well. fuck pre-employment discrimination testing.

Discussion in 'General' started by BlazeLE, Jan 11, 2013.

  1. It sucks but thats life man. Just gotta clean your piss

  2. Prescription pills most certainly can be used against you in the case of an accident.
  3. Not if the employer is aware that (s)he's using them.

  4. Even if they are aware of it.

    Just because they have been prescribed doesn't mean there isn't an 'acceptable use' point for them.

    Case in point, back when I used to work at a winery. One of the drivers picked up the wrong trailer and hauled it allllll the way to San Diego before realizing it. After an investigation, they determined that he had taken way too many of the benzoids he had been prescribed (not sure which one exactly, but take your pick; they all do the same thing), and was fired because of it.
  5. yes but thats only in case of an accident. i wouldnt get fired for taking them because they wouldnt know. the way it works is the lab calls you tells you what you failed then asks you for your prescriptions. they dont tell your employer your prescriptions they just withhold the positive results for whatever your medication covers. like if i had a prescription for marinol they wouldnt tell my employer that i tested positive for thc.

  6. Isn't that kind of what we've been talking about?

    If it's a legal prescription taken in moderation, as per the docs orders, what is the problem there?

    /shrug. I've been through a fair amount of tests and having to list my current prescriptions has always been a part of the initial paperwork.

    That, and they always told you right then if you passed or failed. Man I got some hard laughs back in the day from overhearing who failed with what substance.
  7. Fair enough. I expected it would work the same as the UK.
    As long as you declare that you're on medication and they authorise you to continue work, it's the company that becomes liable for any accidents.
    Then I realised you meant abusing prescription drugs... My bad.:smoke:

  8. Exactly :). Having a script doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want with em'.

  9. no we've been talking about pre-employment testing. at least i have.
  10. Right.

    But the underlying theme here has been the importance of said tests in the wake of an accident.

  11. in which case an drug test should then be administered. and lets be honest hear, they would catch anyone who would be a liability long before they caused an accident (tweakers, people who come in stoned, etc).
  12. And you will fail said drug test, and they know this especially because you couldnt pass the first one whoch everone who is working for them could.

  13. in which case i dont get workers comp... its on me not them.
  14. #54 KushyKonundrum, Jan 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2013
    I feel we are going around in circles here my man.

    I've already explained why liability plays a big part in the pre-employment and random drug testing.

    And you would be truly surprised at how many recreational drug users America has, and how many of them fly under the radar.

    The stereotypical drug user is anything but; those preconceived mental images of what someone or something should or shouldn't be serves only to harm the one who harbors them.
  15. No its also on them man because they hired you under the terms knowning you failed the drug test what dont you understand about that? If you grew out of this attitude and listen to people you wouldnt still be searching. Get clean piss
  16. Shit sucks and wish it would change. That's the reason why I am taking a break for half a year to get my shit together. But I can do it and I'll deff toke up when the funds and time permits.

Share This Page