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

  • Subverb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    1 year ago

    I run a manufacturing business; you oversimplify.

    Quite coincidentally my HR person came to me just an hour ago and told me that two people have complained of a coworker smoking on breaks and at lunch and being high on the job.

    He drives a heavy forklift. Am I to ignore the situation? If I do I expose my employees to danger and my small business to lawsuits.

    How are the employees that reported it supposed to react if I say “Whatever, that’s his business.”

    To a large extent businesses have their hands tied by the rules and laws of society.

    • viking@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      But what you are saying is probable cause. I think the OP complains about random testing without any justification.

      In your example, even if you were not legally entitled to carry out a drug test, you could simply call the police and let them do the check.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Random drops are how you catch functionals before they fuck up and cost business.

        Not really, the person could refuse and the cops can’t do anything unless it’s operated in public which most forklifts are not.

        • HerrBeter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve also worked a lot in heavy industry and if choices were. I’d rather have drug testing at an interval than not, and alcohol blow test every morning.

          Narcotics, and alcohol, do not belong in the workplace and I dispise apologists. Then I’m also biased against since I’ve seen too many ruin their lives catching the next high or dying of it. A bit irrelevant to your post but it really rustles my jimmies.

          • Aermis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            My union pays you $100 if you get hit with a random. They’re also the ones who issue them. Not my employer

            • Madlaine@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Unless your idea is to use a daily meeting where a d100 is rolled ro determines who is tested today in front of everyone you cannot really rule out any suspicion for bias.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You just came up with a single super simple way to do it. I’m sure there’s loads of other solutions that offer similar sort of randomness with more convenience.

                And remember, we’re comparing this to people asking to be tested on a hunch. Do you not think these randomness measures are better for fighting bias and discrimination, or is the issue that you can’t have 100% always free of bias randomness?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you test your forklift drivers with breathalyzers too?

      I guarantee you more of them are drinking before they go to work than getting high on break.

      • Subverb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        My business doesn’t test at all because I don’t care what my employees do when they’re not a work. I have no desire to get involved in their personal lives.

        But just as with weed, If an employee told me that another employee was drinking on breaks and at lunch my hands are tied. I can’t ignore it.

        • MycoBro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You might hate this answer but I guarantee that man does better work when he’s high and that no danger of hurting anyone on the forklift.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Many of the drug tests don’t check for drugs currently in your system. Many of them are akin to checking your liver levels to see if you’ve had alcohol at all in the past week.

      Also, what a massive straw man.

      • Saganaki
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure…but it’s not on him. Realistically, there’s:

        • The insurance company that has the restriction (required by law)
        • Lawmakers that make the law putting anyone under the influence responsible for any accidents, and by extension the company for letting it happen (if they knew)

        I wouldn’t necessarily blame this guy, but our elected officials. If anyone’s to blame, it’s mostly Republicans (and Democrats in the early 90s) for pushing these laws so hard.

      • Subverb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re being so naive. I can’t get involved in the personal lives of all of my employees, nor is it my place. I’m running a business, which from the sound of it you’ve never done. It takes a lot more effort than you seem to think. A lot.

        Hell, in some ways it’s not even legal for me to ask about an employee’s personal life.

        I treat my employees well. I have a chef on staff and they get a free lunch every day in a cafeteria. I pay competitively. I didn’t lose a single employee through the pandemic and have employees that have been with my company for 10-20 years. It’s a damn good place to work. Not every problem an employee has stems from a shit work environment.

        Malignant task-master? Out of touch with reality? I know Leemy is anti-capitalism, but it may surprise you to learn that not every employer is rolling in profits and lighting cigars with 100 dollar bills. I work damn hard and have employees that have a higher take home pay than I do. Every day is a challenge.

        • HerrBeter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This was more common back in the days, but the issue is that it will result in societal inefficiencies like alcoholics not getting better. Best is nipping it before it gets a lot worse.

          This is why in other countries there are a lot of responsibilities as an employer and they need to help with either private or public healthcare.

          • papertowels
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m going to guess that the “other countries” you mentioned also have functional and affordable health care systems?

            • HerrBeter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, my point was that it can be good for society to burden eachother too. Especially where we’re supposed to earn our daily living, look out for people

              • papertowels
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Give me a functional healthcare system and I’m down with assigning companies more responsibility.

                • HerrBeter@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  In Sweden the responsibility comes first, the company are liable for the employee if they don’t take action and know about the substance abuse (for example). And I think the US at least had some laws prohibiting like that, but maybe I’m thinking of wrongful termination

          • Subverb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t drug test at my business, but if two of my long-term employees come to HR and flat-out tell me that another of their recently-hired coworkers is smoking at breaks and at lunch my hands are legally pretty tied.

            I can’t ignore it.

          • papertowels
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Are there criminal charges following a drug test?

            No.

            Bad example.

            If negative drug tests are a condition for employment, you’ve agreed to them as part of employment. Being let go because you broke a condition for employment is on you.

            You are welcome to find jobs where there are no drug tests, or start your own company with that ethos in mind.

          • papertowels
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I appreciate my employers policy - you get one free pass if you attend therapy following a positive drug test. A second positive and you’re out.

            We do randomly get tested regularly.

      • criticalthreshold@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        This reads like the world is 100% at fault for your personal problems.

        This is a big reason why rational people grow out of the far-left academia: not everything is capitalism’s fault.