and no one irl even has the decency to agree with me because it’s so fucking drilled into the culture that these fucking BuNsInNesSes have a Right to do this because it’s a bSUsniEss. like oh yeah they have an office building so they definitely get to analyze my piss because they say they want to. sick fucking freaks.

preaching to the choir a bit on lemmy (or i would hope so at least) but still

  • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    It really depends on the position and what they’re testing for. Do you really want a heavy machinery operator to be a cokehead or heroin addict? There is a real risk of them killing someone. Testing someone in a job like IT for smoking weed? That’s a different story.

    Also a lot of the time they only test you post-hiring if you fucked up somehow.

    It can definitely be used against people (usually the disenfranchised) though to prevent them being hired or to get them fired.

    • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The place I work will fire you on the spot if you test positive for marijuana. Marijuana is legal in this state. If I smoke on the weekend, and then test positive on Wednesday, I lose my job.

      However, if I get ripple-dee-doo-dah shit-faced Tuesday night, come in on Wednesday miserably hung over, I’ll pass that piss test. And still be more impaired than I would be from that joint I had Saturday night.

      • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        As a long time stoner, I agree that we are targeted more than nonusers simply because THC hangs out in the body a lot longer than other drugs. It would take me months to piss clean just so I could get a job at something like Family Dollar. It doesn’t matter if I was a drunk or did an 8 ball of coke a few days ago because that wouldn’t show up in a drug test.

      • Iceblade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        Just because a drug is legal doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tested for in scenarios where that is applicable. Many jobs do in fact test for alcohol.

        I wouldn’t want my bus driver under the influence of anything (preferably not even sleep deprivation), but honestly couldn’t give less of a shit if the cashier was high out of their mind, so long as they do their job. Some jobs are more gray area. For instance, a chef or fast food worker fucking up could mean someone dying from anaphylactic shock.

    • quicksand@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Ya if a worker fucking up can directly result in someone dying, I’m not opposed to testing for hard drugs. They also only stay in your system for a few days so if someone can’t pass that, then you can probably find a better fit

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I said this elsewhere in the thread- unless you are also giving random breathalyzers, this is a ridiculous and hypocritical policy because lots of people drink before going to work. And they’d be drunk right then and there, not at some unspecified point before the test was taken.

    • Iceblade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      Many desk jobs would probably be reasonable to have testing on as well. People don’t realize how critical software is today. That same piece of heavy machinery has a cpu with thousands of lines of code sitting between the operator and the actual machinery.

      • CephaloPOTUS@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Wow you are exactly what he is complaining about. It’s not like the guy is coding live and each keystroke goes directly to the machine. What risk is it to people if a couple years ago one of the guys typing keys that would later get tested like crazy was high?

        • hardaysknight@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          I mean, there are applications where that could be the case. I program PLC’s for a living. Sometimes on live machines running in a plant.

          I don’t agree with his overall viewpoint, but he does have a point in this case.

          • AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            If you’re committing on live then I have some choice words for the company you work for and the practices you’ve been taught

        • Iceblade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Cheese theory. You want as many layers of protection between creation and execution. Bugs will inevitably slip through tests, and reducing the number that are created before testing will inherently reduce the number that slip through. In some fields preventing just one bug might save many lives.

          I would not limit it to coders however - a lawyer screwing up their defense, a coked up billion dollar CEO disregarding the wider effects of a major decision, an insurance agent making a wrong decision etc. etc.

          The irony is that people higher up in the chain of command, whose decisions affect far more people, often slip by without being tested whilst the bottom-feeder who gets fired after a fuckup that affects a single person is hounded to the ends of the earth.

      • pete_the_cat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        I work in IT and about half the workforce smokes weed. I worked at a high frequency stock trading firm in NYC that made hundreds of millions of dollars per year and tons of the developers were high during work hours. We had quarterly open bar parties where the CEO himself would openly smoke weed.

        Being high on THC doesn’t have the same effect on someone that is drunk, all coked up, or doped up on opiates. Smoking weed tends to open up people’s creative sides and it reduces stress and anxiety when something isn’t working the way you want it to. The same can’t be said for the others because they impair your ability to focus, your vision, and decision making.

        Also as someone else said, there are only a few positions where being high as hell can seriously impact the company. Most of the time the stuff you do doesn’t have that much of an impact on the company in general.