Liberals smoke weed and drink and post pictures of themselves on MySpace, right? And you seem overjoyed to root for entities taking away your freedoms every day, because your ideology and your tribalism and your patterns of behavior dictate that you Cheer For Private Industry.
Eh. Freedom all around- freedom to test, and freedom to walk away.
(note that this doesn’t apply to more invidious forms of discrimination…Rand Paul can suck my man-pouch…)
| 461 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:55:39pm |
re: #445 Dark_Falcon
You and Ice are right. Abortion is a very emotional issue, and its best to save discussion of it for when the mood is calm enough to prevent the discussion turning into a flame war.
You’re a good dude
| 462 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:57:29pm |
re: #459 RayGunIsDead
“Mr. Obama used a commencement address at the University of Notre Dame to call for more “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words” in a debate that has polarized the country for decades.”
Wow he has great words. Just like you know who.
Voldemort?
| 463 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:57:30pm |
Abortion is best discussed while smoking a joint in the break room at work. /
| 464 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:58:29pm |
re: #344 Rightwingconspirator
Hmm. In general I agree.In the jewelry industry we used to take pre employment polygraphs. Banned. We used to depend on references. Legal liabilities prevent the old employer from passing on any negative data.
So we do drug tests at many employers and credit checks too. Tough call. Diamond brokers, gold dealers, the inventory is vulnerable to temptation. I have really mixed feelings about this.
There are industries in which there are needs for all kinds of special requirements and employee screening, no doubt.
| 465 |
wrenchwench Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:59:00pm |
re: #459 RayGunIsDead
“Mr. Obama used a commencement address at the University of Notre Dame to call for more “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words” in a debate that has polarized the country for decades.”
Wow he has great words. Just like you know who.
Ron Paul?
| 466 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:59:33pm |
re: #452 b_sharp
Let me know when.
re: #458 iceweasel
Oh totally— next time we’re all around and it’s quiet and won’t get flame-war ish or trolled to death by others. Also I subscribed to your blog but haven’t had a chance to keep up on it— i’ll be back!
If you’ll both be around later but bored by the game, we can squat on the end of this thread and kick some tires after 9pm EST.
I’ll be watching the game avidly, so i’ll be a little slow on occasion, but i’m happy to multitask in pursuit of a riveting, friendly discussion.
Just a suggestion…
| 467 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 4:59:34pm |
re: #349 Fat Bastard Vegetarian
Or if you are going to be handling money.
Saw a disaster in the making last month. Was in a customer’s home who works at a check cashing store. She told me that over the past few years her credit has gotten horrible, and she doesn’t know what she’s going to do.
(didn’t know why the hell I was there)
Anyway, there is a HUGE amount of cash in a check cashing store. They credit check their employees… but don’t do it enough.
They credit check her? She’s gone.
Her credit isn’t going to improve if she loses her job.
| 468 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:00:13pm |
re: #350 darthstar
[Link: thecapitolfaxblog.com…]
That’s adorable.
Didn’t Poizner go through something similar?
| 469 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:00:36pm |
re: #463 Fozzie Bear
AbortionEverything is best discussed while smoking a joint in the break room at work. /
Call me AceofBASF. I don’t make posts. I make posts better…
| 470 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:01:06pm |
re: #351 Spare O’Lake
If you show up for your shift with your ability impaired to work productively and safely, then your employer needs to have the right to send you home.
Your employer does have that right. That has nothing to do with drug testing.
| 471 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:01:50pm |
re: #357 TampaKnight
Most places drug test once: at time of hiring.
So basically you gotta get “clean” for one drug test, and then you can land the job you want and continue the habit.
Pragmatically speaking, that’s pretty fair.
Which leaves the hanging question: why do the employers bother, exactly?
| 472 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:02:05pm |
re: #466 Aceofwhat?
That might work— I’m not sure what I’m up to in an hour. Have at it and I’ll check this thread later and reply!
| 473 |
RayGunIsDead Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:02:43pm |
“Wow he has great words. Just like you know who.”
Uhhh, Jesus. No one knows what the hell he was talking about.
| 474 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:03:43pm |
re: #464 SanFranciscoZionist
There are industries in which there are needs for all kinds of special requirements and employee screening, no doubt.
Would you mind giving me a couple of examples of occupations where you believe there are no such legitimate concerns?
| 475 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:03:48pm |
re: #379 Spare O’Lake
Would you not agree, though, that there are some jobs which would justify testing? How about breathalyzer testing for truck drivers or fork lift operators?
Sure, if heavy machinery is involved, and I assume that such testing would also take place more often than one time when you get hired.
Why you need drug testing to, say, sit in a cubicle and enter data into a computer, more vague.
| 476 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:04:19pm |
re: #472 iceweasel
That might work— I’m not sure what I’m up to in an hour. Have at it and I’ll check this thread later and reply!
Well, the game is from 9-12 and my sweet wife is nice enough to not request bonding time. So, really, any time during that period would probably be pretty safe on this or another dead thread.
Alternately, one of us could make a page, title it something innocuous, and chat there.
Just spitballing here…
| 477 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:05:13pm |
re: #443 WindUpBird
So here we are with all the exceptions. Walter starts with a concrete THIS IS WHAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO and then slowly we walk it back into something resembling reason.
My life belongs to me. Not the company I work for. No employer will ever tell me what to do when I’m on their clock.
Freedom! I like it. The real stuff, not the abstract GOP boilerplate gibberish, not the rhetorical bludgeon. Not the Salute Our American Apple Pie Mom Soldier American Eagle Freedom(tm).
The real thing. That I currently enjoy. Which you don’t seem to value so much, because only Dirty Evil Socialist Liberals smoke weed and drink and post pictures of themselves on MySpace, right? And you seem overjoyed to root for entities taking away your freedoms every day, because your ideology and your tribalism and your patterns of behavior dictate that you Cheer For Private Industry.
To take your points:
Drinking and drugs: I respectfully decline to respond in detail. I have an intense dislike of intoxicants due to personal reasons. My personal views on those tend towards their restriction and that will likely never change, However, I don’t advocate those views and I mostly keep them to myself, since I do understand that they don’t reflect the total experience of America. I ask that you accept that while I won’t push at you on this, I cannot agree with you.
Internet postings: Here I can explain my position in detail. A company has the right to decide what sort of person they wish to employ. If you post things where the public can them that show you making a lewd spectacle of yourself, your employer has the right to can you for it. They are not taking your right to free speech away by doing that. You don’t have the right to a job; free association also means the right of the employer to determine if they wish to continue to associate with you. The exception is for things like race and gender which are out of the employee’s control.
| 478 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:05:19pm |
re: #393 Walter L. Newton
If a company don’t want certain chemicals in your body while at work… they have all the right in the world to tell you that… and make sure you don’t.
To the Government nothing…to the Almighty Employer, anything they want…
| 480 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:05:56pm |
re: #456 iceweasel
You know I agree with you on this issue, but I have to object to characterising DF’s opinions (ever) as purely tribalist. We definitely have tribalists here and I think you’re right to point out the tribalism on the right generally (in the broader world, i mean). But DF is genuinely one of the most rational people here imo. Unlike a tribalist, he will listen to opposing viewpoints, and TOTALLY unlike a tribalist, he has no problem changing his mind when he thinks it’s warranted.
He’s also one of the most fair people here in terms of sticking up for people when he thinks they’re being unfairly picked on or targeted, regardless of their ideology, and he’s not at all biased at calling out bad behaviour— regardless of who exhibits it.
So, no downding but lodging a very strong objection to that part of your comment. :)
Thank you for that, Ice.
| 481 |
Dr. Shalit Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:06:16pm |
OK -
Orrin Hatch is WRONG on this one. My foreman, who was arrested for possession of CDS a couple of years back, and entered into a “Drug Court” Plea arrangement was violated this morning for having a couple of drinks less than 80 Hours before a “pee test.” The tests have “improved” - they can NOW violate someone who is Absolutely Legal to Drive a Car in the Police State of NJ. This is MUCH TOO MUCH! Geh-Nug is Geh-Nug!
-S-
| 482 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:06:28pm |
re: #402 Aceofwhat?
In fairness to Spare, i must have missed that distinction upthread as well.
Notably, no one here has claimed the right to operate heavy machinery under the influence.
| 483 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:06:30pm |
re: #471 SanFranciscoZionist
Which leaves the hanging question: why do the employers bother, exactly?
Maybe it discourages many dopeheads and alcoholics from applying.
| 484 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:07:24pm |
re: #407 Walter L. Newton
SO… what do you think of smoke free work places and eateries and such laws?
I think that if someone wants to go downstairs or outside and have a smoke, it’s not my business.
| 485 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:08:21pm |
re: #478 SanFranciscoZionist
To the Government nothing…to the Almighty Employer, anything they want…
But SFZ, i love you, but I can’t get away from the government. It’s related to why i can say something sexist to you on the street but not at work. We all benefit from work being a more controlled environment, but you also benefit from being able to walk away from employers who want TMI, in your opinion.
I can’t walk away from the government. It’s not the same thing…
| 486 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:08:28pm |
re: #412 Spare O’Lake
C’mon, be honest. The real concern is that recreational users of illegal drugs do not want to lose their right to get stoned when they’re not at work. The solution, by the way, is to legalize recreational drugs like pot in order to remove the stigma.
Bullshit. I don’t use illegal drugs, and I’m (generally) opposed to drug testing (which is not clearly required for safety reasons).
| 487 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:09:39pm |
re: #416 Walter L. Newton
But they want to control what you put into your body while in their PRIVATE BUSINESS… and the left has no problem with passing laws requiring ex amount of salt or sugar and all the other intrusive areas that the left wants to control in regards to health… but drugging at home is ok… even if you come to work fro a PRIVATE BUSINESS with that substance in you body.
Typical hypocrites.
Wheeee!
| 488 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:09:58pm |
re: #482 SanFranciscoZionist
Notably, no one here has claimed the right to operate heavy machinery under the influence.
No question. I asked the question to make sure that no one was indeed claiming such a thing, but I sure as heckfire understand why Spare has a hard time asking something similar without appearing to flame…something about reaping and sowing;)
| 489 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:14:01pm |
re: #459 RayGunIsDead
“Mr. Obama used a commencement address at the University of Notre Dame to call for more “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words” in a debate that has polarized the country for decades.”
Wow he has great words. Just like you know who.
Noah Webster?
| 490 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:15:18pm |
re: #488 Aceofwhat?
No question. I asked the question to make sure that no one was indeed claiming such a thing, but I sure as heckfire understand why Spare has a hard time asking something similar without appearing to flame…something about reaping and sowing;)
Your concern is appreciated. Aren’t you glad I’m here to make you look so “heckfire” reasonable?
| 491 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:16:35pm |
re: #487 SanFranciscoZionist
Wheee!
This is fun…i do believe this is the first time that i’ve agreed with Walter while disagreeing with SFZ! People who want salt regulation but don’t want employers to be allowed to drug-test = people who have more ‘splaining to do…
| 492 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:17:24pm |
re: #474 Spare O’Lake
Would you mind giving me a couple of examples of occupations where you believe there are no such legitimate concerns?
Sure. Waiter. Data-entry clerk. Computer programmer. My own (trust me, I show up for class high, it’s going to be pretty damn apparent to everyone). Almost any desk job. Almost anything where you aren’t handling drugs, heavy equipment or sick people.
| 493 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:18:27pm |
re: #490 Spare O’Lake
Your concern is appreciated. Aren’t you glad I’m here to make you look so “heckfire” reasonable?
No, actually, i’d prefer that you did your Human Torch thing less often, but i’m not the boss of you.
(Besides…I’m too brilliant and reasonable to need help appearing brilliant and reasonable!)
| 494 |
Four More Tears Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:18:35pm |
re: #491 Aceofwhat?
This is fun…i do believe this is the first time that i’ve agreed with Walter while disagreeing with SFZ! People who want salt regulation but don’t want employers to be allowed to drug-test = people who have more ‘splaining to do…
I don’t think the rational opinion here is that they shouldn’t be allowed to drug/credit/underyourcovers check, but they should need a damn good reason to do so.
| 495 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:19:53pm |
re: #485 Aceofwhat?
But SFZ, i love you, but I can’t get away from the government. It’s related to why i can say something sexist to you on the street but not at work. We all benefit from work being a more controlled environment, but you also benefit from being able to walk away from employers who want TMI, in your opinion.
I can’t walk away from the government. It’s not the same thing…
Truth of the matter is, most people can’t just walk away from work.
It isn’t the same thing, but it’s enough of the same thing that it interests me that a number of people on this thread who can’t STAND the thought of any government interference in their lives seem perfectly fine with an employer having fairly extensive social control over them.
| 496 |
bratwurst Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:20:06pm |
re: #483 Spare O’Lake
Maybe it discourages many dopeheads and alcoholics from applying.
re: #416 Walter L. Newton
and the left has no problem with passing laws requiring ex amount of salt
Yes, not only are we going to limit the amount of salt in processed food, we leftists also want to STEAL THE SALT SHAKER OFF YOUR TABLE.
| 497 |
RayGunIsDead Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:20:44pm |
re: #489 SanFranciscoZionist
“Mr. Obama used a commencement address at the University of Notre Dame to call for more “open hearts, open minds, fair-minded words” in a debate that has polarized the country for decades.”
Wow he has great words. Just like you know who.
Noah Webster?
—-
JHC NFZ, no Jesus Christ. The Messiah. The chosen one.
| 498 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:24:09pm |
re: #491 Aceofwhat?
This is fun…i do believe this is the first time that i’ve agreed with Walter while disagreeing with SFZ! People who want salt regulation but don’t want employers to be allowed to drug-test = people who have more ‘splaining to do…
Yeah but really salt regulators don’t really hang here, I don’t think.
It’s a straw man criticism, and Walter ofc knows it.
| 499 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:24:48pm |
re: #491 Aceofwhat?
This is fun…i do believe this is the first time that i’ve agreed with Walter while disagreeing with SFZ! People who want salt regulation but don’t want employers to be allowed to drug-test = people who have more ‘splaining to do…
Walter is, as usual, accusing ‘the left’ of a carefully selected set of beliefs. Since I have never gone on record as having a thing to say about salt (except that I think it’s yummy), I don’t think I need to respond to his crapola.
Also, I have nowhere said, I don’t think, that employers ‘shouldn’t be allowed’ to drug test. That’s the conservative fallacy—if you disapprove of it, you must want the government to ban it!
I think drug testing is stupid, invasive, insulting, and a waste of a company’s money. I also think that it is part of a general historical pattern of paternalism and hostility toward employees by big companies, which has manifested itself in a variety of ways, some of which are now illegal.
That’s all rather different from saying “I think it should be illegal”.
| 500 |
Amory Blaine Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:25:31pm |
Where can I get a job as a salt regulator?
Oops, let my inner Stalinist out :p
| 501 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:25:38pm |
re: #496 bratwurst
Yes, not only are we going to limit the amount of salt in processed food, we leftists also want to STEAL THE SALT SHAKER OFF YOUR TABLE.
Mostly so I can get more salt on my fries. Didn’t think that was a political angle.
| 502 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:26:39pm |
re: #500 Amory Blaine
Where can I get a job as a salt regulator?
Oops, let my inner Stalinist out :p
I thought Stalinists sent people to salt mines, rather than limiting the amount of salt they could use.
| 503 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:27:17pm |
re: #495 SanFranciscoZionist
Truth of the matter is, most people can’t just walk away from work.
It isn’t the same thing, but it’s enough of the same thing that it interests me that a number of people on this thread who can’t STAND the thought of any government interference in their lives seem perfectly fine with an employer having fairly extensive social control over them.
Well, of course you’re right. I’m probably not being narrow enough…i don’t mean walk away, i mean begin the search for another employer while still employed. And that freedom to vote with one’s feet is a huge principle for me (and i presume many of the ‘number’ of people on this thread) - it’s not perfect or sacrosanct or a panacea, it isn’t a solution to more pernicious discrimination, but to some extent i am happy to grant employers freedoms to discriminate against certain behaviors in the search of a more perfect workplace, because we employees can discriminate against employers with impunity.
It’s a lot harder to escape governmental interference…so we naturally want more protection from that.
Am i helping, or just repeating myself? I have no desire whatsoever to patronize you in the slightest, my fair lady…
| 504 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:27:38pm |
re: #502 SanFranciscoZionist
I thought Stalinists sent people to salt mines, rather than limiting the amount of salt they could use.
Well, you don’t want the miners using up too much of the product.
| 505 |
Amory Blaine Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:27:41pm |
re: #499 SanFranciscoZionist
I agree. These preemptive directives breed hostility and contempt among people. As if no one is to be trusted at any time, regardless of character.
| 506 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:27:42pm |
re: #498 Fozzie Bear
Yeah but really salt regulators don’t really hang here, I don’t think.
It’s a straw man criticism, and Walter ofc knows it.
Jimmah is huge on it, for one.
| 507 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:28:17pm |
re: #499 SanFranciscoZionist
Walter is, as usual, accusing ‘the left’ of a carefully selected set of beliefs. Since I have never gone on record as having a thing to say about salt (except that I think it’s yummy), I don’t think I need to respond to his crapola.
Also, I have nowhere said, I don’t think, that employers ‘shouldn’t be allowed’ to drug test. That’s the conservative fallacy—if you disapprove of it, you must want the government to ban it!
I think drug testing is stupid, invasive, insulting, and a waste of a company’s money. I also think that it is part of a general historical pattern of paternalism and hostility toward employees by big companies, which has manifested itself in a variety of ways, some of which are now illegal.
That’s all rather different from saying “I think it should be illegal”.
thanks. awesome. i have more insight now into your position.
| 508 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:29:26pm |
re: #501 SanFranciscoZionist
Mostly so I can get more salt on my fries. Didn’t think that was a political angle.
on the plus side, a recent paper (too lazy to link) showed that malt vinegar seems to slow carb intake, so putting them on your fries helps to lower their effective glycemic index.
score!
| 509 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:30:25pm |
re: #505 Amory Blaine
I agree. These preemptive directives breed hostility and contempt among people. As if no one is to be trusted at any time, regardless of character.
really? even if everyone is subject, right up to and including the CEO??
| 511 |
Nimed Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:31:23pm |
re: #477 Dark_Falcon
Internet postings: Here I can explain my position in detail. A company has the right to decide what sort of person they wish to employ. If you post things where the public can them that show you making a lewd spectacle of yourself, your employer has the right to can you for it. They are not taking your right to free speech away by doing that. You don’t have the right to a job; free association also means the right of the employer to determine if they wish to continue to associate with you. The exception is for things like race and gender which are out of the employee’s control.
Mmmm. Suppose that, in a job interview for a doorman, an employer decides that the applicant should provide a detailed account of the occasion in which s/he lost his/her virginity, and how much the employer likes the story would be one of the hiring criteria. There is not religion, race, gender or sexual orientation based discrimination in this example. Does freedom of association mean that the employer has the right to discriminate in this case?
| 512 |
Amory Blaine Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:32:44pm |
re: #509 Aceofwhat?
Yes. I feel violated and it contributes to an overall contempt of the system.
| 513 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:35:56pm |
re: #512 Amory Blaine
Yes. I feel violated and it contributes to an overall contempt of the system.
You are entitled to your feelings, as alien to me as they are.
However, i disagree with you on the latter part. In my experience, the vast majority of good employees have no desire to work next to and have to deal with a co-worker under the influence of anything at all. In my experience, when applied fairly, it contributes to an improved work environment.
| 514 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:38:15pm |
re: #513 Aceofwhat?
You are entitled to your feelings, as alien to me as they are.
However, i disagree with you on the latter part. In my experience, the vast majority of good employees have no desire to work next to and have to deal with a co-worker under the influence of anything at all. In my experience, when applied fairly, it contributes to an improved work environment.
I agree, but the technology doesn’t currently exist for employers to merely determine intoxication, rather than just exposure to a substance in a recent period. (For some drugs, alcohol being a notable exception)
If I smoke a joint now, I could test positive for up to a month, even though I am only impaired for a few hours.
| 515 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:39:32pm |
re: #511 Nimed
Mmmm. Suppose that, in a job interview for a doorman, an employer decides that the applicant should provide a detailed account of the occasion in which s/he lost his/her virginity, and how much the employer likes the story would be one of the hiring criteria. There is not religion, race, gender or sexual orientation based discrimination in this example. Does freedom of association mean that the employer has the right to discriminate in this case?
I think sexual harassment laws would preclude such a question. And its also not in public. Your boss doesn’t have a right to know what you do when it is done in private, off the clock, and not illegal. Once you post a photo on Facebook, it ceases to be private.
| 516 |
Four More Tears Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:40:40pm |
re: #515 Dark_Falcon
I think sexual harassment laws would preclude such a question. And its also not in public. Your boss doesn’t have a right to know what you do when it is done in private, off the clock, and not illegal. Once you post a photo on Facebook, it ceases to be private.
My credit score isn’t “public,” either.
| 517 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:41:27pm |
re: #515 Dark_Falcon
I think sexual harassment laws would preclude such a question. And its also not in public. Your boss doesn’t have a right to know what you do when it is done in private, off the clock, and not illegal. Once you post a photo on Facebook, it ceases to be private.
So what then about employers who piss test employees in areas where pot is legal, or permissible under certain circumstances? Should they have to disclose that they smoke pot when not at work?
It strikes me as a “none of their fucking business” kind of thing.
| 518 |
Amory Blaine Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:44:30pm |
re: #513 Aceofwhat?
Drug testing does not determine impairment during work hours. I am not advocating drug use, but I don’t agree with arbitrary drug testing either. I also don’t approve of random DUI blockades even though I despise drunk driving.
| 519 |
RayGunIsDead Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:45:44pm |
Lets legalize drugs. Just like alcohol. Then deal with it accordingly.
| 520 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:45:56pm |
re: #514 Fozzie Bear
I agree, but the technology doesn’t currently exist for employers to merely determine intoxication, rather than just exposure to a substance in a recent period. (For some drugs, alcohol being a notable exception)
If I smoke a joint now, I could test positive for up to a month, even though I am only impaired for a few hours.
And i quite dislike that part. However, i’m responding to someone who thinks that testing itself is insulting and offensive, not simply overbroad.
| 521 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:46:09pm |
re: #518 Amory Blaine
Drug testing does not determine impairment during work hours. I am not advocating drug use, but I don’t agree with arbitrary drug testing either. I also don’t approve of random DUI blockades even though I despise drunk driving.
I think DUI checkpoints are a little different.
If I smoke a joint on my couch, there’s no chance anybody will die in a head of twisted metal as a result.
| 523 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:47:24pm |
re: #518 Amory Blaine
Drug testing does not determine impairment during work hours. I am not advocating drug use, but I don’t agree with arbitrary drug testing either. I also don’t approve of random DUI blockades even though I despise drunk driving.
If it were refined to determine impairment, would you feel less “violated”?
| 524 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:47:36pm |
re: #521 Fozzie Bear
I think DUI checkpoints are a little different.
If I smoke a joint on my couch, there’s no chance anybody will die in a head of twisted metal as a result.
indeed
| 525 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:47:55pm |
re: #516 JasonA
My credit score isn’t “public,” either.
But it is a indication of how trustworthy you are.
| 526 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:48:01pm |
re: #519 RayGunIsDead
Lets legalize drugs. Just like alcohol. Then deal with it accordingly.
The money it would save and the tax revenues alone are a good enough argument for legalization, I think.
Prohibition has simply never worked.
| 527 |
Amory Blaine Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:48:54pm |
re: #521 Fozzie Bear
Randomly being stopped by armed government authorities ultimately breeds contempt. It’s what I believe.
| 528 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:49:27pm |
re: #517 Fozzie Bear
So what then about employers who piss test employees in areas where pot is legal, or permissible under certain circumstances? Should they have to disclose that they smoke pot when not at work?
It strikes me as a “none of their fucking business” kind of thing.
Pot is still illegal under federal law. In the case of an interstate company, they could argue that they need a uniform policy.
529 |
Gus Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:50:17pm |
Today’s been a literal candy store of official wingnut craziness. I don’t even know where to begin.
So many dinosaurs and so little time.
| 530 |
Four More Tears Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:50:23pm |
re: #525 Dark_Falcon
But it is a indication of how trustworthy you are.
No it’s not. People’s credit scores get fucked up through no fault of their own all the damn time.
| 532 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:50:46pm |
re: #527 Amory Blaine
Randomly being stopped by armed government authorities ultimately breeds contempt. It’s what I believe.
True, but in this case the importance of keeping people from getting killed outweighs that. That’s not always the case, but in this case it holds true.
| 533 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:51:05pm |
re: #527 Amory Blaine
Randomly being stopped by armed government authorities ultimately breeds contempt. It’s what I believe.
I can respect that. But I disagree in the sense that I think such measures are necessary and save lives, regardless.
I’ve known a few people who have checked out early due to drunk driving. Perhaps a checkpoint could have saved them.
| 534 |
Nimed Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:51:07pm |
re: #515 Dark_Falcon
I think sexual harassment laws would preclude such a question. And its also not in public. Your boss doesn’t have a right to know what you do when it is done in private, off the clock, and not illegal. Once you post a photo on Facebook, it ceases to be private.
Ok, change the story a little bit — the boss could argue that he just wants to, say, make sure that prospective employees never engaged in unlawful sexual behavior.
| 535 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:52:02pm |
re: #531 Amory Blaine
Could an ADA argument prevail?
I don’t know. My sister and my best friend know far more about the ADA than I do. If I remember, I’ll ask one of them.
| 536 |
RayGunIsDead Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:52:42pm |
re: #526 Fozzie Bear
“The money it would save and the tax revenues alone are a good enough argument for legalization, I think.”
Plus the reduction in crime. The money we would save… The cons mantra.
| 537 |
Amory Blaine Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:52:46pm |
re: #535 Dark_Falcon
Aww don’t go through the trouble!!!
| 538 |
Fozzie Bear Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:53:16pm |
re: #531 Amory Blaine
Could an ADA argument prevail?
An interesting question. I’ll have to ask the law nerds (lawyers) at work tomorrow.
| 539 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:54:32pm |
re: #534 Nimed
Ok, change the story a little bit — the boss could argue that he just wants to, say, make sure that prospective employees never engaged in unlawful sexual behavior.
He could argue that, but he’d not prevail at any trial. Moreover, he’d have a very hard time asking questions when a “have you ever committed a crime other than a minor traffic offense, even one for which you were not charged?” question would suffice.
| 540 |
Gus Thu, Jun 17, 2010 5:56:18pm |
| 541 |
Nimed Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:03:13pm |
re: #539 Dark_Falcon
He could argue that, but he’d not prevail at any trial. Moreover, he’d have a very hard time asking questions when a “have you ever committed a crime other than a minor traffic offense, even one for which you were not charged?” question would suffice.
Ok, so you accept the principle that certain areas of your private sphere are not an acceptable basis for employee discrimination, even if they are not explicitly covered by civil rights legislation.
| 542 |
RayGunIsDead Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:04:31pm |
“Wingnuts hate the poor even if they’re poor themselves.”
Fk, I have found my home. LGF is home.
| 543 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:05:04pm |
re: #540 Gus 802
Wingnuts hate the poor even if they’re poor themselves.
They sure do. Maybe especially if.
Not quite sure how that works. Possibly the full flowering of internalising American Exceptionalism (wingnut version). Going something like this:
1. America is exceptional!
2. I’m an American and therefore exceptional!
3. Wait a minute, I don’t think all Americans are as equal as me— some of us are more exceptional than others. Some of those other so-called Americans don’t seem very American to me. Why, they even vote Democrat sometimes!
4. When other people are poor, that’s their bad choices and a just punishment. If I’m poor, well, that’s an exception to the rule for all the other poor people.
I can’t do it, it’s making my head hurt.
| 544 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:07:12pm |
re: #541 Nimed
Ok, so you accept the principle that certain areas of your private sphere are not an acceptable basis for employee discrimination, even if they are not explicitly covered by civil rights legislation.
True. What I do believe is that once you’ve posted photos where anyone can see them, they are no longer private. An employer does have the right to judge you on public information about you, though they could not punish you without first showing you what they know and giving you a chance to explain.
| 545 |
alexknyc Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:11:33pm |
re: #467 SanFranciscoZionist
Her credit isn’t going to improve if she loses her job.
No, but her ability to steal from her employer’s stash of accessible cash will be lessened.
I understand the rationale but still think its bullshit to be fired over something you might be at risk of maybe doing.
| 546 |
Aceofwhat? Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:11:36pm |
re: #543 iceweasel
it’s almost quiet enough…
| 547 |
alexknyc Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:12:30pm |
re: #471 SanFranciscoZionist
Which leaves the hanging question: why do the employers bother, exactly?
Maybe because if you can’t keep yourself clean for one test, you’ve got a problem and they don’t want to hire you.
Just a theory.
| 548 |
alexknyc Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:15:10pm |
re: #491 Aceofwhat?
This is fun…i do believe this is the first time that i’ve agreed with Walter while disagreeing with SFZ! People who want salt regulation but don’t want employers to be allowed to drug-test = people who have more ‘splaining to do…
Some of us don’t want either.
| 549 |
Gus Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:18:20pm |
re: #543 iceweasel
They sure do. Maybe especially if.
Not quite sure how that works. Possibly the full flowering of internalising American Exceptionalism (wingnut version). Going something like this:1. America is exceptional!
2. I’m an American and therefore exceptional!
3. Wait a minute, I don’t think all Americans are as equal as me— some of us are more exceptional than others. Some of those other so-called Americans don’t seem very American to me. Why, they even vote Democrat sometimes!
4. When other people are poor, that’s their bad choices and a just punishment. If I’m poor, well, that’s an exception to the rule for all the other poor people.I can’t do it, it’s making my head hurt.
Part of it is based on wishful thinking and false association. Some of it is caused by the lottery effect in which people tend to think they’re rich because someday they might be rich because of the fictional idea that anyone can become rich. It’s something like the working classes marching at the Tea Party protests like 912DC which is some akin to “poor people marching for billionaires against health care reform.”
The cognitive dissonance runs deep. That’s what we saw people marching against the public option while they themselves are either on Medicare or Medicaid. Now they’re say “that’s different” but they seem to forget that Ronald Reagan considered both socialized medicine during his stint as spokesman for “Operation Coffee Cup” and which is also part of the theme in his speech “A Time for Choosing.”
The same applies with people kvetching about entitlements while being beneficiaries of entitlements themselves. I assume a large part of this is also denial but a large part of it is based on hubris, self-censorship, and a false hope on an American dream that never really made a foothold for the majority of Americans. The reality is that most people will never “strike it rich”.
“Gordon Gecko’s” phrase that “greed is good” is a false premise since profits do not necessarily require greed and most companies that apply greed as their mantra tend to fail. But they still admire this fictional character Gecko even though his kind work against them in their every day lives who for the majority means a life a toil, drudgery and boredom that will never match the fictional ideal that they are bombarded with daily on television and movies.
| 550 |
alexknyc Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:18:27pm |
re: #523 Aceofwhat?
If it were refined to determine impairment, would you feel less “violated”?
Yes.
| 551 |
iceweasel Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:35:10pm |
re: #549 Gus 802
Excellent post. Agreed. I’m too tired to add anything worthy of it.
| 552 |
Gus Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:37:14pm |
re: #551 iceweasel
Excellent post. Agreed. I’m too tired to add anything worthy of it.
OK I have to head to the store here in a bit. Hope everything is going swimmingly with you and Jimmah.
| 553 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:42:23pm |
re: #545 alexknyc
No, but her ability to steal from her employer’s stash of accessible cash will be lessened.
I understand the rationale but still think its bullshit to be fired over something you might be at risk of maybe doing.
Yeah. I think that saying that an employee with poor credit is a greater risk for theft is a bad call. An honest person may go through a hard time and get their credit screwed up while still making payments as best they can.
Now, wouldn’t a dishonest person have started stealing early and avoided their credit being damaged?
| 555 |
SanFranciscoZionist Thu, Jun 17, 2010 6:43:35pm |
re: #547 alexknyc
Maybe because if you can’t keep yourself clean for one test, you’ve got a problem and they don’t want to hire you.
Just a theory.
Perhaps, but I doubt it. I think this is mostly something that’s been sold to companies as a big problem solver. I think it mostly a scam.
556 |
Cato the Elder Thu, Jun 17, 2010 7:04:32pm |
re: #542 RayGunIsDead
“Wingnuts hate the poor even if they’re poor themselves.”
Fk, I have found my home. LGF is home.
We’ll see about that. You think “jist” is a word. I’m going to make you miserable here.
557 |
Decatur Deb Thu, Jun 17, 2010 7:08:38pm |
re: #556 Cato the Elder
We’ll see about that. You think “jist” is a word. I’m going to make you miserable here.
It is a word. I looked it up in my Alabama dictionary jist the other day.
558 |
Aunty Entity Dragon Thu, Jun 17, 2010 8:04:49pm |
re: #43 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Fething Tau.
Another blashphemous Xenos that needs the cleansing fire of the Emporer.
| 559 |
Spare O'Lake Thu, Jun 17, 2010 8:09:38pm |
re: #499 SanFranciscoZionist
Walter is, as usual, accusing ‘the left’ of a carefully selected set of beliefs. Since I have never gone on record as having a thing to say about salt (except that I think it’s yummy), I don’t think I need to respond to his crapola.
Also, I have nowhere said, I don’t think, that employers ‘shouldn’t be allowed’ to drug test. That’s the conservative fallacy—if you disapprove of it, you must want the government to ban it!
I think drug testing is stupid, invasive, insulting, and a waste of a company’s money. I also think that it is part of a general historical pattern of paternalism and hostility toward employees by big companies, which has manifested itself in a variety of ways, some of which are now illegal.
That’s all rather different from saying “I think it should be illegal”.
Your stated belief in the legitimacy of the practice is where the rubber meets the road.
| 560 |
ClaudeMonet Thu, Jun 17, 2010 10:28:29pm |
re: #57 Slumbering Behemoth
This would be like suggesting people should be drug tested before they make withdrawals from their bank account.
I’d like to see him suggest that people should be drug tested prior to receiving Social Security payments. That should go over well.
Excellent.
No Social Security = no Medicare B = no drugs = eligible for Social Security again.
A good comedy writer would have a field day with this. If only I were a good comedy writer (editor, yes; writer, no).
| 561 |
ClaudeMonet Thu, Jun 17, 2010 10:38:18pm |
re: #135 Aceofwhat?
What absolutely kills this paragraph is the proven fact that religious Americans are much more charitable than non-religious Americans.
But hey, whatever helps relieve people of ownership of their financial situation and growth…
But to whom are they donating? Is a religious person donating to their church and only their church any different from a non-religious person not donating?
Personally, I’m not religious but donate to religion-based charities or causes I find worthy. I also donate to secular humanist organizations for the same reason.
| 562 |
ClaudeMonet Thu, Jun 17, 2010 11:02:47pm |
re: #372 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds
The only thing that tops that is when they have to take an extra 5-10 minutes to call up the manager and ask him/her to fix their frak-up.
That’s one of the lines I’m in a lot of the time. The other is the one with the screaming children and the woman who can’t find her credit card/checkbook/cash in her wallet/doesn’t get her coupons ready in advance, all the while announcing her social and political views at maximum volume.
“Gee, I’m sorry if I’m standing here too quietly for you.”
| 563 |
ClaudeMonet Thu, Jun 17, 2010 11:19:49pm |
re: #549 Gus 802
“Gordon Gecko’s” phrase that “greed is good” is a false premise since profits do not necessarily require greed and most companies that apply greed as their mantra tend to fail. But they still admire this fictional character Gecko even though his kind work against them in their every day lives who for the majority means a life a toil, drudgery and boredom that will never match the fictional ideal that they are bombarded with daily on television and movies.
“Gecko” is an annoying character in lousy commercials (and an inoffensive lizard). The character’s name is Gordon Gekko.
564 |
baier Fri, Jun 18, 2010 4:34:41am |
My apartment is right next door to one of the largest public housing complexes in NYC, and I believe it is one of the largest in the USA. Many of the people that live in the housing are down on their luck or have an illness or disability (mental or physical). Fine. Many, however, are drug dealers and users. There are frequent turf wars, gunshots, and in one instance 10 people who were playing a game of pickup basketball, were caught in the cross fire and shot. None died, thankfully. I have no problem with drug testing people on public assistance or people receiving funds for unemployment. In my mind the fact that it is not done is irresponsible. There are people in NYC with legitimate need on a 8 years long waiting list to get public assistance and why should a druggie get an apartment while a single parent down on her luck is homeless?
| 565 |
Right Brain Fri, Jun 18, 2010 5:56:28am |
re: #564 baier
Baier: You are mixing long-term welfare payments with unemployment INSURANCE, which is a future risk indemnification that is purchased with funds taken out of working people’s paychecks. This is not charity, this is insurance. Would you have mandatory drug testing for a fire insurance claim? Title insurance claim? Federal Deposit Insurance claim? (Well OK maybe all the loan officers should submit urine and blood.)
People who are receiving unemployment insurance have enough hassles in their life, especially trying to live on 20% of their previous income, without adding this invasive burden onto their life. 16,000,000 previously employed people out of work right now, I guarantee this is not a recreational drug issue.
566 |
Nekama Fri, Jun 18, 2010 7:49:10am |
Many employers require drug testing as a condition of employment.
Why should testing when collecting unemployment be an issue?
567 |
S'latch Fri, Jun 18, 2010 9:41:36am |
re: #566 Nekama
One reason that occurs to me is that there will inevitably be a significant percentage of drug tests that result in false positives. A person who is truly in need of unemployment compensation would seldom have the resources to challenge the government for a decision made based on a false positive. The likelihood of some serious injustices to individuals is rather large.
Furthermore, it might not actually save any money at all. Who is going to pay for the testing of every applicant for unemployment benefits and the administration of those results?
This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.
Comments are closed.
Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds
- Featured PagesClick to refresh
Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory Just Captured Ominous Signals About the Planet’s Health Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory just captured an ominous sign about the pace of global warming. Atmospheric levels of planet-warming carbon dioxide aren’t just on their way to yet another record high this year - they’re rising faster than ever, ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 1,060 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
The Good Liars at the Schnecksville Trump Rally [VIDEO] New theories, great tunes and SHOCKING breaking news. SUPPORT US: http://Herohero.co/thegoodliars SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!WASHINGTON D.C. MAY 23RD: https://www.unionstage.com/shows/good-liars-fix-america/NASHVILLE, TN JUNE 6TH: https://www.etix.com/ticket/p/42992972/the-good-liars-nashville-the-lab-at-zaniesSAN FRANCISCO, CA JUNE 25TH: https://www.livenation.com/event/G5vYZbavGvggG/the-good-liars SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-good-liars-tell-the-truth/id1731178442Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/7mgfiwzr32907N4y68eFOCJoin this channel ...
teleskiguy
2 weeks ago
Views: 868 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 0
Trump’s “Stolen Election” Lie Based on Evidence From Pervy Bathroom Cam-Spy OK, this really takes the cake. If you have relatives that still cling to the “election was stolen, dadgum, I jes’ KNOW IT … This should be a slight remedy to the stubborn madness Thanks to online anonymity, the ...
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
3 weeks ago
Views: 465 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
3 weeks ago
Views: 433 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 6
Gateway Pundit, Sued by Election Workers, Declares BankruptcyA onetime favorite, now just pathetic figure around these parts, Jim Hoft aka SMOTI ("Stupidest Man On The Internet"), has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in response to the defamation lawsuits filed against him to the same election workers that ... Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
3 weeks ago
Views: 487 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 3
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ... Cheechako
4 weeks ago
Views: 1,177 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
- Recent PagesClick to refresh
A Water War Is Brewing Between the U.S. And Mexico. Here’s Why A water dispute between the United States and Mexico that goes back decades is turning increasingly urgent in Texas communities that rely on the Rio Grande. Their leaders are now demanding the Mexican government either share water or face ... Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 129 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Harper’s Magazine: Slippery Slope - How Private Equity Shapes a Ski Town …Big Sky stands apart for other reasons. The obvious distinction is the Yellowstone Club, a private resort hidden in the mountains above the community that Justin Farrell, a professor of sociology at Yale and the author of Billionaire Wilderness, ... teleskiguy
3 days ago
Views: 314 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 2
