BS: Urine test at work?

Subject: BS: Urine test at work?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 04:24 PM

Got an e.... I like it!...

The Urine test

THIS GUY MAKES A GOOD POINT

This was written by a construction worker in Fort MacMurray- he sure makes a lot of sense.

I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay cheque, I work on a rig site for a Fort Mac construction project. I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand that I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their ass drinking beer and smoking dope.

Could you imagine how much money the provinces would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance cheque? Please pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 04:53 PM

If the guy has no problem with his employees wanting him to urinate for them, then I think he deserves to be thought of as a complete plonker.

Yeesh!

What the heck has happened to the human race??????

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 04:57 PM

Taking the p...!

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 05:06 PM

Gnu, to me this smacks too much of the stereotypical 'welfare queen'.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: artbrooks
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 05:14 PM

The question I'd have is...why is he required to take the test? If it is because he works with heavy equipment or does work that could be dangerous to himself or others if he's doped up, then damn right he should take the test. Welfare recipients sitting on their front stoops drinking beer generally aren't dangerous to people around them.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: gnu
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 05:33 PM

What I disagree with is any tests except performance tests.

Hmmmm... I guess I don't like it. Sorry about that... my bad. Nevermind.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 06:45 PM

Lots of employers ask people to take urine tests.

Most professional athletes have to take them at random all the time.

When the students at the college I worked at went for a beer or three on the last days at Xmas they were told not to come back under any circumstances. Booze is easy to spot.

Drugs aren't.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: Slag
Date: 03 Nov 09 - 07:20 PM

piss on it

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 03:18 AM

UK soldiers (but not sailors or airmen) are required to take random tests.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 06:39 AM

I have never been asked to take a urine test before playing a gig, I am glad to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 08:56 AM

Urine works all the time -- why give it a test? Kidney problems?

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 09:08 AM

WE never get the piss taken from us when Morris dancing.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 09:39 AM

Wasn't Ben Johnson at work when he took the urine test...and look what happened to him....he pissed the olympic medal away.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: GUEST,buspassed
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 11:27 AM

We regularly had a urine test at junior school in the 1950's. It involved seeing who could waz over the wall that surrounded our outside toilets! My best mate Alfie Macklin could do everytime, no trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: SINSULL
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 01:49 PM

I have had to pass urine tests in order to be hired - many companies require them. I believe I have agreed to random testing in the past but it never happened. If safety especially around heavy equipment is an issue, random drug testing makes sense.
Would you want to fly in a jet piloted by someone who just downed a few martinis at the bar or smoked a joint on his way to work?

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: Slag
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 06:34 PM

Here and in the thread "Searching staff...Is this right" we are witnessing a further erosion of our basic human rights. At least in The USA.

The Constitution limits the Government in what they may require of the free population. This is the area where the right to privacy and the security of body and home are guaranteed.

The erosion began when schools were exempted from recognizing these same rights for children. Were you ever in a classroom where the teacher announced that the whole class was going to be held after the bell until the culprit of some prank was so ashamed of his misdeed that he would fall down from his desk and writhe on the floor begging for forgiveness from both his teacher and his classmates? Yeah! Right! And yet it was condoned because you were CHILDREN and had not reached the age of MAJORITY. And besides, the teacher had to be able to control his classroom. Such a small inroad, treating ALL as convicted of an individual's crime.

Yes, I can see the necessity for maintaining order in the classroom but the above is such a lazy and unimaginative approach and it misses the opportunity to teach children beyond the three "Rs". An experiment in psychology was dome in the sixties that involved a man who would approach a total stranger and explain that his pocket had been picked. He would say that although he didn't REALLY believe that his subject was guilty of the crime, would they just take out their wallets and show them to him? This borders on unlawful search, all but for the question "Would you please...?" With an equal amount of others there was no "Please". It was an aggressive "Show me your wallet!" and about an equal amount of folks in both groups readily complied with the request or the demand! Have we been taught to so readily abandon our rights? Apparently so.

For a corporation to make such a blatant demand upon potential or actual employees is sickening. This is the assumption of guilt until innocence is proven. There is guilt here alright but it is the corporation and the government which are guilty of violating our Constitutional rights.

This is one reason why the state governments are so careful to point out that driving is a "privilege" and not a "right". This allows them, in their "jurisprudential" way of thinking, to run roughshod over many of a person's rights which are not actually under their big umbrella of the assumption of guilt. To wit, I believe it is wrong to compel a driver to provide self-incriminating evidence by obeying a roadside sobriety test or submitting to a blood test. The officer should be able to submit his own observations and those of his dashcam to substantiate his case. You have seen those test. Were they required of you to GET your license? No! So why should they be required at a police stop? They are designed to make you look guilty!

By the same token once the police have made their observations that convinces a judge that you may indeed be guilty of DUI, then the judge can issue a writ compelling a more conclusive test. Do it THAT WAY and quit violating the US Constitution! This is NOT splitting hairs because it has lead to the very subject that is being addressed in this and the other thread mentioned above.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: artbrooks
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 07:00 PM

Of course, neither of these threads originally covered situations in which the US Constitution is an issue.

Your last set of points are interesting, Slag. If I understand what you are suggesting, a police office should go to court and testify before a judge regarding his observations, at which time the judge can order a more invasive test. Of course, by then it is days or weeks later and the alleged drunk driver's degree of blood-alcohol content is rather irrelevant to the original offense.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: Slag
Date: 04 Nov 09 - 10:52 PM

Special judges! Considering the impact (pardon the pun) DUIs have on the general driving and passenger public, which is just about all of us, it's a serious issue. And considering the impact on the suspected DUI's life it is very serious for his (or her) entire future too. There are traffic courts. With a few modifications and increased employment it could be handled right now. Think of the jobs! Lawyers would love it. Bail bondsmen would love it. Bounty hunters would love it. Make a reality show of it and we could ALL love it (just kidding!).

On any given day I could not pass one of those test but I am still a good driver. I almost never drink and I never ever drive if I have had even one drink. If I were stopped and the officer attempted to subject me to such a test, I would have to refuse on principle and on the grounds of the fifth Amendment.

At the very least, they should ( and some states DO) have a comprehensive standard of observations that would indicate that further test are needed. This would cover not just the suspected alcohol DUI but other forms of impairment and any test administered should relate to driving skills. What has walking a line heel to toe have to do with driving? "Gee, officer, I can't DO that! I promise I will not walk when I reach my destination!"

The stuff that makes the cut for the tube are extreme examples of DUI. We watch and laugh at the inebriated's outlandish antics and obvious drunkenness but in real life, most cases are not that obvious. Again, I'm all for keeping the roads safe but I am more concerned about the creeping loss of freedoms, all in the name of necessity and safety. A rubber room in the mental ward is a very safe place but there is not a whole lot of freedom there!

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: bubblyrat
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 05:48 AM

Do you really still have Bounty Hunters in the USA ??If so,what else ?   Posses ? Texas Rangers ? Pinkerton Men ? Indian Scouts ? I am intrigued !

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: Slag
Date: 05 Nov 09 - 01:52 PM

Well, yes to all the above and I do believe the Cleveland Indians use scouts still but their stats don't prove it. I think the Pinkerton agency still exists. Talk about thread drift...

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 05:25 AM

You all seem to be missing an important point: 'gnu' is suggesting that only welfare recipients, who he presumably sees as his social inferiors, should have to take a urine test. There is no mention in his post of anyone who he considers to be his social superiors having to take one.

So I assume, 'gnu' that you think it's OK for bankers, for example, to take prodigious amounts of coke while they're gambling with our hard earned cash and losing billions in the process?

Yes, this politics thing is very simple, isn't it'gnu'? All you have to do is oppress and punish the poor and all will be well and we'll all live happily ever after!

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 09:34 AM

Actually, I see his point in that he does not want public money spent on illegal products. However, he is mixing his arguments. He is asking that because he is involved in actions which can have an effect of public safety, anyone who is receiving public support should meet an equal test. It is clearly a mixed metaphor and a logical fallacy.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 10:03 AM

It's typical 'chimpanzee politics' - ruthlessly attack and punish the weak whilst meekly submitting to any old shit that the 'alpha-male' cares to dish out.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 06 Nov 09 - 10:34 AM

Insofar as urine testing goes, I would feel a darn sight happier knowing that the guy operating the transport that I'm travelling on has avoided any sort of mind altering substance because of the possibility of a test. I would think that that would also apply to the majority of people working around potentially dangerous machinery - why should anyone be put at risk because one person can't control an addiction? If you want to talk about rights, fine, but I think that the right to work and travel in a safe environment trumps the right of one particular person to put others at risk because they have been rendered less fit to perform a task due to drink or drugs.

Same goes for those suspected of DUI. I've seen quite a number of people in my lifetime, including my own father, who didn't show any sign of being drunk, even when they had consumed well over the legal limit. In this day and age of cost cutting there ain't going to be any chance of cash strapped authorities setting up such a cumbersome machinery to prove DUI. I presume that anyone has the right to refuse to give a breath sample but I do know that, if that is the case, they will probably spend more time in the police station than might otherwise be the case if they had not been drinking. You makes your choice - two minutes blowing into a bag and then saying goodnight to the policeman, if you're under the limit and hadn't broken any other laws, or a few hours standing on your rights. I know which I would prefer.

Welfare recipients are a whole different ball game. Actually, I can sympathise with gnu's feelings there. When I was on supplementary benefit, as it was called at that time in the UK, there wasn't enough money for me to have a bottle of beer, let alone booze or drugs enough to show up in testing. If this is happening I would want to know how people taking money from the public purse could possibly buy non essentials like that. I certainly would not be happy at the idea of supporting someone else's habit in that way.

If I needed extra money for things like new shoes for my kids I basically had to go through a third degree interview and was quite often made to feel that I was incapable of managing my money and that I was a total drain on public resources. That was one of the things that got me working out ways to get off of welfare and able to support my family. If some people on welfare are indulging heavily in drink or drugs it would seem to imply that either they have another source of income, in which case they shouldn't be on welfare, or that their family are going without. In either case, yes, I can see a good reason to test, since they could be seen to be taking public money under false pretences, whatever their circumstances might be.

It all depends, IMO, on just how far public interest outweighs personal freedom, if, in fact, it does. Where does the line get drawn? I'd say that, if you asked a hundred people that question you would have a hundred different lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: kendall
Date: 07 Nov 09 - 07:08 AM

I also see Gnu's point. However, let's say such testing became law, and some "Welfare Queen" was tested and found to be smoking weed. What would be done? Would they cut her benefits? What about her kids, would they suffer from her stupidity? How can you dicipline the parent without hurting the child? Take her kids away and do what with them? We can not legislate morality.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Nov 09 - 09:30 AM

But maybe we can support without giving cash in cases where abuse of the system is occurring. Pay rent direct to the landlord, arrange an account at a local supermarket for groceries - not for all, but for those who have the wrong idea about how that money should be used. OK, it would be more time consuming for the authority concerned, but if it meant that the children, and maybe the spouse of the abuser, was getting the benefit? Sometimes draconian measures are the only thing that will work.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Nov 09 - 01:19 PM

I fail to see see Gnu's point. However, let's say such testing became law, and some "banker" was tested and found to be snorting coke. What would be done? Would they stop him recklessly gambling away our money on the stock exchange? Or would they bail him out with a massive great wodge of taxpayers' money? We routinely allow the rich and powerful to get away with anything! Morality? What's that?

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: kendall
Date: 07 Nov 09 - 03:43 PM

More oversight by the government, Jacqui? Can you hear the conservatives scream about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Nov 09 - 05:45 PM

I'd rather hear the conservatives scream than a kid going hungry because its caregiver just spent their welfare cheque on booze or drugs.

Subject: RE: BS: Urine test at work?
From: kendall
Date: 08 Nov 09 - 07:02 AM

I kinda like to hear them scream; it indicates we are doing something right.