Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC News)   When using the Whizzinator, make sure it doesn't arouse suspicion by clinking against the plastic cup   (abclocal.go.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

25658 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Oct 2003 at 9:19 AM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



264 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2003-10-08 02:15:41 PM  
I don't think you're understanding the privacy violation here. If someone was hired with a history of drug abuse (conviction or what have you), then a hiring contingent upon random and periodic screenings is quite acceptible.

But this type of violation is insane. Truck drivers can kidnap children and rape them in their trucks. Does this mean we have to do a home search to ensure the company doesn't get sued? No. The violation here is just as great as a piss test. But piss tests are more acceptible because of Amerca's "War on Drugs."
 
2003-10-08 02:16:12 PM  
"Right, but it is grounds for firing. So someone who gets into a mangling wreck and tests positive for drug use/abuse should be arrested/fired, no?"

Yes and yes. If you fail a random test and have NOT had an accident, it is not necessarily grounds for being fired, although in many cases they ARE fired and if it is a pre-employment drug test, they are simply not hired. It usually depends on DOT regulations, which most transporation companies are forced to comply with. So, if you aren't fired but are warned, and are required to take a series of random tests, this isn't giving criminals a slap on the wrist because you aren't a criminal.

In the case of causing harm to another person while behind the wheel and under the influence, in that case the shiat hits the fan, and rightfully so.
 
2003-10-08 02:20:20 PM  
This is off-topic but did anyone see an article about someone selling "butterfly pee" for about $15.00 per half-pint?

We HAVE GOT to do a photoshop on this one. . . . .
 
2003-10-08 02:25:25 PM  
my (now) husband and i had the best makeout ever whilst under the influence. i read somewhere that it seems to slow down time due to merging synapse firings or some other cool explanation.

just thought I'd share. and i agree, there are much better reasons for firing people.
 
2003-10-08 02:26:23 PM  
I'm sure I'd want just such a person, with obvious biases, being part of my confidential testing team at the local MRO. What does such a person think?

'Hmm. another person with a drug problem we can help'

or

'Ha! you're busted you drug using scumbag!'

All the world needs is yet another petty dictator making peoples lives miserable.
 
2003-10-08 02:30:07 PM  
"Truck drivers can kidnap children and rape them in their trucks."

If there were suddenly a rash of thousands of truck drivers kidnapping children and raping them in their trucks, then there would be a public outcry and the government would have to respond with some form of preventative measure. That is the only scenario in which your analogy holds any water. I report about 100 failed drug tests per day, and about half of those are DOTs. That's roughly 250 drivers failing tests every week, just through my little desk alone.

Drug tests aren't meant to catch everybody every time. It is a preventative measure. The goal being that if people are aware that they could be tested at any time, it will act as a deterent to using drugs while on the job.
 
2003-10-08 02:30:24 PM  
It's been used a couple of times in this thread....

WHAT is an MRO? I guess part of the American health-care system that deals with drugs or piss tests? Please explain, US farkers.
 
2003-10-08 02:32:05 PM  
I still haven't found any evidence that companies that don't require drug testing have higher insurance claims or workers' comp claims than those that do.

Lacking this evidence, there should not be discounts for companies that test. Then there would be very little incentive for companies to intrude into their employees' private lives in this eggregious fashion.
 
2003-10-08 02:32:49 PM  
One of the odd facts I always found interesting, the worse the drug is for you, the quicker it is out of your system.

i.e. coke versus pot


I spent 5 years as supervisor in HR(directly over unemployment group) for a company with 25,000 manual labor field employees, 1/3 are CDL holders. Lots of drug testing stories. Pre-employment, random, post accident, for cause, etc. I've done lots of research professionally and privately.

Pot is herbal alcohol, except it is better for your body.

I would rather have Johnny CDL driver smoke a doob' on Saturday night, than Jimmy power line worker go up after having a cigarette. A shaky nicotene high is not good around high power lines. Smells like bacon.

Johnny CDL is not affected by his doob' come Monday, so to hold him accountable for things done on his own time is not right. IMO. But my view on that is, Johnny knew when he started his job that this would be an issue. He has to decide what is more important to him.

But I also believe the screening rules should be changed.

If a CDL driver gets in an accident, do a post accident test. But that test should be looking for active intoxicants/chemicals in his system, not latent traces from up to 4 weeks ago. That's just absurd to hold someone accountable for actions not relating to the current situation. Apples and buildings.

Until your employer pays you for the time you spend off the clock, they have no business what you do with your time as long as it does not affect them.

/If you show up for work under the influence of anything, I have little sympathy for you. Unless of course your job is town drunk, then by all means carry on.
 
2003-10-08 02:34:25 PM  
MRO = medical review office.

i.e. the go-between from the labs to the employers/employees. Labs do the tests, send the results to the MROs, who then report them to the employers and to the employees, or "donors," who, in the case of a positive result, must call in to doctors at the MRO for questioning about any prescriptions that may have scewed their results.
 
2003-10-08 02:36:23 PM  
The goal being that if people are aware that they could be tested at any time, it will act as a deterent to using drugs while on the job.

Which leads back to the problem of the fact that the marijuana that they are using is very likely NOT being used while they are on the job. They're just as fired, though.

Your whole argument, of course, comes from the perspective of one who makes a living from the phony war on drugs, which is primarily a war on cannabis cuz there just is not that much other drug use in the USA. Whether consiously or not, this must surely cause bias in your viewpoint.

I am happy that you would not be able to find work in your field in this country.
 
2003-10-08 02:38:24 PM  
MRO = medical review office.

Gracias.
 
2003-10-08 02:39:38 PM  
"Your whole argument, of course, comes from the perspective of one who makes a living from the phony war on drugs, which is primarily a war on cannabis cuz there just is not that much other drug use in the USA."

Roughly a third of all failed drug tests that pass my desk are marijuana. The other 2/3 are hardcore drugs. Nice attempt at rationalizing, though. For someone attempting to defend the rights of drug users, you are pretty naive about what people are using.
 
2003-10-08 02:42:26 PM  
shower_in_my_socks - Roughly a third of all failed drug tests that pass my desk are marijuana. The other 2/3 are hardcore drugs.

I still don't see what that has to do with my employer if I decided to use on my vacation in a county that it was not legal in. i.e. not on the job.
 
2003-10-08 02:43:23 PM  
I still don't see what that has to do with my employer if I decided to use {insert chemical} on my vacation in a county that it was not legal in. i.e. not on the job.


/original got farked.
 
2003-10-08 02:44:23 PM  
excuse me......not illegal


/the double negatives got me.
 
2003-10-08 02:46:29 PM  
peterrigid -- the only drug you could be referring to is marijuana, since most other drugs, as noted in this thread, don't stay in the system that long, and would most likely be out of your system by the time you returned to work. As I stated earlier, I am on the fence about the legality of marijuana use. The bottom line, however, is that you're stretching. Using drugs that are legal in other countries while on vacation?
 
2003-10-08 02:46:41 PM  
shower_in_my_socks

And what percentage of the tests are failed?
 
2003-10-08 02:47:59 PM  
shower in my socks

i was pulling those numbers from this study which seems to indicate that there are over ten million alcoholics, about the same number of marijuana users and a couple million hard drug users.
 
2003-10-08 02:53:49 PM  
Sorry it the point was lost, I muddied the waters. Sincerely my fault.

Regardless of legality of whatever drug, you believe that it is okay to police someones personal life for the 8 hours a day that they are responsible to their employer when there is no impact to them or others for the employees actions on their own time?

If I decide to do heroin, coke, ecstasy, poppers, ludes, etc. on my own time, and then I get tested and it comes up hot, it is okay to fire me?

/I would try to use a particular substance, but I do not remember the time they stay in your system, and don't want to search on a corporate machine. I will be home from a 40 mile commute in an hour an will try better if it still is being discussed.
 
2003-10-08 02:58:26 PM  
"If I decide to do heroin, coke, ecstasy, poppers, ludes, etc. on my own time, and then I get tested and it comes up hot, it is okay to fire me?"

Yes. Because the company can only assume that if it's still in your system while at work, you have developed a drug habit and/or are working while under the influence.

"And what percentage of the tests are failed?"

I don't have that information. Where I am in the office, I only see the tests that fail.
 
2003-10-08 03:04:07 PM  
shower_in_my_socks - Yes. Because the company can only assume that if it's still in your system while at work, you have developed a drug habit and/or are working while under the influence.

I call bullshiat on that. That is a terrible answer.


/I am not slamming you. Usually I stay out of these discussions because the are pissing contests, but it is nice to have a civil one. I have to start home. Will check back.
 
2003-10-08 03:04:17 PM  
2003-10-08 02:58:26 PM shower_in_my_socks


"If I decide to do heroin, coke, ecstasy, poppers, ludes, etc. on my own time, and then I get tested and it comes up hot, it is okay to fire me?"

Yes. Because the company can only assume that if it's still in your system while at work, you have developed a drug habit and/or are working while under the influence.

"And what percentage of the tests are failed?"

I don't have that information. Where I am in the office, I only see the tests that fail.


So you can't really give an objective viewpoint of truckers.

Your logic is flawed, and based on slippery slope assumptions.

First assumption: drug users will use drugs or still be under the effects of those drugs at work.

second assumption: this drug use will effect the workers performance, and potentially kill people
 
2003-10-08 03:17:42 PM  
weemill --

Let's get something straight: I'm a messenger. These aren't MY assumptions we're talking about - they're the assumptions made by the average employer. I don't make policy and it's not my job to agree or disagree with the policies passed by business, much less the laws that are passed by our elected representatives. If you disagree with the logic behind these laws, then vote. But for now, drug use on the job is not permitted in most working environments, in large part because companies are being sued, SUCCESSFULLY, because they employed drug users. The heart of this matter is people using substances illegally. THEY are the problem, not the people who are forced to react to the problem.
 
2003-10-08 03:30:46 PM  
"Sure, spiffy the stoner/meth head Truck Driver is a horrible thought, but the bottom line is that most of these people tend to make a living based on their driving - they don't want to screw up and loose their licenses by working under the influence. Most of those driving, like everywhere else, are NOT using substances."

But they do. The company I work for employees several truck drivers. We constantly are letting them go because they fail a their drug test. True they are most likely not high or impaired while on the job but it is a chance a employer cannot take. If a driver from our company has a accident and kills someone then we are going to be sued for this fact. It is true a driver could have a heart attack or a seizure of some kind and also cause a accident, he could also be distracted by who knows what. We also require our drivers to have semi-annual check ups with their doctors and if they fail either the physical or the drug test they are moved into the warehouse where they have to do some job that does not require using a forklift or order picker etc., is this fair? I do not know but I do know that there are lots of people who do not use or abuse drugs and or alcohol that need a job also.
 
2003-10-08 03:31:06 PM  
Another thing about MRO's - on 90% of the occassions that staffers go in for randoms/recerts/preplacement - their personal information gets faxed to the wrong department, and whoever picks up the document can see:

social security numbers
medical history
current medical conditions

This is private information that idiotic clerks can't even send to the right place, after you place calls for years to attempt to get (Concentra) to straighten the accounts out.

And many CDL drivers did not 'accept the condition of drug testing' as 'part of the job'. They were grandfathered into a system they had no say in whatsoever. Steamrolled, in other words.

The heart of this matter is not people using substances illegally. The heart of this matter is a constitutional right to privacy which has been rendered unto ashes to put money in the pockets of the drug testing industry, which I value about as much as the prison industry.

SIMS - you are doing good bringing attention to the different viewpoints regarding this issue.

I often wonder how many fast food workers are infected with the AIDS virus or Hepatitis. Is there a test for that?
 
2003-10-08 03:39:58 PM  
2003-10-08 03:17:42 PM shower_in_my_socks

Let's get something straight: I'm a messenger. These aren't MY assumptions we're talking about - they're the assumptions made by the average employer.



Well, i hope i'm not coming off too strong. I sensed a tone of anger there, and that wasn't my intention. I apologize if i did.

I don't make policy and it's not my job to agree or disagree with the policies passed by business, much less the laws that are passed by our elected representatives. If you disagree with the logic behind these laws, then vote.

Much less your representative? It is your job to (dis)agree with those policies... your job as a citizen.

But for now, drug use on the job is not permitted in most working environments, in large part because companies are being sued, SUCCESSFULLY, because they employed drug users.

And rightly so. Because using drugs on the job is dangerous. But that's not at the heart of the matter of drug testing, is it?

The heart of this matter is people using substances illegally. THEY are the problem, not the people who are forced to react to the problem.

They're knee-jerking to the problem, causing government to create laws that infringe upon the rights of citizens. I'm sure you'll agree here. There may not be a simple solution, but no solution is better than an invasive one, rights-wise, don't you think?

The patriot act is another example of kneejerk reaction to desiring safety. Testing only invades the privacy of those who don't do anything wrong, and hopefully catches someone before they do. Its a deterrent, but nothing's a foolproof deterrent. Nothing ever will be. Create stiffer fines and sentences for those who do violate law by working under the influence. Don't punish those who don't.
 
2003-10-08 03:49:31 PM  
So far my question has been partly answered: In certain fields, mostly involving transportation, the employer's insurance foots the bill for lawsuits over accidents that may or may not have been caused by drug residues in the system of an employee. Under the current system, this would justify reduced insurance rates should those companies install a testing program.
However, the transportation industry is a small fraction of the companies that test for drugs. In the vast majority of service professions and office professions, I have a very hard time believing that you can prove an increased chance of liabilities due to residual amounts of drugs in the systems of employees. Therefore there is no actuarial basis for discounting insurance to these companies as an incentive to have a testing program.
No financial incentive = less chance of personal privacy being sacrificed for the corporate good. Without insurance discounts, a company would have to weigh it's reasons for wanting testing to occur against the cost of the program which they would have to absorb.
 
2003-10-08 03:53:11 PM  
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - ben Franklin
 
2003-10-08 03:58:28 PM  
Sync9

frankie13:

You rock, thank you for the links, hopefully bin_jackhammered_onetoomanytimes_upthearse will read them and at least post something saying 'Oh, you're right, I am a moron.'


Well, it won't happen overnight, if at all.

Anyway, I thought I'd throw this last one in before I go:

Stoners in the haze

Abstract

People who've known me for a long time know that I grew up drug-free, staunchly refusing to try anything illegal, despite a lot of peer pressure to try marijuana. However, my questions about the drug have nagged at me over the years, and with the topic of legalization often appearing in the news of late, I decided I needed to find out for myself, once and for all, what it's really like. Since it's essentially legal to smoke pot in Holland, I decided to go to the High Times Cannabis Cup, held last week in Amsterdam, as a sort of undercover reporter.

I was amazed at what I learned. I return, convinced that our marijuana laws are a disaster at every level and must be repealed. This is the report on my findings.


It makes for interesting reading from someone who was once totally drug-free, but has friends who toke. He did his research with an open mind, and was surprised by what he discovered.
 
2003-10-08 04:35:44 PM  
I guess I just don't find peeing into a cup a major violation of my rights as an American citizen. Personally, I consider my right to not be mowed down by a drug-influenced truck driver because the DOT, a government agency, didn't do anything to prevent it, more important than said truck driver's right to not feel embarrassed about having his pee examined. Some agree, others don't. So I guess we can just agree to disagree on this one.
 
2003-10-08 04:39:38 PM  
I'm on the fence on this one, as well. I agree with argument's like Peterrigid's about what you do on your own time and latent traces. However, there are certain jobs for which you shouldn't be involved in illegal activity of any kind. Positions with a certain level of responsibility have too much to lose. Someone could find out and use it to blackmail or exert influence.
 
2003-10-08 04:51:42 PM  
2003-10-08 04:35:44 PM shower_in_my_socks


I guess I just don't find peeing into a cup a major violation of my rights as an American citizen. Personally, I consider my right to not be mowed down by a drug-influenced truck driver because the DOT, a government agency, didn't do anything to prevent it, more important than said truck driver's right to not feel embarrassed about having his pee examined. Some agree, others don't. So I guess we can just agree to disagree on this one.


The problem with that is you want a right to be 'safe.' Freedom is not safety. People have a right to do what they wish (or should) so long as their ways don't infringe upon yours. Driving while under the influence (whether working or no) is illegal. Testing people before they drive is, well, a violation of personal rights.

Working under the influence isn't necessarily illegal, but it is frowned upon and grounds for firing and perhaps other recourse (like testing). But pre-emptive testing, with no cause, is no different than an unwarranted search.
 
2003-10-08 04:52:47 PM  
2003-10-08 04:39:38 PM Bullshiatter


I'm on the fence on this one, as well. I agree with argument's like Peterrigid's about what you do on your own time and latent traces. However, there are certain jobs for which you shouldn't be involved in illegal activity of any kind. Positions with a certain level of responsibility have too much to lose. Someone could find out and use it to blackmail or exert influence.


Cases of national security, for instance, I am tempted to agree with.
 
2003-10-08 04:54:22 PM  
shower in my socks,

Somehow we don't have drug-influenced drivers mowing people down here on any regular basis in spite of the fact that urine testing is illegal in almost all cases and in spite of the fact that marijuana is tollerated here and that the penalties for use of all hard drugs are much softer here. If they're impaired when they hit someone (and most of the time it's impairment from safe and legal booze) then they are charged with impairment. The concept of putting someone in jail for impaired driving because of three-days-ago's impairment is so kafkaesque that only the ONDCP thinks it is reasonable.

As noted above, I am glad that you would not be able to make a living at your occupation here.

BTW: Do you ever get the urge to do the "young doctors in love" thing? You know..."Tastes like plain old piss to me"?
 
2003-10-08 04:56:17 PM  
However, there are certain jobs for which you shouldn't be involved in illegal activity of any kind. Positions with a certain level of responsibility have too much to lose. Someone could find out and use it to blackmail or exert influence.

Cases of national security, for instance, I am tempted to agree with.


The EXACT same things used to be said about homosexuals and jobs with national security.
 
2003-10-08 04:57:36 PM  
Bullshiatter - "However, there are certain jobs for which you shouldn't be involved in illegal activity of any kind. Positions with a certain level of responsibility have too much to lose. Someone could find out and use it to blackmail or exert influence."

Excellent point. However, you can't blackmail for something that isn't illegal, and does not carry a social stigma.

/on a thread-jacking note. I just stopped for a case of beer since I was getting low and tonight is opening night in the NHL. 'bought farking time! The case(Moslon Golden) felt kind of heavy, and I thought I was a bit of a puss, but when I went to put it in the fridge I found out why. It's got 4 extra bottles! That's right, a 28 bottle case of Molson!!!
 
2003-10-08 04:59:11 PM  
Bill_Wick's_Friend - OMG! The pee/diabetic scene is one of my all time favorites in movies.
 
2003-10-08 05:06:22 PM  
"The concept of putting someone in jail for impaired driving because of three-days-ago's impairment is so kafkaesque that only the ONDCP thinks it is reasonable."

You lost me when you got to this. People in jail for three days ago's impairment? Where did you get that? And, for the record, I could honestly care less what Canada, the nation known for being north of America, does, and neither do most Americans.

As for the argument that feedom isn't safety-- you couldn't be more wrong. Nearly every single law in the books simulatneously restricts a person's freedom while increasing overall "safety" to the rest of the population. Most obvious case in point: Want to murder someone? Sorry, you aren't "free" to do that. In fact, their are pre-emptive laws on the books for murder as well, such as assault with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to commit murder, etc. I don't see any of you fighting THOSE laws, perhaps because the ramifications of dropping them are more obvious.
 
2003-10-08 05:12:33 PM  
BTW, "As for the argument that feedom isn't safety..." was a reference to weemill's post.
 
2003-10-08 05:13:51 PM  
I lost you on that?

Assume I live in the USA.

Assume I smoked pot last friday night.

Assume I crash my school bus on Tuesday afternoon.

Your company processes my test and I am charged with impairment I lose my job. I go to jail or, at best, I'm fined out the ying yang. Not to mention that the insurance co puts the accident on MY head and I'm going to be paying for it the rest of my life.

Three days ago impairment = today's charges in spite of not being currently impaired.

Am I wrong or is that not pretty much the procedure?

You mean that you couldn't care less. Sorry. One of my pet peeves.

As far as not caring about what your northern neighbours do, are you interested in what the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, S Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Portugal have to say about the subject or is EVERYONE marching out of step with you and not the other way 'round?
 
2003-10-08 05:20:58 PM  
"Am I wrong or is that not pretty much the procedure?"

You skipped over the most important part of the equation in that instance, which is the defense that the driver in question would launch. His lawyer's would actually have a pretty good case in that situation. So, in other words, you conveniently left out the entire U.S. justice system in your example. It's not that simple.

"is EVERYONE marching out of step with you.." It wouldn't be the first time in history that the U.S. was ahead of the rest of the world in doing something positive, you know. ;)
 
2003-10-08 05:22:14 PM  
And since you're a grammar nazi, and probably a punctuation one as well, appologies for the apostrophe "lawyers." :)
 
2003-10-08 05:33:47 PM  
"could honestly care less what Canada, the nation known for being north of America, does, and neither do most Americans"

I don't know about that. I care for lots of reasons, not the least of which is they are another country where the people have a say in what happens to them.


I wonder what the discussion would be like for more workplace testing, but if the tests were limited to active chemicals in ones system?

Some people would still believe their rights were being violated, but depending on how it was implemented, I might be in favor of it. Easier criteria for 'test for cause', so many random test per year?

Fark! What about the airline pilots in FLA(?) that were stopped while on the plane ready to take off, after they had been drinking?

Impairment while on the job can be deadly for many professions. For the others, its just unprofessional and deadly for business, so the employer has a reasonable expectation that you are in control of your faculties.

While on the clock, I expect to adhere to a companies policies. If I couldn't keep from drinking/smoking/toking/taking something during that time, I should probably seek help.

But when I'm off the clock, it is none of their business.


/unless of course I was caught on video eating babies while wearing a giant company logo
 
2003-10-08 05:43:25 PM  
I think the issue gets hazy when trying to determine the difference between a drug still being in one's system, and one still being under the influence of that drug. In the case of alcohol, it's an easier distinction because the amount of alcohol in one's bloodstream is directly related to the amount of influence they are under. However, if someone still has marijuana a month after smoking it, they are obviously not still high from it. Which is where defense lawyers come in.

The problem in all work environments is one of safety. A person can go to work in an office, under the invfluence of a drug, and trip and fall down and file for workman's comp. Is it fair for that company to pay out if the reason you fell was because you were hallucinating? (an exagerated example, I know)
 
2003-10-08 05:47:19 PM  

I wonder what the discussion would be like for more workplace testing, but if the tests were limited to active chemicals in ones system?


I have no problem with that. You show up to work drunk or high or trippin' then you should probably lose your job. At best, if the employer has a heart and a substance abuse programme, the employee should get a one-time "get outta jail free" card that lets them keep their job if they go to the clinic and "kick".


shower in my socks

So he's NOT going to jail for three-day-old impairment. He's just losing his job and getting the insurance ding for an accident because of three-days-ago impairment? Still sounds like a raw deal for something that has no bearing on the accident in question.

As far as being 'ahead' of the rest of the world, 30 years ago we were about where you have stuck. What's that opposite of "progress"? Stagnation? Yeah..that's it.
 
2003-10-08 05:49:10 PM  
Progress is a matter of opinion. If we're preventing accidents (and you haven't presented any evidence proving that the drug tests in the U.S. aren't making a difference) then I'd say the U.S. is the more progressive party in this instance.
 
2003-10-08 05:53:14 PM  
Also, FYI, marijuana is treated, by far, with the most leniency out of all of the illegal narcotics in the U.S. In some states, possession of under an ounce gets you nothing more than confiscation of your drugs and what ammounts to a traffic ticket, if you get cited at all. In most of those cases, they just take your stuff away. So I'm not aware of how hard they come down on you if you have an accident and it's proven that marijuana was in your system from a month ago.
 
2003-10-08 05:54:53 PM  
(and you haven't presented any evidence proving that the drug tests in the U.S. aren't making a difference

You're the one who makes his living off this insidious business. Shouldn't it be up to you to show that drug tests make a difference?

...like Reagan's 55 mph speed limit?
....like the mandatory raising of drinking ages to 21 or else states get road funding yanked?

Two outrageous examples that come to mind when I think of do-gooders doing something because they empirically "know" the results will be positive for society in spite of the fact that the effects on society have never been studied before or after the implementation of said laws.

All that aside, I can state empirically (HAH!) that the Canadian trucking industry has no greater accident risk than their US counterparts. I cannot imagine that there would be any great discrepancies between the rates in both countries without having someone doing some serious looking into the causes.

(off to look for transport safety studies)
 
2003-10-08 05:57:05 PM  
"The problem in all work environments is one of safety. A person can go to work in an office, under the invfluence of a drug, and trip and fall down and file for workman's comp. Is it fair for that company to pay out if the reason you fell was because you were hallucinating? (an exagerated example, I know)"

No it is not fair. But the person should be subject to evaluation as to whether their condition contributed to accident. It should be part of the accident investigation that you are required to do under OSHA and other regulations. They're supposed to look at all factors from environment where it occured(lighting, obstacles) to the person it happened to(shoes, obstructive clothing).

But leave my off the clock hallucinations. Not that I have any, it's the principal.

It is also not fair when people fake workers comp injuries then they are out at the local club dancing. I love when those people get nailed.
 
Displayed 50 of 264 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report