You should read up on drug testing for government benefits. You’ll realize that it’s been tried and actually cost more money to administer the tests than the minute savings from cutting off the few people who tested positive.
You should read up on drug testing for government benefits. You’ll realize that it’s been tried and actually cost more money to administer the tests than the minute savings from cutting off the few people who tested positive.
Shenanigans. They weren’t doing it in the right areas
When you start with a conclusion and ignore all evidence that doesn’t support that, you get a windywave.
You should read up on drug testing for government benefits. You’ll realize that it’s been tried and actually cost more money to administer the tests than the minute savings from cutting off the few people who tested positive.
Shenanigans. They weren’t doing it in the right areas
Sorry I forgot the link but now put in. Problem is she cannot have people operating heavy equipment under the influence.
So why not develop some sort of computer and physical test that assesses a persons’ psychomotor abilities, something like a field sobriety test?
Who cares why a person is impaired (maybe they haven’t slept for 3 days or they’ve just gotten old or whatever). We tests for drugs as a proxy to being impaired rather than just measuring impairment.
When you start with a conclusion and ignore all evidence that doesn’t support that, you get a windywave.
You should read up on drug testing for government benefits. You’ll realize that it’s been tried and actually cost more money to administer the tests than the minute savings from cutting off the few people who tested positive.
Shenanigans. They weren’t doing it in the right areas
I stand by my hypothesis.
You should read up on drug testing for government benefits. You’ll realize that it’s been tried and actually cost more money to administer the tests than the minute savings from cutting off the few people who tested positive.
Drug tests are about $35. Administering it, what does it take a clerk to check off a box, let’s say an hour since it’s govt work. So total per test $75. The reason it doesn’t get many positives is a) it doesn’t test people already on welfare, just new applicants and b) who is going to take a test they know they’re going to fail?
I don’t know what to say other than sad. Sorry forgot the link http://www.cnn.com/...ner-cnntv/index.html
I believe it. I work in commercial real estate and the management side of our company subs out landscaping and HVAC maintenance. All I hear is how those trades basically can’t hire and retention is a nightmare. The person who manages our landscaping subs recently told me she called on a new company and was told by said company that they weren’t taking new accounts until at least October simply because they couldn’t find people to hire.
Or we could legalize marijuana and stem the entire opioid epidemic.
But, I supposed hunting for unicorns could work as well …
Yeah, having more people reaching for harder stuff after they worked 3 consecutive shifts at TESLA would make our economy REALLY competitive again…domestic and internationally.
I already have enough problems with my TESLA that appears to have be assembled by drug junkies…actually it looks more like “by monkeys”.
Ah! I see. You are one of those people who ignorantly thinks pot is a gateway drug.
Sorry I forgot the link but now put in. Problem is she cannot have people operating heavy equipment under the influence.
So why not develop some sort of computer and physical test that assesses a persons’ psychomotor abilities, something like a field sobriety test?
Who cares why a person is impaired (maybe they haven’t slept for 3 days or they’ve just gotten old or whatever). We tests for drugs as a proxy to being impaired rather than just measuring impairment.
Because there is no easy or definitive way to do this. Plus, we have no standards to use as a measuring stick. For example, say we have a reaction test like “whack-a-mole” that tests reaction times. We have no standard measure for what reaction time would signify “impairment.”
You should read up on drug testing for government benefits. You’ll realize that it’s been tried and actually cost more money to administer the tests than the minute savings from cutting off the few people who tested positive.
Drug tests are about $35. Administering it, what does it take a clerk to check off a box, let’s say an hour since it’s govt work. So total per test $75. The reason it doesn’t get many positives is a) it doesn’t test people already on welfare, just new applicants and b) who is going to take a test they know they’re going to fail?
Exactly, or I forget what state it was, but you applied for benefits, got asked a few questions and then depending on how you answered you were administered a drug test. Not hard to lie on those questions and to know what to say to not be given a drug test.
I have yet to see a real comparison of how many people were on benefits pre drug testing to how many are on benefits post drug testing in the states that do administer the tests.
Sorry I forgot the link but now put in. Problem is she cannot have people operating heavy equipment under the influence.
So why not develop some sort of computer and physical test that assesses a persons’ psychomotor abilities, something like a field sobriety test?
Who cares why a person is impaired (maybe they haven’t slept for 3 days or they’ve just gotten old or whatever). We tests for drugs as a proxy to being impaired rather than just measuring impairment.
Because there is no easy or definitive way to do this. Plus, we have no standards to use as a measuring stick. For example, say we have a reaction test like “whack-a-mole” that tests reaction times. We have no standard measure for what reaction time would signify “impairment.”
I find the guy from the drunk driving capital of the country opining on this ironic
I don’t know what to say other than sad. Sorry forgot the link http://www.cnn.com/...ner-cnntv/index.html
They can’t find Labor because they refuse to pay a living wage to people who don’t do drugs.
Druggies will take any Job at any price.
Lucid people who have to feed a family can’t work for a wage that doesn’t make ends meet.
And don’t tell me BS such as “they just need to be working three jobs…”
I don’t know what to say other than sad. Sorry forgot the link http://www.cnn.com/...ner-cnntv/index.html
They can’t find Labor because they refuse to pay a living wage to people who don’t do drugs.
Druggies will take any Job at any price.
Lucid people who have to feed a family can’t work for a wage that doesn’t make ends meet.
And don’t tell me BS such as “they just need to be working three jobs…”
Did they even say what they paid?
I don’t know what to say other than sad. Sorry forgot the link http://www.cnn.com/...ner-cnntv/index.html
They can’t find Labor because they refuse to pay a living wage to people who don’t do drugs.
Druggies will take any Job at any price.
Lucid people who have to feed a family can’t work for a wage that doesn’t make ends meet.
And don’t tell me BS such as “they just need to be working three jobs…”
Did you even read the article? The jobs were for welders, machinists, crane operators…all jobs that pay far more than a “living wage.” This isn’t a story about somebody looking to fill minimum wage jobs.
Sorry I forgot the link but now put in. Problem is she cannot have people operating heavy equipment under the influence.
So why not develop some sort of computer and physical test that assesses a persons’ psychomotor abilities, something like a field sobriety test?
Who cares why a person is impaired (maybe they haven’t slept for 3 days or they’ve just gotten old or whatever). We tests for drugs as a proxy to being impaired rather than just measuring impairment.
Because there is no easy or definitive way to do this. Plus, we have no standards to use as a measuring stick. For example, say we have a reaction test like “whack-a-mole” that tests reaction times. We have no standard measure for what reaction time would signify “impairment.”
I bet a bad test of impairment is a more valid measure of impairment than a reliable drug test.
Sorry I forgot the link but now put in. Problem is she cannot have people operating heavy equipment under the influence.
So why not develop some sort of computer and physical test that assesses a persons’ psychomotor abilities, something like a field sobriety test?
Who cares why a person is impaired (maybe they haven’t slept for 3 days or they’ve just gotten old or whatever). We tests for drugs as a proxy to being impaired rather than just measuring impairment.
Because there is no easy or definitive way to do this. Plus, we have no standards to use as a measuring stick. For example, say we have a reaction test like “whack-a-mole” that tests reaction times. We have no standard measure for what reaction time would signify “impairment.”
I bet a bad test of impairment is a more valid measure of impairment than a reliable drug test.
You may be right. When I was preparing for the presentation I mentioned above, I did a lot of research on this. The biggest issue is - there is no money to study this issue and create the testing.
As I mention earlier in the thread - when the BAC levels were established, millions of federal funds were used for hundreds of studies on thousands of people. Those funds are not available to perform these studies.
Necessity is the mother of invention. If employers are facing worker shortages b/c of states legalizing pot, maybe employer groups and/or trade groups need to pony up some money to conduct some studies.
Or we could legalize marijuana and stem the entire opioid epidemic.
But, I supposed hunting for unicorns could work as well …
How would legalizing marijuana stem the entire opioid epidemic? Opioid deaths in Colorado are up and the last I checked, pot is still legal here.
I do consulting for a company which has 1,000 employees in company vehicles who deal with high profile utilities every day. They have to drug test and no matter what, they will continue to drug test (that includes in states where marijuana is legal). May I suggest that if you want a good job, don’t smoke pot. If you feel you must, then get a job where it isn’t an issue. If you can’t stop smoking pot, then maybe you have a problem.
The entire discussion about whether it is bad for an employer to drug test is a wasted discussion. If you live in a at will state, you will live under that employers rules.
When I had my own construction company, some of my clients required random drug testing.
I always told new hires up front about it.
One guy told me he could pass a random drug test with 3 days notice.
You should read up on drug testing for government benefits. You’ll realize that it’s been tried and actually cost more money to administer the tests than the minute savings from cutting off the few people who tested positive.
Drug tests are about $35. Administering it, what does it take a clerk to check off a box, let’s say an hour since it’s govt work. So total per test $75. The reason it doesn’t get many positives is a) it doesn’t test people already on welfare, just new applicants and b) who is going to take a test they know they’re going to fail?
Exactly, or I forget what state it was, but you applied for benefits, got asked a few questions and then depending on how you answered you were administered a drug test. Not hard to lie on those questions and to know what to say to not be given a drug test.
I have yet to see a real comparison of how many people were on benefits pre drug testing to how many are on benefits post drug testing in the states that do administer the tests.
Many people seem to be under the mistaken impression that those on “welfare” or government benefits are these long term losers who likely use their food stamps for munchies after their week-long jags. The reality is that most are the elderly poor, children, working poor, and people who need the support for brief (like a year or so) periods of unemployment or other life changes.
Or we could legalize marijuana and stem the entire opioid epidemic.
But, I supposed hunting for unicorns could work as well …
How would legalizing marijuana stem the entire opioid epidemic? Opioid deaths in Colorado are up and the last I checked, pot is still legal here.
http://drugabuse.com/legalizing-marijuana-decreases-fatal-opiate-overdoses/
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/opioid-abuse-is-plummeting-in-states-with-legal-marijuana/
http://www.newsweek.com/opioid-marijuana-legal-states-hospital-overdose-addiction-575385
I do consulting for a company which has 1,000 employees in company vehicles who deal with high profile utilities every day. They have to drug test and no matter what, they will continue to drug test (that includes in states where marijuana is legal). May I suggest that if you want a good job, don’t smoke pot. If you feel you must, then get a job where it isn’t an issue. If you can’t stop smoking pot, then maybe you have a problem.
I have never smoked or consumed cannabis in any form. While I am curious about it, I’m not that curious about it. Then again, I don’t suffer from chronic pain and have never needed to be put on long-term pain killers.
This is Steve Acheson, medically discharged war hero, who was seriously injured in battle and suffers chronic pain, along with PTSD. The bags he is holding contain all the drugs prescribed to him by the VA. He stopped taking them when he starting smoking one joint per day.
The entire discussion about whether it is bad for an employer to drug test is a wasted discussion. If you live in a at will state, you will live under that employers rules.
Is that a fact? Hmmmm. Guess someone should tell that to the Mass Supreme Court …
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-massachusetts-marijuana-idUSKBN1A21WX