e-Claire

Must.. . .type.. .. or ... will.. .explode!!!

unedited shit is a flyin' Sweet step-daughter [SSD] just got a job. Yeaaah! At a local drugstore. Yeaaah! Good for school hours. Good pay. Nice manager. Drug Test?!?!!??!!?!? Back this fuckin' train up, buddy boy! How is it that, considering the drug tests are completely unreliable and give false positives as regularly as false negatives, they are allowed to be used?!?!? How is it that one is assumed guilty before any evidence?!?!? What else can it be than a social engineering meme designed to break down people's boundaries justified by a "reasons" that just sounds valid. Get used to this and we'll require DNA ID. Then something else and something else and, and, and, and, People continue to accept it -- that's why. Her dad says to me, "Well you gotta do it if you want a job today." Would you feel the same way if she was required to give an inappropriate service to get a job?!?!? The only requirement is that one can do the job. That's IT! Doesn't matter if you slam dope and watch midget porn in your off hours -- not their business. Can ya do the job -- that's IT! Accepting intrusive, inappropriate bullshit is ALWAYS wrong. There is absolutely ZERO need for the rampant use of "required drug tests" for jobs. NONE. There is no increase in drug use. It is wrong. It is intrusive. It is inappropriate. It is Bullshit!!! Thanks for letting me rant, incoherent as it is -- I think you can hear me better than anyone around here right now. I honestly don't want to rain on her parade - she's been looking for a job that'll work for her for a long time. I also don't want to let her get treated like this. I don't want her to learn to accept that any stranger can intrude into her privacy like this. That any stranger can accuse her of wrong doing just for standing there. I don't want her to learn to accept this kind of crap. This is not the kind of world I want for her to live in. She's a good kid; sweet and warm and funny and rather shy. It's completely beside the point that she doesn't do drugs. Nuttin.' She can't even finish a Margarita! She really can't [yet, dammit] stand up and tell someone she wants something from to waitaminnit - this isn't ok with me. She's not a negotiator. She has fallen into the "be nice" trap. Like her mama, the doormat. Ok, ok, ok, -- this is too big for one bite. Gotta calm down. Gotta *breathe* Gotta break it down into small steps..... Gotta think. be thoughtful... Gotta change the subject and let it simmer in the back of my mind for a while.... AAAAARrrrghghghghgghghhghghhh.

1. They pulled the same shit on me with AIDS tests.Over and OVER again I had to take one.In one year time they had me do THREE!Thats right.One for the INS,then two because I Was pregnant twice within a year and a bit.We lived in NY state then and the law says so......you are pregenant you do the test.You refuse the test,they test the baby against your will.
   What is the fucking law thinking I am doing in my spare time??????????????????

   Posted by LW  on  09/01/04  at  03:07 PM

2. Howinhell can they test your baby ---against your will--- ?!?!?!?!?  Sounds like you left NY—I would have.

   And whatinhell are they gonna *do* about it if they do find someone who tests positive—force treatment on them?!?  Write down their name and send ‘em to camp?!?!?!  This has gotta stop.

   Posted by Claire  on  09/02/04  at  03:07 AM

3. YEs,weather you like it or not,they WILL test your baby.Btw..not only in NY.....here in GA they do that,too.
   What they do IF?well,they put on an extra pair of gloves,give you treatment or call DFACS for child abuse....your pick.

   Posted by  on  09/02/04  at  04:36 AM

4. You miss the point(s) of the tests:

   First, just knowing that you test keeps the real drug-tards from even applying, in most cases.  I recall any number of times when just mentioning that my company tests led to a mumbled “oh, yeah, well never mind”. 

   Second, related somewhat to the first, guess who is responsible if the employee shows up at work addled from the previous night’s recreational substances (or that morning’s, for that matter) and causes an accident that injures someone?  The company that’s who.  And if the f**king lawyers can prove that you hired a druggie, then it costs even more. 

   Don’t blame the businesses, blame John Edwards and his buddies.  The businesses are practicing defensive due-diligence, nothing more. 

   As for the government testing for HIV...show me in the Constitution where that is allowed.  As is pointed out, what possible good can come of it, never mind the privacy issues?

   C

   Posted by  on  09/04/04  at  11:25 AM

5. I appreciate what you’re trying to get at, Chuck.  A business must protect itself—not at this cost, though.  [OTOH, the real ‘tards can be frightened away with a mention of actual work.]

   Bottom line is I *do* blame John “I channel daid babies” Edward[s] and his ilk.  Deeply. I hope Bush meant what he said in his speech and will back every effort to have these destructive law’tards duck taped together and tossed into a heavy sea.

   The intrusiveness of this is simply wrong.  Were it not for stoo-pud law-suit-itis, employers could fire someone for being loaded at work before they caused an accident.

   Posted by Claire  on  09/04/04  at  05:04 PM

<< Back to main