U.S. Politics: High Nunes or Russian to Judgement

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 hours ago, Fez said:

I also find it interesting how different the stories people have in this thread are from the stories I hear at work. I believe what everyone is saying, but at the same what I constantly hear from law enforcement, licensing boards, etc. is how hard it is to get most doctors on board with any changes and how most are operating the same as they always have (other than the straight-up pill mill docs; many of whom have been busted).

I can only speak for California, and even then just specifically how the HMO I work for has dealt with it. In the case of my employer, the docs really don't have a whole lot of say. They are not allowed to organize. There was a lot of pushback initially by the docs at my facility, but administration basically dropped the hammer and told them that if they didn't like it, they could go back to private practice. Honestly I feel like the State made the right move here. Most of the docs I work with are very smart and politically savvy and overall are pretty reasonable folks, but when you bring up the Oxy crisis the vast majority of them defer responsibility. It was Big Pharma. It was the government, etc, etc. The fact of the matter in my estimation is that it was ultimately much easier to just hand out unnecessary pain meds to patients who demand them. It is not easy dealing with addicts.The drug seeking behavior we have to deal with is extremely time consuming and frustrating. The thing is, the ease and frequency in which these doctors prescribed these medications helped create that. The State had to step in. It was not going to correct itself. 

[LongRider]

23 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The employers drug test (does everyone in the US drug test? It's illegal to do so in Canada before you hire someone), and the failure rate for Americans is so high they look for recent immigrants and refugees to fill positions. Failure rates, they find, are about 20% to 25%.

The refugees and immigrants are looking for long term employment, whereas many of the Americans are only looking to get by for the short term. And the refugees, many of whom are either Muslim or come from societies where drugs and alcohol are not accepted, not only test clean but often have never used either drugs or alcohol at all.

Not all employers drug test their job applicants, but many do.  On most job applications, one must agree to be drug tested anytime as a condition of employment (that I've filled out, and I've out a lot of them since 2010.)  Random drug testing happened very actively in my experience in the late '90's for on the job, already hired employees at a warehouse I worked it.  I saw a few people lose their jobs and one fight, and win, a false positive.  Random drug screens for warehouse workers making just a bit above minimum wage is costly to the company and great way to kill morale and create working environments of broken trust.  But hey, it was the cool thing to do, for management, I guess.  Drug screen companies were big business for awhile, still are it seems.

My last two jobs, which includes where I'm currently working, I wasn't tested but some employees, depending on their job is, are.  For instance, truck drivers have a hiring drug screen then are subject to random drug screens which I believe are federally mandated.   In the past I've even seen hiring agencies who would charge the applicant for the drug screen!

What I also find interesting in your paragraph is that the story says most of the American's are looking for long term employment.  This really surprises me as one usually can't get medical and other benefits with out being long term.  Was this agency profiled one who hires on a temporary or temp to hire basis?  Those jobs can be easily lost or one might have to work over a year as a temp to become a permanent worker and receive benefits.  If the Americans had been burned a few times by this type of employer, they might not want to deal with them again.  (I've been burned and no way would I work a temp job again, nfw)

35 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

In the meantime, the reporters interviewed Americans who failed drug tests, or who had drug use histories, and who feel hard done by and abandoned. They aren't being given a chance to show they can hold a job, they aren't being given a chance to recover, they aren't being given help.

This is an angle I hadn't thought of but yeah, someone labeled as a 'drug user' or busted on a piss test is many times seen as an 'addict' and less than human.  The War on Drugs has been a total disaster for the US and many of it's people who have been caught one way or another in it.  For some reason, the thought of treatment for people is really looked down upon and drug users and addicts are many times treated terribly.

[Commodore]

1 hour ago, Nasty LongRider said:

This is an angle I hadn't thought of but yeah, someone labeled as a 'drug user' or busted on a piss test is many times seen as an 'addict' and less than human. 

Or perhaps just a likely unreliable employee

[Gertrude]

There are so many judgement to make when considering a hire, so I get it that things like that will  sway an employer. However, I've come to realize those little reasons are bullshit. Hard to shake for sure, but bullshit. In a previous position, a few of my best hires were gambles based on gut and not by the numbers. I was not the norm, however, and many of my colleagues preferred to tick off boxes and measurable traits rather than take a risk. I kind of despise this attitude.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

20 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Jesus, that would be so much easier to deal with than having to take a trip to the doctor once a month. I don't get scripts for opioids, but I do have scripts for Adderall and Vyvanse and it's a pain in the ass having to go to the doctor at least once a month.

Wow, that sucks.  I have see my doctor every 3 months, and I get 3 paper scripts for my Adderall.  It can't be called in though, and I have to get my drivers licence scanned when I pick it up. 

[James Arryn]

33 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

There are so many judgement to make when considering a hire, so I get it that things like that will  sway an employer. However, I've come to realize those little reasons are bullshit. Hard to shake for sure, but bullshit. In a previous position, a few of my best hires were gambles based on gut and not by the numbers. I was not the norm, however, and many of my colleagues preferred to tick off boxes and measurable traits rather than take a risk. I kind of despise this attitude.

Somewhat related;

Back in undergrad I was working in a bar, and every other employee was an attractive girl, the prevailing theory being attractive staff bring in more business. When I was promoted to manager I told them I'd be enacting a new hiring policy, where staff would be hired on their resume, not their appearance, and the owner and other manager grudgingly gave in. 

My very first hire was a woman with an excellent resume who happened to be quite overweight.

Within a few weeks she was caught stealing from the tip pool (on video multiple times once I checked) and, yeah...there went my cache. I tried pointing out how the stealing had nothing to do with her appearance, but I'd kind of chosen the wrong hill to die for. Now the other manager and owner were each given a say on new hires, meaning I was outvoted and appearance was unofficially back on the requirement list. To be fair to them, it's a pretty understood standard in the bar business in my experience, but it still irritates me no end that the very first hire on which I took a stand was such an extreme failure. I still wonder if maybe I unconsciously overrated her qualifications because she fit so well with the point I was trying to make, or whether it was just really shitty luck.

[Kalbear]

While it's fascinating, can we please take the medication and drug talk out of the US politics thread?

[LongRider]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

While it's fascinating, can we please take the medication and drug talk out of the US politics thread?

Drug and medication policies how and why are political.

 

[DunderMifflin]

15 hours ago, Commodore said:

Or perhaps just a likely unreliable employee

The question is if that's justified imo, or should be tolerated.

We've seen other things be legally  protected from discrimination. 

I think at the very least it's an outdated opinion. 

[Commodore]

6 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

The question is if that's justified imo, or should be tolerated.

that which I disapprove of shall not be tolerated

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

48 minutes ago, Commodore said:

that which I disapprove of shall not be tolerated

 So let's go hunting doctor's who perform abortions, right?

[The Anti-Targ]

Is alcohol included among the suite of drugs tested in these drug tests?

Shouldn't drug testing be performance based? If you are underperforming or have caused workplace incidents that suggest attention or concentration problems then perhaps a drug test is warranted as part of performance management. But to do a sweep of all employees event hose who are meeting or exceeding performance expectations just seems like a witch hunt.

[Commodore]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is alcohol included among the suite of drugs tested in these drug tests?

Shouldn't drug testing be performance based? If you are underperforming or have caused workplace incidents that suggest attention or concentration problems then perhaps a drug test is warranted as part of performance management. But to do a sweep of all employees event hose who are meeting or exceeding performance expectations just seems like a witch hunt.

You're debating the merits of drug tests, rather than whether an employer should have the right to weigh them. 

Accepting the faulty premise that an employer should have to justify themselves in this regard, I can see its applicability in safety critical jobs like air traffic control or operating heavy machinery where there is little margin for mistakes. 

[James Arryn]

6 minutes ago, Commodore said:

 

Accepting the faulty premise that an employer should have to justify themselves in this regard...

So for you the default position is that an employer can ask for w/e it chooses to ask?

[Commodore]

4 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

So for you the default position is that an employer can ask for w/e it chooses to ask?

yes, including dumb/offensive/irrelevant questions (in general my default position is that people can do things I don't agree with, short of violence/theft)

but I would not put recreational drug use in that category

[SkynJay]

He is a libertarian.  The default is anthung  your representative government does is bad and should be limited but companies should be able to do anything that turns a profit.

[James Arryn]

Just now, Commodore said:

yes, including dumb/offensive/irrelevant questions (in general my default position is that people can do things I don't agree with)

but I would not put recreational drug use in that category

In which category, the first or second? Ie, are you saying asking about recreational drugs use is dumb/irrelevant etc. or are you saying it's an exception to what people ought to be allowed to do?

[all swedes are racist]

of course commodore is assuming a strong, unionized workforce with a well developed class-consciencness, cognizant of historical corporate abuses to act as a counter weight creating a fair and level playing field so as to avoid a monopoly of power help by unelected and unaccountable shareholders & managment

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

You're debating the merits of drug tests, rather than whether an employer should have the right to weigh them. 

Accepting the faulty premise that an employer should have to justify themselves in this regard, I can see its applicability in safety critical jobs like air traffic control or operating heavy machinery where there is little margin for mistakes. 

It's not a faulty premise at all. In fact it's a very sound premise that an employer must justify any intrusion into the private life of an employee. There can be very good justifications for some intrusions on the private life of an employee. But there are many that cannot be justified and which should be prohibited.

The question is an employer's right to intrude on the out of work activities of employees vs the individual right to privacy. I would think the right to privacy supersedes whatever right an employer has except where there is a clear demonstration of likely effect on critical performance. How do you favour employer intrusion over individual privacy? Seems like as a general rule there is no argument in favour of the employer.

A bad night's sleep can affect safety performance as much or more than some residual drug in your system. There isn't a black and white justification of drug impairment as being specifically more dangerous than other outside work factors. Are employers going to start laying off people because they have a new born child, because that indicates sleep deprivation which affects performance?

[LongRider]

5 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's not a faulty premise at all. In fact it's a very sound premise that an employer must justify any intrusion into the private life of an employee.

Agree so much it hurts! An employer should have to justify this and should only ask if there is a sound legal basis and fair policy.  Otherwise, it can be abusive, expensive and damaging to an employees life and career.  It's bullshit.  Why should any employer be able to act as if they are a dictator over an employee and have no logical, legal and ethical justification and policies?  We are talking about employees and not slaves.  Apparently, Commodore and his ilk don't feel that employees should have any rights at all it seems.