It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should teachers take drug tests?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
It never ceases to amaze me how Americans - who are so quick to thump their chests in pride over the litany of supposed freedoms that they and they alone possess - are so quick to advocate massive invasions of personal privacy and freedom for their countrymen when it doesn't affect them directly.

Want to get rid of the problem teachers? Offer more money for the job to make it a more attractive profession for graduates and institute a more thorough method of on the job evaluation to remove the deadwood. Done.




posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cio88
If I am subjected to a drug screen , then so should anyone else. I have nothing to hide therefore I am not mad.

On another note, are political figures subjected to drug screens?



Drug testing is not 100% accurate. You will be mad when you get a false positive.

GUILTY until proven innocent!



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Drug testing has nothing to do with the constitution or privacy - don't be ridiculous.

If you want to be employed by a company, then you'll agree to take their drug test if they require one. If you don't agree to the hiring requirements then you can find work somewhere else.

If you want to be payed to care for my lawn, then you will trim the damn hedges and give me a urine sample!

This is an agreement between two people/legal entities. Nobody is forcing you to take a drug test - it's only a requirement for the job you desire. Nobody is forcing you to desire the job. Just because you want a certain job and you have to take a drug test to get it does not mean that you are forced to take a drug test.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by wookiee

Originally posted by Cio88
If I am subjected to a drug screen , then so should anyone else. I have nothing to hide therefore I am not mad.

On another note, are political figures subjected to drug screens?



Drug testing is not 100% accurate. You will be mad when you get a false positive.

GUILTY until proven innocent!


Earth to Cio88, Earth to Cio88 come in! Not many things are 100% accurate, unfortunately.

Tell the NRA that bullets aren't 100% sure to fire. I'm sure they'll throw all their guns away.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician
If you want to be employed by a company, then you'll agree to take their drug test if they require one. If you don't agree to the hiring requirements then you can find work somewhere else.


Perhaps if the test is demanded when you are HIRED. But deciding to test existing employees for various things is another matter. A couple of companies have decided to have existing employees tested for tobacco use, and fired them if they did nt quit smoking (or in some cases force whomever they lived with to stop smoking in their presence).

In your opinion is that also the employers right? To just arbitrarily decide they want to get rid of employees, even after decades of service, because they don't like the employees engaging in LEGAL activities outside of work?

Many american workers already do not have ANY real job security. Companies can hire/fire at their convenience. Making it even easier for companies to get rid of employees that they don't want (such as right before retirement perhaps, can save the corporations a lot of money!) is not something to be encouraged.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by Sonya610]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
If nothing is 100% accurate, not to go off course .. , but was the election 100% accurate?

My point is, with drug screens going on in some industries, why not the education sector. It just seems to be a double standard.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
I personally think drug testing is a waste of time and money unless a worker has been suspected of using drugs and it's effecting their job.
Think about it, who cares what a person does on their personal time outside of work as long as it doesn't effect their job?

I can see if someone is using crack or some other really nasty drug, but if a pothead does a perfectly fine job at work but likes to toke up once in a while at home then why should that person not be allowed to continue working that their job?

Besides it's a double standard, someone can drink alcohol at home and get wasted and come to work monday and no one is going to care (unless they smell of alcohol) and it's not like they test that drug (yes alcohol is a drug), but as soon as someone smokes a joint and has a drug test, well kiss that job goodbye.
Not to mention all the false positives that can show up. I know someone that almost lost their job because they took cold medicine and it shown up as PCP. If it wasn't for them sending the test out to the big guys they would have lost their job over it!



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


My thoughts exactly!

Let me point out that I think it is every Americans right to puff a joint if they want. If you want to get slobbering drunk, so be it. I've got a good buzz going on now. At the same time, I also think it is every Americans responsibility to think about the consequences. If you're gonna get stupid drunk, get a cab. If you've got a drug problem, don't expect me to be happy with you teaching my kids. If a teacher wants to get high on a Saturday night...that's fine by me, his/her buzz will be gone by Monday morning. When the school board decides that all staff will be subjected to random drug test, that teacher needs to decide what they want more.

Like magician said, nobody is stopping you from doing your thing, but if I employ you, you have to abide by the rules set forth that require employment.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Any 'random' drug/alcohol testing for any type of work is a breach of privacy and an abuse of rights.



this is the truth.

I don't use drugs, btw...i just believe that the employer should have little say in what a persons private life entails.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I disagree here. The employer should have every right...depending on the job and its' demands. Would it be okay for an air traffic control operator to be "recovering" or "going through withdrawls" while directing flight paths? Or better yet, how about the pilots?

When you hold a position that empowers you with the trust and safety of others, I think some of your personal life and decisions made in them, have got to come into play.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chucktah
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I disagree here. The employer should have every right...depending on the job and its' demands. Would it be okay for an air traffic control operator to be "recovering" or "going through withdrawls" while directing flight paths? Or better yet, how about the pilots?

When you hold a position that empowers you with the trust and safety of others, I think some of your personal life and decisions made in them, have got to come into play.


I believe in liberty. So we will have to agree to disagree.

The two positions you list above are also part of heavy screening via psychological testing. These psychological tests should suffice.

What a person does on their own time should have no bearing on their professional life.

Besides, that is more extreme the the average use: drug testing people to work menial, front line, entry level jobs. It marginalizes people who are otherwise fully capable of being productive citizens. It also drives crime, as a junkie who cannot have a chance to earn their money will then begin to steal their money. Having worked in a mental hospital, I have seen the impacts of this first hand. They get arrested for robbery or theft, and then end up in the psych ward (at taxpayers expense) to deal with their DT's. When they get out, whether end of sentence or on bail, they just use again, and we see them again for their DT's (again, at taxpayer expense).

Besides, all the drug testing in the world has not kept airline pilots from flying drunk.


[edit on 25-1-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I don't think anyone should be subjected to drug tests until the drug testing industry is overhauled.

At present, they use Occupational Health & Safety as an excuse for conducting them, but they don't screen for impairment or intoxication, they screen for inactive metabolites which can only provide an indication of history of use.

I'm a truck driver, and if someone tests positive at my work, it usually takes about a week before they are notified, even though they could quite easily test the sample immediately. Imagine if they did that with roadside alcohol testing?

It's not about workplace safety people. If you believe that, honestly, you have been tricked. It's about creating a database of who uses drugs in their spare time.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
What type of test do you want them to take? You want them to see if they can do ten hits of acid without freaking out?




posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 


I said it's a slippery slope. I don't want to be watching TV and have some guy come by and knock on my door to administer my random civilian drug test.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Chucktah
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


What a person does on their own time should have no bearing on their professional life.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]


So you would hire a serial killer.

... hey, as long as he is not killing on company time, right?



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Who said anything about civilian drug testing. Unless you have a probation officer, I doubt you'll ever have to worry about that.

In my opinion, your job has a huge part in defining who you are. I'm a union laborer. I take great pride in what I do. A lot of people look at my job and think two things...overpaid, and uneducated. I went to college for this line of work and there isn't a day that goes by where I'm not in a situation that could turn dangerous real fast.

It's because of those two factors, training and money, that safety comes first. Training lets me look at a situation and make sure that all measures are taken for a safe work environment. Money allows me to feel good about the risk I'm taking, but every day I'm wondering if the man operating that crane above my head just got high at lunch. Or if the guy that helped me build that scaffold just stumbled because he lost his balance or is he still drunk from the night before.

In my line of work...without the threat of random drug testing, people that know they can get away with somethings, will try to get away with a little more the next time. Only after it's too late will people start asking questions.

Same with other professions like teaching. For the most part most teachers do not come in to the class room high or drunk, but leaving them unchecked is just asking for trouble.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician
So you would hire a serial killer.

... hey, as long as he is not killing on company time, right?


Nice straw man. Chances are the next big serial killer to make the news is already comfortably working on someone's payroll unbeknown to their employer, or anyone else (besides their victims of course). That's kinda how those things work, generally.

Hell, I used to work at a company that does school photography with a guy who turned out to have been one of the biggest child-porn producers in Illinois. Frankly I wasn't surprised; he was creepy as all get-out, but there is that annoying little "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

Point is, no background check available would have caught this guy, because until the police finally closed in and brought him down he had no record whatsoever that would have disqualified him. The same, I suspect, would go for serial killers--few have any major run-ins with the law until their "activities" are brought to light. This is where your silly comparison falls apart--serial killers typically give off no indication of what they do and their records may very well be spotless. And, once caught, the odds of anyone needing to worry about their future employability are slim to none, because they'll literally rot in jail.

Unless you're suggesting employers have the right to conduct a complete check of all your personal activities as a condition of hiring. What kind of food do you eat? Do you ever drink? Do you drink caffeine? What's your sexual orientation? How often, on average, do you engage in sexual activity or masturbation? What are your political views? What church do you attend? What kind of car do you drive, and what kind would you like to own? Oh, and do you keep severed human heads in your freezer?

Things like this would get real stupid real fast.

Personally I don't think my employer should know anything about me outside of work aside from how to get ahold of me in case I'm needed for some emergency at work. What I do in my spare time is none of their damn business. They can keep their mitts off my credit history, and they should be ashamed for asking about my salary history. I'm not working with top-secret info so there's no need for such scrutiny.

And, frankly, I've noticed that the majority of drug testing takes place among those in the lowest income brackets (with a few exceptions here and there). I work for a recruiting firm, and most of our clients hire for positions just above minimum wage and up to around $12/hr. They require drug testing for people whose job will be to sit on their butts in front of a screen lying to customers about billing mistakes and/or tracking shipments. Most of the problems customers have (from my experience as a CSR) come from poor policies on the company's part, or their own errors in planning and execution, and have nothing to do with a CSR's "performance" on the job anyway.

It greatly disturbs me that such people are subjected to so many insane invasions of their privacy while Mr. Big Shot Executive snorts a grand worth of coke up his nose every few hours, has a three-martini lunch and keeps a bottle of bourbon in his desk "to take the edge off the day", and that's just fine. No, I see drug testing as just one more method of control over the "little people" while the "big guys" keep on getting away with all kinds of crap.

Money talks, BS walks, every time.

Without cold, hard cash you're just an object to be used and abused. Sad that so many people on these forums seem to agree with that mentality.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Chucktah
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


What a person does on their own time should have no bearing on their professional life.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]






So you would hire a serial killer.

... hey, as long as he is not killing on company time, right?


I believe it is correct to label this a straw man. The logic is completely flawed.

Do you have a test to find serial killers? If so, then perhaps it is something that should be shared with law enforcement.

Getting in the position of managing people's vices is not the job of government, nor our employer. It completely flies in the face of the purpose of our nation. The US was founded on a principle of freedom and liberty.

The same can be said of prostitution. I have never used one (and wouldn't, i am too modest), but do not want to make that decision for others, either. The same with drugs. It is their own personal decision.

What SHOULD be done is to develop a test that can identify if you are currently under the influence. That is all the employer needs to worry about.

I, until very recently, managed over 300 people in a call center. I could care less what sorts of things they did at home, as long as when they showed up for work they were prepared to provide world class customer service. I know that 2/3 of them used some sort of substance daily, be it alchohol or something labelled as a drug...but if they were clear when they came to work, then they were clear with me.



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
"What SHOULD be done is to develop a test that can identify if you are currently under the influence. That is all the employer needs to worry about. " This was Big fat furry texans quote..sorry


This my friend is where we can agree to agree! There has got to be something in place that has that kind of distinction. If you are administered a BAT on the side of the highway it tells them your level of intoxication. Albeit a very vague figure. I stand 6'3" 240, what 12 beers do to me will have a complete different effect on someone else.

They need to have that in place for drugs as well. Then you can eliminate this whole topic.


[edit on 25-1-2009 by Chucktah]

[edit on 25-1-2009 by Chucktah]



posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chucktah
In my line of work...without the threat of random drug testing, people that know they can get away with somethings, will try to get away with a little more the next time. Only after it's too late will people start asking questions.


Unfortunately, that is working at both ends. Like the poster who mentioned "random civilian drug testing", it could well become a reality, since they are doing this covertly already.

I just think that if it's supposed to be about workplace safety, then make it only about workplace safety.

As with my job, allowing stoned truck drivers to continue driving for another week or so before you suspend them is not about workplace safety.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join