 |
|
06-21-2012, 11:27 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,409
|
|
I would like to see management including CEO subject to random drug tests, no more liquid lunches, if its good enough for us lowly field staff to pi$$ in a strangers cup while they watch its good enough for them. Where are they going to find all the labour to replace the guys that tested positive? My guess they won't be Canadian.
While were at it lets make welfare recipents subject to random drug tests as a condition of benefits.
|
06-21-2012, 11:31 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasingtail
I would like to see management including CEO subject to random drug tests, no more liquid lunches, if its good enough for us lowly field staff to pi$$ in a strangers cup while they watch its good enough for them. Where are they going to find all the labour to replace the guys that tested positive? My guess they won't be Canadian.
While were at it lets make welfare recipents subject to random drug tests as a condition of benefits.
|
I agree with the welfare recipients needing to be forced to do drug testing.
|
06-21-2012, 11:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 107
|
|
call down the union
Quote:
Originally Posted by hal53
I realize that...but......I stand by my point...they are whining. not the guys doing the work, the guys in their office that are against it.....
|
I would never call down a group that stands up and says something,it is all the sheep that are causing us to give away our freedoms.
|
06-21-2012, 11:34 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nait Hadya
because they failed to test when there was just cause.
|
I know what you mean. I'm sure we've all seen someone working who probably shoudn't be but who does something about it? Who wants to be the guy who rats on the hungover guy and gets him sent for a swab or at least a supervisor pee pee spank? A lot will just cover for the person.
If everyone who showed signs of impairment were subjected to drug/alcohol tests, the sites would get cleaned up. Having random testing doesn't make anyone a rat. Your supervisor can say "sorry bud, company policy."
Where I used to work, supers were very friendly with the peasants and would just get guys to go sleep off their damage from the night before. This promotes terrible practices by certain employees and can easily lead to dangerous situations.
I doubt many people including supers want to be the one to say, pee in the cup, but random testing takes away this reluctance.
Gettin rid of the reluctance would go a long way to making sites safer.
__________________
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
|
06-21-2012, 11:35 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 4,257
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IR_mike
I have always thought that all company vehicles as well as private vehicles on site should have blow boxes.
And one day they will.
Due to the prevalence of alcohol use due to it being legal and more accepted by society therefore used by a larger segment of society than illegal drugs will prevent more incidents than preemployment uranalysis ever could.
|
And to further our "safety" one of the majors are going to be equipping there co. trucks with in-cab camera set-ups to go along with the GPS, I'm sure the others will follow there lead after all its for our safety....let the good times roll 
|
06-21-2012, 11:36 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 444 marlin
I would never call down a group that stands up and says something,it is all the sheep that are causing us to give away our freedoms.
|
Maybe soon some of these sites will get bum-hole searches to check for stolen pipe wrenches??? ahh!
__________________
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
|
06-21-2012, 11:47 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 2,163
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadiantdi
.....Your supervisor can say "sorry bud, company policy.".
|
Exemption for the supervisors? When an accident/incident, mistake or error occurs on the site,the whole crew should be tested up to and including the super,pm or visiting owner,no exemptions whatsoever, if your on site. To think that a supervisor under the influence is not a danger to the crew is not forward thinking and needs to be addressed. Being a paper shuffler and is not a ticket to lala land and free highs.
__________________
|
06-21-2012, 11:49 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,558
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadiantdi
I know companies have the right, this is called a discussion. So I have to be ok with a policy because it doesn't infringe on my charter rights? That is weak!
The police state comparison was..........a comparison. I'm not ok with random searches in any capacity. Police, employer, whatever, but I will put up with them if I HAVE to.
I don't want to re-read this whole thread, but I honestly don't remember calling anyone stupid.
|
To be honest..companies don't have rights.
Rights are for people.
People surrender their rights when they choose to work for companies that impose the companies will upon them.
And it is pretty hard to argue against testing rig workers....it's a dangerous job...so it just seems to make sense.
The problem is that next year it will be someone else..then another and another and so on.
It never stops.
It started with pilots...and pretty much everyone agreed that it was agood idea.
Then it was cops and the military...followed by heavy equipment operators...long haul truckers, aviation mechanics and a whole host of other people that either worked in a high risk industry or that are generally held to a higher standard.
Now...it's city workers...delivery guys...and just about anyone else that works for someone who thinks they can get away with it.
Thats how it goes..a bit at time.
But...you know who NEVER gets tested?
The BOSS.
The politician.
The doctor.
The lawyer.
The banker.
The insurance guy
The guy that is abusing legal drugs because he has a prescription.
(Which by the way...is the fastest growing addictions category...)
Hmmm....seems like anyone with access to drugs and that may be involved in life and death decissions like a doctor ought to be tested.
Seems like the guy that decides whether or not to invest in safety or keep paying the fines...the guy that wants everyone else tested like your boss should also have to fill a bottle.
Lawyers are officers of the courts and the same group of people that find ways to force testing...they should pony up to.
Bankers control capital and Insurance guys advocate testing then investigate claims...they should be clean as well...if they are out there making so many important decissions....they should submit for a random sample to.
Politicians act like they are on drugs.
And since (for instance) most heroin addicts are actually past victims of trauma that were treated medically...then left with an addiction and no funding for rehabilitaion due to heath care cuts... AND since politicians are so quick to jump on any initiative that infringes on their electorates rights...they should be tested to.
You know what?
Lets just test everyone.
That would be the most fair.
If we tested everyone regardless of age or profession...then nobody could complain that they were being picked on.
Since we can't reliably contact everyone through conventional means...to make sure they get tested......we'll just hire some folks to grab people off of the street at random..force then into mobile labs..and make em stay there until they go pee.
Lets spend a gazzilion dollars and treat everyone like a criminal while seaching for a needle in a haystack instead of just testing for cause and then offering treatment to those identified or those that come foreward on their own...at a much reduced cost.
All for over something that isn't even against the law.
Thats right..it isn't against the law to be high.
It isn't against the law to be an addict.
ALL of our laws focus in on the possession and trafficing of drugs...not their use.
Yeah...that makes sense.
It never ceases to amaze me:
How many people are willing to throw away another persons rights...but not their own.
How many people are willing to spend till their noses bleed to see someone hammered but are unwilling to spend a dime to prevent the need to hammer the guy in the first place.
How many people call others Commies or Liberals and then themselves support policies that infringe upon freedom.
Wow....
Seig heil baby...just keep going in this social/political direction...the fences and dogs are there for your protection and once you have a nice shower...we'll get you all settled in.
People need to start questioning and CHALLENGING corporations and government more...a LOT more.
We're frittering away our democracy by allowing spin doctors, lobbiests, big money and politicians to frighten us into surrendering our freedoms like a bunch of stupid sheep.
The first time a whole industry or a large operation was shut down for just one day by workers outraged by this imposition on their freedom...would be the last time anyone thought it was worth trying to force on them.
Oh and...
PS this little rant isn't because I'm pro drugs...I'm not.
Its because so many people are actually anti-freedom... all in the name of being anti-drugs.
Lefties...brown shirt storm troopers or suckers...its all the same...take your pick. 
Last edited by Big Daddy Badger; 06-22-2012 at 12:05 AM.
|
06-21-2012, 11:53 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: On top of sphagetti
Posts: 3,565
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nait Hadya
Exemption for the supervisors? When an accident/incident, mistake or error occurs on the site,the whole crew should be tested up to and including the super,pm or visiting owner,no exemptions whatsoever, if your on site. To think that a supervisor under the influence is not a danger to the crew is not forward thinking and needs to be addressed. Being a paper shuffler and is not a ticket to lala land and free highs.
|
That's not what I am saying.
I am saying that supervisors may be reluctant to send someone for drug testing if they seem impaired. Supervisors where I worked previously, got fairly buddy buddy with employees and I never saw ONE person get sent for testing. Having random drug testing removes this barrier because it takes the call out of the supers hand.
This is just my observation and I am sure that many other sites may not have this problem.
__________________
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
|
06-22-2012, 12:00 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: flms
Posts: 3,911
|
|
Quote:
I am not against random testing. Just as I am not against police doing check stops. I am against punishment when there is no crime. But on the job, when the potential for injury is high, there is no room for cutting corners with safety.
I think that pot should be legalized, and taxed like booze. I have nothing against a guy smoking a bit on his off time, or drinking in their off time. But like you say, with the current drug testing the only guy who has a fear is the pot smoker, and he probably is the lesser risk.(occasional smoker) I don't smoke anything, and have not in probably 20 years, and then it was rare for me to partake in even one puff of a joint. I just never liked the feeling of it.
I would agree that a guy hung over is a worse issue than a guy who has not had anything to smoke for several days. But I have also seen chronic pot heads who just don't have any common sense left, and they scare me more than the alcoholic. From my experience, an alcoholic is able to still work when they are not drinking, but a chronic pot head is a different story.
|
i don't think i've ever agreed with that many statements made by one member lol
i've seen a lot of stupid stuff in the patch and most of it is the result of alcohol, hangovers, chronic pot heads not having and weed and being beyond useless and of course the ever present cocaine in soft and hard form.
if you don't partake it shouldn't really bug you to be tested to do a potentially dangerous job, i would rather make it home to my family than feel violated.
__________________
the days we are at our best we can play with anybody, problem is those days are getting farther and farther apart
|
06-22-2012, 12:38 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Peace Country (again)
Posts: 3,495
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpheasant
The problem I have always had with drug testing is:
guy #1 goes home for a week off, pounds back a jug a day, beats the wife, kicks the dog around a little etc etc gets tested all is good...
guy #2 goes home for a week off, smokes a little grass stays out of trouble gets tested and bam !!! FAIL!! you are one bad Mother******!!!
Stupid if you ask me and I'm not a pot smoker, I think if they were serious about this they could weed out the bad guys (hard drugs) and start in Downtown Cowtown where Cocaine is the drug of choice and used by many execs...
|
What does beating the wife and kicking the dog have to do with anything
???
|
06-22-2012, 12:41 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Peace Country (again)
Posts: 3,495
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by canadiantdi
Test if theres a reason to... test if he seems impaired. Testing someone for no reason, if he is working normally and not making mistakes?
THAT IS GOING TO MAKE YOUR SITE MORE SAFE?!?!?!
|
The minute before the guy hopped on drugs kills three of his coworkers by dropping a pipe, he was "working normally and not making mistakes".
|
06-22-2012, 12:41 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iron River
Posts: 5,158
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.
What does beating the wife and kicking the dog have to do with anything
???
|
Bad judgement in ones personal life probably mirrors bad judgement on the work site.
|
06-22-2012, 12:52 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Peace Country (again)
Posts: 3,495
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLabel
I've worked operating heavy equipment in the oilfield for many years and can appreciate both sides. Hal, I agree with safety first and I also agree that as long as "the man" is sending my paycheque "he" should have the right to test me, random or not. Especially when behind the wheel of 30 ton of iron.
My biggest fault with the current testing procedures is if my guys do coke or other hard drugs they're in the clear almost 24hrs after. Yet the guy who smoked a little grass in his off time is going to fail within an approx 3 month window.
The biggest danger I find regularly are alcohol related.
|
This is incorrect, far far far shorter time frame
|
06-22-2012, 12:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 4,257
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.
What does beating the wife and kicking the dog have to do with anything
???
|
guy #1 is a raging drunk
guy #2 went to the fridge for more snacks
Company has no issue with guy #1 after being tested..
Company likely to terminate guy #2 if tested..
|
06-22-2012, 01:00 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Peace Country (again)
Posts: 3,495
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesky672
To be honest..companies don't have rights.
Rights are for people.
People surrender their rights when they choose to work for companies that impose the companies will upon them.
And it is pretty hard to argue against testing rig workers....it's a dangerous job...so it just seems to make sense.
The problem is that next year it will be someone else..then another and another and so on.
It never stops.
It started with pilots...and pretty much everyone agreed that it was agood idea.
Then it was cops and the military...followed by heavy equipment operators...long haul truckers, aviation mechanics and a whole host of other people that either worked in a high risk industry or that are generally held to a higher standard.
Now...it's city workers...delivery guys...and just about anyone else that works for someone who thinks they can get away with it.
Thats how it goes..a bit at time.
But...you know who NEVER gets tested?
The BOSS.
The politician.
The doctor.
The lawyer.
The banker.
The insurance guy
The guy that is abusing legal drugs because he has a prescription.
(Which by the way...is the fastest growing addictions category...)
Hmmm....seems like anyone with access to drugs and that may be involved in life and death decissions like a doctor ought to be tested.
Seems like the guy that decides whether or not to invest in safety or keep paying the fines...the guy that wants everyone else tested like your boss should also have to fill a bottle.
Lawyers are officers of the courts and the same group of people that find ways to force testing...they should pony up to.
Bankers control capital and Insurance guys advocate testing then investigate claims...they should be clean as well...if they are out there making so many important decissions....they should submit for a random sample to.
Politicians act like they are on drugs.
And since (for instance) most heroin addicts are actually past victims of trauma that were treated medically...then left with an addiction and no funding for rehabilitaion due to heath care cuts... AND since politicians are so quick to jump on any initiative that infringes on their electorates rights...they should be tested to.
You know what?
Lets just test everyone.
That would be the most fair.
If we tested everyone regardless of age or profession...then nobody could complain that they were being picked on.
Since we can't reliably contact everyone through conventional means...to make sure they get tested......we'll just hire some folks to grab people off of the street at random..force then into mobile labs..and make em stay there until they go pee.
Lets spend a gazzilion dollars and treat everyone like a criminal while seaching for a needle in a haystack instead of just testing for cause and then offering treatment to those identified or those that come foreward on their own...at a much reduced cost.
All for over something that isn't even against the law.
Thats right..it isn't against the law to be high.
It isn't against the law to be an addict.
ALL of our laws focus in on the possession and trafficing of drugs...not their use.
Yeah...that makes sense.
It never ceases to amaze me:
How many people are willing to throw away another persons rights...but not their own.
How many people are willing to spend till their noses bleed to see someone hammered but are unwilling to spend a dime to prevent the need to hammer the guy in the first place.
How many people call others Commies or Liberals and then themselves support policies that infringe upon freedom.
Wow....
Seig heil baby...just keep going in this social/political direction...the fences and dogs are there for your protection and once you have a nice shower...we'll get you all settled in.
People need to start questioning and CHALLENGING corporations and government more...a LOT more.
We're frittering away our democracy by allowing spin doctors, lobbiests, big money and politicians to frighten us into surrendering our freedoms like a bunch of stupid sheep.
The first time a whole industry or a large operation was shut down for just one day by workers outraged by this imposition on their freedom...would be the last time anyone thought it was worth trying to force on them.
Oh and...
PS this little rant isn't because I'm pro drugs...I'm not.
Its because so many people are actually anti-freedom... all in the name of being anti-drugs.
Lefties...brown shirt storm troopers or suckers...its all the same...take your pick. |
sounds like you're high,,,
|
06-22-2012, 01:08 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Peace Country (again)
Posts: 3,495
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpheasant
guy #1 is a raging drunk
guy #2 went to the fridge for more snacks
Company has no issue with guy #1 after being tested..
Company likely to terminate guy #2 if tested..
|
Your arguement is biased. You are attempting to garner support by attributing accessory, undesireable behaviours to the drinker.
Whether he beats his wife or dog, has zero to do with the issue of urine drug testing or impairment at the workplace.
It's your appeal to emotion, and that's ok. For matters like this I prefer facts, otherwise I'd call the YWCA
|
06-22-2012, 01:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 4,257
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.
sounds like you're high,,,
|
But if he's hammered to the gills thats cool, right?
|
06-22-2012, 01:11 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Peace Country (again)
Posts: 3,495
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpheasant
But if he's hammered to the gills thats cool, right?
|
I thought we were talking about drug testing?
|
06-22-2012, 01:13 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iron River
Posts: 5,158
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.
I thought we were talking about drug testing?
|
Alcohol is a drug.
|
06-22-2012, 01:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Peace Country (again)
Posts: 3,495
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IR_mike
Alcohol is a drug.
|
I'm sorry, let me clarify. Specific drugs that are currently and most often tested via random urine.
|
06-22-2012, 01:16 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 4,257
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.
sounds like you're high,,,
|
I thought we were talking about drug testing....lol
|
06-22-2012, 01:18 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iron River
Posts: 5,158
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.
I'm sorry, let me clarify. Specific drugs that are currently and most often tested via random urine.
|
But it is a intoxicant that impares your ability to function.
It has to be treated the same.
|
06-22-2012, 01:18 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Red Deer
Posts: 4,257
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.
I'm sorry, let me clarify. Specific drugs that are currently and most often tested via random urine.
|
and you call me biased...lol
|
06-22-2012, 01:21 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Peace Country (again)
Posts: 3,495
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpheasant
and you call me biased...lol
|
How is that biased??? Do you even know what the word means?
I made a factual statement...
|
06-22-2012, 01:23 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Peace Country (again)
Posts: 3,495
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IR_mike
But it is a intoxicant that impares your ability to function.
It has to be treated the same.
|
I certainly agree. Point?
|
06-22-2012, 01:34 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iron River
Posts: 5,158
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.
I certainly agree. Point?
|
The 30 day rule as opposed to the 8 hour rule is the point.
|
06-22-2012, 01:34 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Peace Country (again)
Posts: 3,495
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IR_mike
The 30 day rule as opposed to the 8 hour rule is the point.
|
expand, not sure I get what you are getting at...
|
06-22-2012, 01:42 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iron River
Posts: 5,158
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arn?Narn.
expand, not sure I get what you are getting at...
|
Detectable levels of thc as opposed to alcohol in that time frame.
|
06-22-2012, 01:46 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Peace Country (again)
Posts: 3,495
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by IR_mike
Detectable levels of thc as opposed to alcohol in that time frame.
|
There are a few arguements that would satisfactorly address this issue.
Lets start with the most obvious ones.
Can you tell me what drugs are detectable on a urine drug screen 30 days post consumption?
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:31 AM.
|
Linear Mode
