REFUGEES FILL GAPS IN FILLING RUST BELT JOBS--AMERICANS CAN'T PASS DRUG TESTS

Reply
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
392
Views

Re: REFUGEES FILL GAPS IN FILLING RUST BELT JOBS--AMERICANS CAN'T PASS DRUG TESTS

392 Views
Message 1 of 33

@sp362 wrote:

@umbarch64 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@umbarch64 wrote:

Drug use for personal gratification and valid medicinal reason[s] can be quantified and qualified through statistics.  "Why" drug use happens is another thing entirely.  

 

Genetics, economic status, culture, environment.... are all among factors that influesnce and affect an individual that is addicted. I presume the addict is what you all are talking about.  The casual or ocassional 'user' is not necessarily an addict.  There probably is a performance issue for any 'user' when compared to a 'non-user' .  Companies cannot afford to ignore that in 'hires', nor would you it you were in charge of who and who not to employ.

 

Addiction needs precise definition so both professional studies and the numbers that come out of them mean something specific.  IF we only get something more to speculate about from them, does that not seem somehow futile?. Drug users and addicts alike must accept responsibility for how their behavior affects others AND themselves at some point in their life....sooner is better.  If they need help, it seems to me it is in society's best interests to see that they get it.  If they did, maybe a lot of bad things wouldn't happen.

 

 


The only thing I would add to that is as an employer I am not allowed to test for alcohol use (unless it is a public safety position), so why should I be able to test for something and refuse employment for something like marijuana?  An alcoholic can get hired just by looking normal during the interview.  If you do make a mistake and end up hiring somebody who shows up to the job "high" (alcohol or drugs) it is easy to get rid of them either through a test or just using "job performance".


I'm not exactly sure of your point.  Is it that alcohol should be 'included' as a drug IF 'any' other drug is part of a screening process for 'hire'?  OK, I'll buy that.  Fair is fair as long as the drug itself is legal. That is the point, since alcohol is legal and flushes itself out of your system fairly quickly, you could not refuse employment unless they took the drug test legally drunk.  The other drugs will show up in a drug screen and since they are considered illegal, will bar a person from employment.  I have no issues with screening for the harder drugs where the user is basically "high" all the time.  Illegal....and it drops off the table.  As an employer, you may be exposed to claims against your employee and his/her actions AND inactions.  That holds true with alcohol and you are not allowed to test for that.  That is aside from job performance.You may or may not have control over that.

 

Whether or not the court holds you responsible will not shield you from the necessity to defend against such claims, if brought.  Same as for alcohol, or just the employee being stupid.

 

Job performance is an issue for users. This article was not about people not being hired because they are addicts.  I read it as pre-employment testing that was keeping a segment of society out of the workforce.  Job performance can or cannot be an issue for everybody.  You did need to be on drugs or alcohol to have something affect your work.  In fact, at one place I worked, one of the senior managers was an alcoholic, yet was a top performer in the Company, he just did not allow his problem to affect his work (I am sure he is the exception and not the norm).  More so if  the user is an addict.  Alcohol,  mary-jane, opiates of all kinds, crack, cocaine, meth'. etc. etc.  Both  'sides' of the employment argument have valid points to make...it really is up to our elected officials to receive and evaluate authenticated data, make a decision in the 'public interest' [whatever that is], craft a law, define remedial measures, FUND THE PROGRAMS REQUIRED, and GET IT DONE.  When they have done what we elected them to do, 'cause we didn't know how, we can get on with our lives.  Just sayin'.  There are very few laws barring pre-employment testing, it is at the employer's whim.  Some States do have laws for when you can test (random is not allowed, but testing after any type of accident, including falling and hurting yourself is allowed.)  Again, this article is not about addicts and the need for treatment.  I don't know why people are trying to slant it that way.  What an employee does on their free time that does not affect their work performance, should be none of the employer's business.


 


One of the "interesting" things about marijuana testing is that an every day user will still test higher 5 days after their last use than a one time user immeadiately after use.

Thus far, it has been definitively demonstrated that blood and urine testing for THC metabolites is not a scientifically accurate measure of impairment.

The currently touted "saliva swab" is no more accurate an indicator than any other tests thus far developed.

Drugs and drug effects are very slippery and not nearly as well understood as alcohol.  We do know that persons suffering from an alcohol induced "hangover" perform on the job at a measurably less adequate level.

Thus far, use of psychoactive substances have never been conclusively linked in a cause and effect relationship to any form of mental health problem.

Obviously, the perjurer, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions' allegation that "marijuana is only slightly less awful than heroin" is the statement of a scientifically ignorant and illiterate bigoted dolt.

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
392
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
397
Views

Re: REFUGEES FILL GAPS IN FILLING RUST BELT JOBS--AMERICANS CAN'T PASS DRUG TESTS

397 Views
Message 2 of 33

@umbarch64 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@umbarch64 wrote:

Drug use for personal gratification and valid medicinal reason[s] can be quantified and qualified through statistics.  "Why" drug use happens is another thing entirely.  

 

Genetics, economic status, culture, environment.... are all among factors that influesnce and affect an individual that is addicted. I presume the addict is what you all are talking about.  The casual or ocassional 'user' is not necessarily an addict.  There probably is a performance issue for any 'user' when compared to a 'non-user' .  Companies cannot afford to ignore that in 'hires', nor would you it you were in charge of who and who not to employ.

 

Addiction needs precise definition so both professional studies and the numbers that come out of them mean something specific.  IF we only get something more to speculate about from them, does that not seem somehow futile?. Drug users and addicts alike must accept responsibility for how their behavior affects others AND themselves at some point in their life....sooner is better.  If they need help, it seems to me it is in society's best interests to see that they get it.  If they did, maybe a lot of bad things wouldn't happen.

 

 


The only thing I would add to that is as an employer I am not allowed to test for alcohol use (unless it is a public safety position), so why should I be able to test for something and refuse employment for something like marijuana?  An alcoholic can get hired just by looking normal during the interview.  If you do make a mistake and end up hiring somebody who shows up to the job "high" (alcohol or drugs) it is easy to get rid of them either through a test or just using "job performance".


I'm not exactly sure of your point.  Is it that alcohol should be 'included' as a drug IF 'any' other drug is part of a screening process for 'hire'?  OK, I'll buy that.  Fair is fair as long as the drug itself is legal. That is the point, since alcohol is legal and flushes itself out of your system fairly quickly, you could not refuse employment unless they took the drug test legally drunk.  The other drugs will show up in a drug screen and since they are considered illegal, will bar a person from employment.  I have no issues with screening for the harder drugs where the user is basically "high" all the time.  Illegal....and it drops off the table.  As an employer, you may be exposed to claims against your employee and his/her actions AND inactions.  That holds true with alcohol and you are not allowed to test for that.  That is aside from job performance.You may or may not have control over that.

 

Whether or not the court holds you responsible will not shield you from the necessity to defend against such claims, if brought.  Same as for alcohol, or just the employee being stupid.

 

Job performance is an issue for users. This article was not about people not being hired because they are addicts.  I read it as pre-employment testing that was keeping a segment of society out of the workforce.  Job performance can or cannot be an issue for everybody.  You did need to be on drugs or alcohol to have something affect your work.  In fact, at one place I worked, one of the senior managers was an alcoholic, yet was a top performer in the Company, he just did not allow his problem to affect his work (I am sure he is the exception and not the norm).  More so if  the user is an addict.  Alcohol,  mary-jane, opiates of all kinds, crack, cocaine, meth'. etc. etc.  Both  'sides' of the employment argument have valid points to make...it really is up to our elected officials to receive and evaluate authenticated data, make a decision in the 'public interest' [whatever that is], craft a law, define remedial measures, FUND THE PROGRAMS REQUIRED, and GET IT DONE.  When they have done what we elected them to do, 'cause we didn't know how, we can get on with our lives.  Just sayin'.  There are very few laws barring pre-employment testing, it is at the employer's whim.  Some States do have laws for when you can test (random is not allowed, but testing after any type of accident, including falling and hurting yourself is allowed.)  Again, this article is not about addicts and the need for treatment.  I don't know why people are trying to slant it that way.  What an employee does on their free time that does not affect their work performance, should be none of the employer's business.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
397
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
410
Views

Re: REFUGEES FILL GAPS IN FILLING RUST BELT JOBS--AMERICANS CAN'T PASS DRUG TESTS

410 Views
Message 3 of 33

@sp362 wrote:

@umbarch64 wrote:

Drug use for personal gratification and valid medicinal reason[s] can be quantified and qualified through statistics.  "Why" drug use happens is another thing entirely.  

 

Genetics, economic status, culture, environment.... are all among factors that influesnce and affect an individual that is addicted. I presume the addict is what you all are talking about.  The casual or ocassional 'user' is not necessarily an addict.  There probably is a performance issue for any 'user' when compared to a 'non-user' .  Companies cannot afford to ignore that in 'hires', nor would you it you were in charge of who and who not to employ.

 

Addiction needs precise definition so both professional studies and the numbers that come out of them mean something specific.  IF we only get something more to speculate about from them, does that not seem somehow futile?. Drug users and addicts alike must accept responsibility for how their behavior affects others AND themselves at some point in their life....sooner is better.  If they need help, it seems to me it is in society's best interests to see that they get it.  If they did, maybe a lot of bad things wouldn't happen.

 

 


The only thing I would add to that is as an employer I am not allowed to test for alcohol use (unless it is a public safety position), so why should I be able to test for something and refuse employment for something like marijuana?  An alcoholic can get hired just by looking normal during the interview.  If you do make a mistake and end up hiring somebody who shows up to the job "high" (alcohol or drugs) it is easy to get rid of them either through a test or just using "job performance".


I'm not exactly sure of your point.  Is it that alcohol should be 'included' as a drug IF 'any' other drug is part of a screening process for 'hire'?  OK, I'll buy that.  Fair is fair as long as the drug itself is legal. Illegal....and it drops off the table.  As an employer, you may be exposed to claims against your employee and his/her actions AND inactions.  That is aside from job performance.You may or may not have control over that.

 

Whether or not the court holds you responsible will not shield you from the necessity to defend against such claims, if brought.

 

Job performance is an issue for users.  More so if  the user is an addict.  Alcohol,  mary-jane, opiates of all kinds, crack, cocaine, meth'. etc. etc.  Both  'sides' of the employment argument have valid points to make...it really is up to our elected officials to receive and evaluate authenticated data, make a decision in the 'public interest' [whatever that is], craft a law, define remedial measures, FUND THE PROGRAMS REQUIRED, and GET IT DONE.  When they have done what we elected them to do, 'cause we didn't know how, we can get on with our lives.  Just sayin'.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
410
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
448
Views

Re: REFUGEES FILL GAPS IN FILLING RUST BELT JOBS--AMERICANS CAN'T PASS DRUG TESTS

448 Views
Message 4 of 33

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@pc6063 wrote:

 

  Sad that you feel that Appalachian districts aren't worth taking into consideration when it comes to the problems of American workers not being able to hold down jobs because of substance-abuse. 


--

Of course people, including young people, in this state are pretty well the same as in other states.  Problems here are about the same as in most states as far as addiction, with the interdiction of drugs, enforcement of alcoholic beverages, etc.  Of course with increased unemployment such as in the Appalachian areas, all these addictions is more common.

 

I've noted over the past decades that more and more industry has came to the areas I grew up in, and monitoring the local paper there, I note that enforcement of drug laws are about the same as in other areas of the country, not that much more.  But I do note that crimes by illegal immigrants are common....growing up we only saw the occasional Asian who was attending the local university.  The only Latinos was the ones we saw in the cowboy movies.  The only Mexican dishes we knew of was tamales and chili.

 

As far as refugees, among the many I've seen around, they are as much prone to addiction as born Americans.  I recall that after returning from Germany back in 1978, we were visiting a Vietnamese family, one of your refugees.  I started smelling the obvious smell of marijuana, and noted it came from a back bedroom where several of their teenage sons was smoking a joint.  Refugees indulge also.

 

Nevertheless we cut off contact with that family.

 

 

 


My, that was a rather unusual sort of post.

 

Makes me grateful I live where the populace is sane, rational, has legalized marijuana, and has elected a sane and rational Democratic Party Governor.

 

And - oh yes - I'll cheerfully and gladly rent to dope smoking refugees/immigrants because if I have a couple of those groups as tenants, it will keep conservative despicables from wanting to live there.

The best of all possible worlds...

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
448
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
469
Views

Re: REFUGEES FILL GAPS IN FILLING RUST BELT JOBS--AMERICANS CAN'T PASS DRUG TESTS

469 Views
Message 5 of 33

@pc6063 wrote:

 

  Sad that you feel that Appalachian districts aren't worth taking into consideration when it comes to the problems of American workers not being able to hold down jobs because of substance-abuse. 


--

Of course people, including young people, in this state are pretty well the same as in other states.  Problems here are about the same as in most states as far as addiction, with the interdiction of drugs, enforcement of alcoholic beverages, etc.  Of course with increased unemployment such as in the Appalachian areas, all these addictions is more common.

 

I've noted over the past decades that more and more industry has came to the areas I grew up in, and monitoring the local paper there, I note that enforcement of drug laws are about the same as in other areas of the country, not that much more.  But I do note that crimes by illegal immigrants are common....growing up we only saw the occasional Asian who was attending the local university.  The only Latinos was the ones we saw in the cowboy movies.  The only Mexican dishes we knew of was tamales and chili.

 

As far as refugees, among the many I've seen around, they are as much prone to addiction as born Americans.  I recall that after returning from Germany back in 1978, we were visiting a Vietnamese family, one of your refugees.  I started smelling the obvious smell of marijuana, and noted it came from a back bedroom where several of their teenage sons was smoking a joint.  Refugees indulge also.

 

Nevertheless we cut off contact with that family.

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
469
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
487
Views

Re: REFUGEES FILL GAPS IN FILLING RUST BELT JOBS--AMERICANS CAN'T PASS DRUG TESTS

487 Views
Message 6 of 33

 Drug abuse does not just occur  in Appalachia, it is an epidemic throughout the entire country. the CNN report highlighted Kentucky,  Ohio and PA but this pronlem is.country wide. by the way,  I googled drug abuse in Texas and your states drug of choice is alcohol,  which seems to be hitting your younger people quite hard. addiction is addiction and alcohol is a drug and extremely addicting.

  Sad that you feel that Appalachian districts aren't worth taking into consideration when it comes to the problems of American workers not being able to hold down jobs because of substance-abuse. 

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
487
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
496
Views

Re: REFUGEES FILL GAPS IN FILLING RUST BELT JOBS--AMERICANS CAN'T PASS DRUG TESTS

496 Views
Message 7 of 33

@umbarch64 wrote:

Drug use for personal gratification and valid medicinal reason[s] can be quantified and qualified through statistics.  "Why" drug use happens is another thing entirely.  

 

Genetics, economic status, culture, environment.... are all among factors that influesnce and affect an individual that is addicted. I presume the addict is what you all are talking about.  The casual or ocassional 'user' is not necessarily an addict.  There probably is a performance issue for any 'user' when compared to a 'non-user' .  Companies cannot afford to ignore that in 'hires', nor would you it you were in charge of who and who not to employ.

 

Addiction needs precise definition so both professional studies and the numbers that come out of them mean something specific.  IF we only get something more to speculate about from them, does that not seem somehow futile?. Drug users and addicts alike must accept responsibility for how their behavior affects others AND themselves at some point in their life....sooner is better.  If they need help, it seems to me it is in society's best interests to see that they get it.  If they did, maybe a lot of bad things wouldn't happen.

 

 


The only thing I would add to that is as an employer I am not allowed to test for alcohol use (unless it is a public safety position), so why should I be able to test for something and refuse employment for something like marijuana?  An alcoholic can get hired just by looking normal during the interview.  If you do make a mistake and end up hiring somebody who shows up to the job "high" (alcohol or drugs) it is easy to get rid of them either through a test or just using "job performance".

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
496
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
497
Views

Re: REFUGEES FILL GAPS IN FILLING RUST BELT JOBS--AMERICANS CAN'T PASS DRUG TESTS

497 Views
Message 8 of 33

@pc6063 wrote:

the original thread was that refugees were in great demand to fill jobs b/c their American counterparts could not pass an employer mandated drug test.

 

--

 

Also mentioned in original post was the very real fact that refugees are very much needed in other areas of enployment in the US, other than working  in the fields at a time when trump has put into place a ban on refugees.

 


--

There is no evidence provided that this is happening in other areas of the country, only in areas of Appalachia.  Where is the documentation that it affects other areas as badly?  That area is widley known for it's poverty and defeatism.  I grew up on the fringes of Appalachia and the poverty influenced my decision to make a career of the military.  Especially after seeing the old men sitting on the courthouse square on Saturdays chewing tobacco and whittling to pass the time.

 

Over the past several hundred years, it wasn't  uncommon for families to migrate to the mid-western states of Indiana, Illinois and Michigan for the job opportunities.  I had all my fraternal uncles and aunts so so, and in researching genealogy I find that this extended back to the early 1800s.

 

I also believe that in the Appalachian states drug use is widely a problem.  The lack of jobs and boredom fueled it.   And the remoteness of many areas makes for idea growing of marijuana.

 

One has to wonder if this topic is an effort to validate the topic of Refugees.  As I recall, and unless thinking has changed, people in Appalachia wasn't too keen of foreigners, including those from out of their areas. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
497
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
504
Views

Re: REFUGEES FILL GAPS IN FILLING RUST BELT JOBS--AMERICANS CAN'T PASS DRUG TESTS

504 Views
Message 9 of 33

Drug use for personal gratification and valid medicinal reason[s] can be quantified and qualified through statistics.  "Why" drug use happens is another thing entirely.  

 

Genetics, economic status, culture, environment.... are all among factors that influesnce and affect an individual that is addicted. I presume the addict is what you all are talking about.  The casual or ocassional 'user' is not necessarily an addict.  There probably is a performance issue for any 'user' when compared to a 'non-user' .  Companies cannot afford to ignore that in 'hires', nor would you it you were in charge of who and who not to employ.

 

Addiction needs precise definition so both professional studies and the numbers that come out of them mean something specific.  IF we only get something more to speculate about from them, does that not seem somehow futile?. Drug users and addicts alike must accept responsibility for how their behavior affects others AND themselves at some point in their life....sooner is better.  If they need help, it seems to me it is in society's best interests to see that they get it.  If they did, maybe a lot of bad things wouldn't happen.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
504
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
506
Views

Re: REFUGEES FILL GAPS IN FILLING RUST BELT JOBS--AMERICANS CAN'T PASS DRUG TESTS

506 Views
Message 10 of 33

@pc6063 wrote:

 When someone tested positive for drugs in my husband's business and also in my daughters profession,  they were not fired but were put on leave and had to undergo a mandatory drug programs in order to keep their jobs. it was only after a few incidences that the person was let go. I don't think that this occurs in small businesses. These people see the background of the job applicant and the result is the addict/ user is turned away. The CNN piece specifically talked about addiction.


A lot of employers do pre-employemnt drug screening.  As soon as an offer of employment is made, a drug test is required within a few days.  If the "employee" fails this test, they do not start, the job offer is rescinded.  Read the article again, I do not see "addict" anywhere in the article.  That is why treating marijuana as a bar to employment and not alcohol since both can be used without affecting your work performance (notice I did NOT say use while on the job), seems unfair to me.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
506
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Claim your 1,000 Welcome bonus points!

Get Started with AARP Rewards.

Top Authors