# Drug testing.



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Who's for it? Who's against it? Should the local do it? Or should the contractor do it? What does YOUR local or Employer (non union) do?


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

I like testing drugs


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

wildleg said:


> I like testing drugs


Best answer award!! Kudos, Wildleg.


----------



## s.kelly (Mar 20, 2009)

Half the time or more, the local and the contractor test us in this area. Got to say it chaps my ass a bit, just another way insurance companies try to keep from paying workers comp claims.

What anyone does on the weekend is really their own affair,come to work clean and it should not be anyones business. Office workers are rarely tested, the double standard sucks.

My OL is a teacher, probably never been tested, me dozens of times. They treat construction workers like trash, and then expect everyone not to act that way. If they would make up their mind with one or the other, I could live with it.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

I like drug test. If you failed you should be fired on the spot. I think the test should be random so no one could "study" for the test.


----------



## mattsilkwood (Sep 21, 2008)

I don't think it's anyone's business what you do on your own time. Obviously if you are doing coke or heroin, something that affects you for days at a time, it is going to affect your work and is a problem. 
But if someone wants to smoke a little bit who cares. It's no different than having a beer or two.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Most business owners would probably be surprised to find out how many of their employees use some sort of drug. If your company is mostly younger guys (and many construction workers are) I'd wager that 20% of them have used something that would show up in a hair test. But the fact that employers don't even suspect the majority of drug use puts the lie to that whole idea that "people who use drugs will ruin your company." Someone who uses recreationally on their own time is no different than someone who drinks on their own time.

A person who shows up to work still under the influence shouldn't be fired for being under the influence, they should be fired because of the piss-poor judgment and lack of self-control that led them to show up to work that way. Someone who thinks it's okay to show up high or drunk would be detrimental to the company whether they were using drugs or not.

A person who has their priorities in line and who performs well will continue to perform well regardless of what they do for fun.

-John


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Test, fail, fired. Don't like it keep your nose clean or start your own business and do whatever you want.

Two drugged out Boston firemen responded to a call and ended up dead as a result. Would they have been better off had they been tested and fired? Their families probably think so. Although the filthy BFD union might think otherwise. In their warped minds they feel that they should be paid extra for showing up to work sober.  But anyway..

The bottom line is simple. Illegal drugs are illegal. If you are using them you are breaking a law. I prefer to surround myself with honest people. More than that, this shows you have poor judgement and while it may end up a problem for you it is everyone around you that I would worry about. Why should I be put in danger because you are a dirtbag?

I'm of the mindset that as a business owner, I should be able to fire anyone anytime for any reason.


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Funny how much different thing are now compared to the 70s and 80s.
Beer cans tucked in every corner. Refer smell wafting through the jobsite.

Still cant believe the 80s here in Miami...:whistling2:


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

I think that having zero tolerance in this line of work is a good thing. When I was younger we used to slam a few down at lunch sometimes - no harm done. But in this day, if something happened you, your company, your career would be toast. It's just not worth it. I had to fire a couple guys last year for showing up drunk. one guy couldn't tie his shoe, much less splice wires correctly. As far as the weed goes, well, it's not legal here so if you want to smoke it up you need to find a different line of work (right or wrong, that's just the way it is).


----------



## sparky970 (Mar 19, 2008)

About a year ago, I was having a bout of not sleeping. After about 2 weeks, my friend/neighbor offered me a sleeping pill. 3 days later, I received a random test at work. Since I didn't have a prescription, I got to do 12 weeks of education class. I was pissed about that one!!!


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

Contrary to popular belief:

Meth-heads CANNOT rope a house faster. They stand and talk and argue about whose dope is better and whose been up longer.

But this business of testing for pot has got to go away.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Jan 10, 2007)

electricmanscott said:


> The bottom line is simple. Illegal drugs are illegal. If you are using them you are breaking a law. I prefer to surround myself with honest people. More than that, this shows you have poor judgement and while it may end up a problem for you it is everyone around you that I would worry about. Why should I be put in danger because you are a dirtbag?


A) It is NOT that black and white. Just becasue you might smoke once in a while does NOT mean you are "dishonest".
There are levels of illegality, and of severity of drugs. IMO alcohol is a much worse drug than pot. 

B) Not everyone who smokes is a dirtbag. I know WAY more dirtbags who drink to excess than those who smoke. 

C) No, I do not smoke. I do however encourage the legalization of pot. The only reason I am not a casual smoker is because I am chickesh*t about getting caught under the totalitarian B-S drug laws that allow alcohol to be consumed to excess yet keeps pot illegal.

I know a few angry drunks. I have yet to meet an angry pothead.


On the subject of testing I am torn. I do NOT want someone working for me under the influence of ANYTHING during work, but what you do on your own time is none of my business..... unless it affects me afterward. 
How many guys have had losers who call in sick or late nearly every Monday? Typically it is because of a hangover, isn't it?


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Speedy Petey said:


> A) It is NOT that black and white. Just becasue you might smoke once in a while does NOT mean you are "dishonest".
> There are levels of illegality, and of severity of drugs. IMO alcohol is a much worse drug than pot.
> 
> B) Not everyone who smokes is a dirtbag. I know WAY more dirtbags who drink to excess than those who smoke.
> ...


You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.


----------



## mattsilkwood (Sep 21, 2008)

electricmanscott said:


> The bottom line is simple. Illegal drugs are illegal. If you are using them you are breaking a law. I prefer to surround myself with honest people. More than that, this shows you have poor judgement and while it may end up a problem for you it is everyone around you that I would worry about. Why should I be put in danger because you are a dirtbag?


Have you ever drove faster than the speed limit? How about not stop all the way at a stop sign? Jaywalk? Had a parking ticket? God forbid help a buddy out with his wiring.

What I am getting at is there is no one that has never broken a law, however petty. So by your own words everyone is a dirtbag, therefore your point is moot.

Most laws are not created in the name of public safety or betterment of the community but to generate revenue.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

I do not smoke, drink or use illegal drugs BUT I am dead set against drug testing.

We had to be tested for a job, one of my men failed and my customer was notified. 7 days later the company sent us a letter of apology as they had made an error in testing.

Besides that, what a guy/girl does at home as long as it does not impact the job is NO ONE's BUSINESS.

Give up on this and next they will not want you drinking sodas on the job.

http://www.aolhealth.com/2010/07/09/san-francisco-bans-soda-in-vending-machines/

Where do you draw the line?


----------



## Brother Noah1 (Mar 23, 2010)

Several good post on this subject.I believe that with the urine test(a good thought at first) it has been taken to the extremes. A good employee gets hurt on a job because of a danger the contractor has put on the said employee, then gives a test(trace amount of pot detected) then this contractor will probably refuse to pay any medical and fire the employee for being under the influence.Todays test can not determine if a persons ability is influenced by the pot, only that their body has the antibodies to prove they have in the last 30 days used this drug.I do not drink or do any drugs but I think until the drug test can say 100% this person is under the influence NOW that it is an invasion of privacy and cheap shot at the working class to keep them under the thumb.How many of our polical leaders have to take a test?How many contractors are given a random 5 times in 3 weeks(this happened to me once)?Brian John I appreciate your post mainly because of what side of the counter it comes from.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Brother Noah said:


> Several good post on this subject.I believe that with the urine test(a good thought at first) it has been taken to the extremes. A good employee gets hurt on a job because of a danger the contractor has put on the said employee, then gives a test(trace amount of pot detected) then this contractor will probably refuse to pay any medical and fire the employee for being under the influence.Todays test can not determine if a persons ability is influenced by the pot, only that their body has the antibodies to prove they have in the last 30 days used this drug.I do not drink or do any drugs but I think until the drug test can say 100% this person is under the influence NOW that it is an invasion of privacy and cheap shot at the working class to keep them under the thumb.How many of our polical leaders have to take a test?How many contractors are given a random 5 times in 3 weeks(this happened to me once)?Brian John I appreciate your post mainly because of what side of the counter it comes from.



Excellent points:thumbsup:

Here's another thing, why not pop test the office personal as well. I mean if the estimator bids the job wrong and it takes a dump, can the E.C. give em' a test? If he's hot can he be sued for the loss money on the project??

I'm kinda on the fence about the drug testing, I do think it could end up being abused. Although I've seen guy's so bent they had no business being on the job site taking up space another could have had.

Definitely a fine line.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

slickvic277 said:


> Although I've seen guy's so bent they had no business being on the job site taking up space another could have had.


So why are they not fired for being wasted on the job?


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Brother Noah said:


> I believe that with the urine test(a good thought at first) it has been taken to the extremes. A good employee gets hurt on a job because of a danger the contractor has put on the said employee,


Employees get hurt from employer neglect and also employees get hurt avoid/ignoring the rules.

Both parties need to work together to insure the employee goes home the same way he came to work INTACT, and if they do this the employer can save money and OSHA hassles.

Construction is inherently dangerous and we all need to work safe.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> So why are they not fired for being wasted on the job?



Usually there laid off only to resurface on another job down the road. 

OR their the bosses dill-hole son and nobody ever says a thing about it.

OR some genius business agent thought it was a good idea to make him the steward:blink:.


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

william1978 said:


> I like drug test. If you failed you should be fired on the spot. I think the test should be random so no one could "study" for the test.


Silly Republican. :whistling2:



jrannis said:


> Funny how much different thing are now compared to the 70s and 80s.
> Beer cans tucked in every corner. Refer smell wafting through the jobsite.
> Still cant believe the 80s here in Miami...:whistling2:


That's a fact. I remember doing the slabs on the three golf course towers in Aventura. Guys smoking right there with the project super standing just a few feet away. Also, 55 gallon barrel filled with beer flown up on occasion. Topping out parties were very cool!!!!! :yes:



brian john said:


> I do not smoke, drink or use illegal drugs


Wow what do you do? :blink:


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

electricmanscott said:


> ...I prefer to surround myself with honest people. More than that, this shows you have poor judgement and while it may end up a problem for you it is everyone around you that I would worry about. Why should I be put in danger because you are a dirtbag.


 While you're well within your rights to think this, like I said: You'd probably be pretty surprised if you honestly knew who around you used some sort of drug recreationally.

It simply isn't true that everyone who uses is automatically a dirtbag. You may have some idea in your head about what someone who "uses drugs" should look and act like. Even if you don't change your business practice, you should rethink that stereotype. I know a fair number of blue and white collar people who are consumate professionals, who use on their own time. They don't steal, they don't show up impaired, they _are_ honest where it counts, and by every measure they're pretty successful in life.

And just to clarify, I don't smoke or use anything, so don't mistake my position as defensiveness. I simply dislike this whole anti-drug frenzy people get into; it's outdated and largely wrong. Once again, it's very similar to saying "Everyone who drinks is automatically a dirtbag." _Some_ people have problems with drugs, just like _some_ people have problems with alcohol. If history has shown anything it is that strict prohibition of either one does not work.

-John


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

John Valdes said:


> Silly Republican. :whistling2:


 To each his own I guess.


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

BuzzKill said:


> Best answer award!! Kudos, Wildleg.


 
That was a good one, but I think Matt beat it in post#6. We have a big, very big problem with it here. I was away for 11 years and there was an explosion when I was gone. It's ALL PILLS!!!!! Thank god the DEA is really nailing crack dealers lately, and I LOVE IT!!!!! I just wish they would start nailing these pill pushers.

"Let's take some SOMA, or some Oxycontin and sit around and drool all day." Oh, that sounds like so much fun


But on the flipside Matt, you have all these kids smoking pot wearing their pants around their azz, listening to monkey music and breeding. I don't think in any way, shape or form they should get away with it. With that type of intelligence level, I don't think they should be able to drink either:001_huh:

Drug testing? Sure, on the spot if you're dumb enough to come to work under the influence. I think coming to work under the influence should be like having a felony, it never leaves you and all employers should be able to see it.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

76nemo said:


> T, you have all these kids smoking pot wearing their pants around their azz, listening to monkey music and breeding.


'Monkey music'? you are real piece of work, how about leaving the 1930s behind. 

Why is what kids listen to or how they choose to dress any of your f-ing business. 

I thought you were the one that wears their hair down to their ass like a women? I think that should be banned because people with long hair are worthless to society.


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

mattsilkwood said:


> Have you ever drove faster than the speed limit? How about not stop all the way at a stop sign? Jaywalk? Had a parking ticket? God forbid help a buddy out with his wiring.
> 
> What I am getting at is there is no one that has never broken a law, however petty. So by your own words everyone is a dirtbag, therefore your point is moot.
> 
> Most laws are not created in the name of public safety or betterment of the community but to generate revenue.


 

Dang Matt, I thought post#6 was good. You just topped it by a LONG shot!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

Bob Badger said:


> 'Monkey music'? you are real piece of work, how about leaving the 1930s behind.
> 
> Why is what kids listen to or how they choose to dress any of your f-ing business.
> 
> I thought you were the one that wears their hair down to their ass like a women? I think that should be banned because people with long hair are worthless to society.


 
I think you forget when I went to bat for you on another forum. I stood up for you and then you bash me?

I got off topic. I wasn't speaking really of testing for the job, I was just really saying I am glad smoking pot is illegal. This generation of dip****s should go through shock camp:yes: I was born in the wrong generation, but if I lived in the 30's I would have something to complain about too.

I have long hair, I have a long beard. I am entitled to my own opinion, and I am FAR from worthless. I have a very large regard to life and it's well being. You ARE right, looks don't mean squat, it's the stereotypical acts behind it I can't stand *****. There, you like it when I talk to you that way Bobby???? Is that professional enough Dog? Word up?

Ease up Bob, don't always take the defensive:001_huh: Your Clint avatar suits you sometimes. Ease up man.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

76nemo said:


> I think you forget when I went to bat for you on another forum. I stood up for you and then you bash me?
> 
> I got off topic. I wasn't speaking really of testing for the job, I was just really saying I am glad smoking pot is illegal. This generation of dip****s should go through shock camp:yes: I was born in the wrong generation, but if I lived in the 30's I would have something to complain about too.
> 
> ...



So in other words you look like a stereo-typical pot head hippie. But I guess that's better then "these" kids from "this" generation..............

ahight, see ya lada my *****.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

The war on drugs has cost this country a fortune and we are losing after 40 some years at it.

In this war we have sided with some very shady leaders around the world.

Filled the prisons to the hilt with SOME folks that were just getting high.

Blacks incarcerated for crack, while Caucasians get a slap on the wrist for coke.

Dealers getting off after ratting out those the deal to and the other way around.

Cost the taxpayers loads.

and as noted we are no further ahead


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

slickvic277 said:


> So in other words you look like a stereo-typical pot head hippie. But I guess that's better then "these" kids from "this" generation..............
> 
> ahight, see ya lada my *****.


 
You missed the part when I said I had a very large regard to life and it's well being. Buttttt, you are correct, apparently I look like a dirtbag. brian john made the statement I would never work for him before.

It sounded like I was going off about appearance, I wasn't. Wait, yes I was, and you and Bob proved me wrong. Am I being sarcastic? No, I am not, you and Bob are right. I am just from the opposite side of the pond where we'd rather keep monkeys in cages.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

76nemo said:


> You missed the part when I said I had a very large regard to life and it's well being. Buttttt, you are correct, apparently I look like a dirtbag. brian john made the statement I would never work for him before.
> .



You could work for me just not any of my customers


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

william1978 said:


> To each his own I guess.


 

We all know william is a union member.... Union guys don't vote republican.:no:


----------



## mattsilkwood (Sep 21, 2008)

jwjrw said:


> We all know william is a union member.... Union guys don't vote republican.:no:


 :laughing:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

76nemo said:


> You missed the part when I said I had a very large regard to life and it's well being. Buttttt, you are correct, apparently I look like a dirtbag. brian john made the statement I would never work for him before.
> 
> It sounded like I was going off about appearance, I wasn't. Wait, yes I was, and you and Bob proved me wrong. Am I being sarcastic? No, I am not, you and Bob are right. *I am just from the opposite side of the pond where we'd rather keep monkeys in cages.*



Really?? I prefer to see monkey's left in the wild and watch them on the discovery channel. But the facilities at the zoo aren't really all that bad.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> We all know william is a union member.... Union guys don't vote republican.:no:


You couldn't be more wrong. It's widely known with in the IBEW that the membership is 40-50% republican and votes as such.

But anyway, at this point do you really think they are going to fix anything??
It seems to me that they (dems & repubs) both suck. When a real leader presents themselves that's who I'll vote for, regardless of party.

Anyone who thinks either party as it stands today, can do a better job then the other is really fooling themselves.


----------



## oldtimer (Jun 10, 2010)

Anyone showing up for work drunk, or stoned, Sorry, I do not want to work near him. He could either hurt himself, or more importantly, ME. :001_unsure:


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> You couldn't be more wrong. It's widely known with in the IBEW that the membership is 40-50% republican and votes as such.


But the IBEW spends it members dollars 97% on dems, good way to represent the membership.


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

slickvic277 said:


> Really?? I prefer to see monkey's left in the wild and watch them on the discovery channel. But the facilities at the zoo aren't really all that bad.


 
I don't want to hijack this thread. I stated a point, and you and Bob flattened me with it. I don't mind being wrong.


Drug testing? Sure if you are suspected to be under the influence. I said it before, if you show up on the job under the influence, it should be the same as a felony, all employers should be able to see it for the rest of your working life.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> You couldn't be more wrong. It's widely known with in the IBEW that the membership is 40-50% republican and votes as such.
> 
> But anyway, at this point do you really think they are going to fix anything??
> It seems to me that they (dems & repubs) both suck. When a real leader presents themselves that's who I'll vote for, regardless of party.
> ...


 
I was just messing with William...But that said I think most union guys vote dem and most unions always want their members to vote dem. It has always been that way. I'm sure their are republican members and maybe ever conservative members.(but they are closet republicians). 


I say throw 'em all out.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

So what is monkey music anyway grampa? :jester:


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> But the IBEW spends it members dollars 97% on dems, good way to represent the membership.


Yeah, I know. What good has it done us??




> jwjrw;252942]I was just messing with William...But that said I think most union guys vote dem and most unions always want their members to vote dem. It has always been that way. I'm sure their are republican members and maybe ever conservative members.(but they are closet republicians).


We're you ever a member? Lot's more republican members then u think. But on an international level the IBEW is staunchly democrat. I really don't know why. I guess they'll pretend to be labor friendly and except our hard earned money.




> I say throw 'em all out.


Agreed :thumbsup:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

slickvic277 said:


> . But on an international level the IBEW is staunchly democrat. I really don't know why.


You're joking right? :laughing:

I will not vote for any incumbent this year right down to my local town officials.


----------



## PhatElvis (Jan 23, 2009)

FWIW I am 100% against the war on drugs in the country, and just like every other government run program is a total cluster crunk that has only filled our prisons with harmless pot heads.

Having said that I drug test every person that takes a call at my shop. Why? Because the only work out there right now are public jobs and 90% of the public work I do are OCIP or ROCIP jobs that MANDATE pre-employment drug testing and post injury drug testing.

(For those who don’t know OCIP and ROCIP jobs are when the owner of the project carries their own insurance and any job site injuries claims go through the owner and their adjusters) 

If a post injury drug test comes up positive, even if it was from a joint he smoked 3 weeks ago and had nothing to do with the actual accident, they still use the positive results from the test to mitigate the claim and it ultimately becomes a problem for me and the poor guy who got hurt. 

 I have a number of guys who I know smoke, and how they handle this issue is they just don’t report their injuries which in my eyes is even worse.

Your privacy and your business….bla bla bla you are preaching to the choir but if you want to be an electricians and work the Bacon Davis jobs then you get the eat part the same sh1t burger us contractors have to eat to get these jobs, so suck it up and pee in the cup. 

Oh and don't count on ANY support from IBEW on this issue they know they score and they will tow the line and play the PC game on this because they know that no amount of union spin will justify a public perception that their members may be pot heads. In fact in my last contract the language IBEW added to the contract about drugs and drug testing was WAY more than I asked for but it was pretty much in line with what my market is mandating.


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

electricmanscott said:


> You're joking right? :laughing:
> 
> I will not vote for any incumbent this year right down to my local town officials.



No i'm not joking, they haven't done a damn thing for us except take our money.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

slickvic277 said:


> No i'm not joking, they haven't done a damn thing for us except take our money.


How much worse can it get?


----------



## slickvic277 (Feb 5, 2009)

brian john said:


> How much worse can it get?



Oh, it's gonna get worse before it gets better. I think construction screams to a complete halt in 2011.

Then we'll probably dump millions more into some other empty promise.


----------



## Widestance_Politics (Jun 2, 2010)

I don't think testing would be such an issue for people if they could narrow the test down to what you have ingested in say the last 8 hours.....Failing a test for smoking a doobie at a frat party 3 weeks prior is complete BS in my opinion....I quit smoking after I had kids and the paranoia ruined any fun that had come with it, but I have struggled with not smoking when I'm on a camping trip, or at a random gathering with friends....but I can push myself to the edge of alcohol poisoning and most of my employers/coworkers would probably chalk it up as a good time......and wearing your pants around the azz listening to monkey music isn't as bad as you think, your just a square daddy-o...I do see your point about being annoyed by other generations, for instance, when I hear you old horses repeat your mantra of "Git R Done" I seriously wanna poison your Ensure......didn't the doc warn ya that mixing Rogain with the ****** would make ya cranky?....ah well, at least they don't test ya for it:thumbsup:


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

We're you ever a member? Lot's more republican members then u think. But on an international level the IBEW is staunchly democrat. I really don't know why. I guess they'll pretend to be labor friendly and except our hard earned money.


Unions support democrat candidates as a rule. They ask their members to support the candidates they endorse. Has always been that way. I think that is common knowledge to most people.


----------



## 76nemo (Aug 13, 2008)

electricmanscott said:


> So what is monkey music anyway grampa? :jester:


 

****************
*Mod note: This image was over the line.*


----------



## Speedy Petey (Jan 10, 2007)

I should have closed this piece of sh*t thread yesterday. 
Unfortunately I wasn't home all day.


----------

