Random Thoughts - Part Deux [NO POLITICS]

[spcmafia]

I wish someone over my tenure in the forces would've said "Not doing that, not in my job description".

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Drug testing is only allowed here for very limited jobs such as truck drivers. Even then if you test them and don't hire or "accommodate" them because they were positive you risk a huge fine and payout to the applicant for discriminating against their "disability"!

The OHRC takes the position that drug and alcohol testing as part of the initial applicant screening process is prohibited under subsection 23(2) of the Code.

While the case law has not ruled out the possibility of testing for alcohol or drugs after a person receives a conditional offer of employment for a safety-sensitive position, the OHRC recommends against this practice.

If testing leads to refusing to hire someone based on an addiction or perceived addiction, it may be prima facie discriminatory. Negative consequences flowing from a positive test result may contribute to a finding that a job applicant has a “perceived” disability – even if he or she does not have an addiction.[36]

If employers do put in place before-the-job drug and alcohol testing for safety-sensitive positions, they should make sure that a positive test result does not lead to automatically revoking the offer of employment or other negative consequences. The testing should be one part of a larger qualifying process, which could include examining the required licencing or other legitimate qualifications. The employer also must meet their duty to accommodate people with addictions.

Any medical testing should provide an effective assessment of the applicant’s ability to do the essential job duties. Pre-employment and pre-access drug and alcohol tests have been found to be insufficient to show that an employee has or will attend work impaired by alcohol or drugs.[37] Because of this, if testing leads to negative consequences based on someone’s addiction or perceived addiction, it may be difficult to justify as a bona fide requirement.[38]

What about when somebody does something stupid while high and gets hurt or hurts someone else on the job? Wouldn't that also be a fine or pay out?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Drug testing is only allowed here for very limited jobs such as truck drivers. Even then if you test them and don't hire or "accommodate" them because they were positive you risk a huge fine and payout to the applicant for discriminating against their "disability"!

As does many things, it varies in the US by state.

In Georgia, you can pretest and not hire for pretty much any position. For example, my employer will not hire you if you fail a nicotine test in preemployment, along with the more standard drug and alcohol testing.

About the only thing I know that is relatively universally banned in the US is a requirement for a lie detector test.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Spuds

What about when somebody does something stupid while high and gets hurt or hurts someone else on the job? Wouldn't that also be a fine or pay out?

Oh you could test them after the fact but would still run into the "I am addicted so you need to accommodate" thing. Yes the employer could be held responsible since you are supposed to magically know what condition every employee is in.

[Ultramaroon]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

About the only thing I know that is relatively universally banned in the US is a requirement for a lie detector test.

Ha! Tcoat will remember the story I told him about my first real job, stocking for a mob-owned grocery store. Strapped in and answered all the questions.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Ultramaroon

Ha! Tcoat will remember the story I told him about my first real job, stocking for a mob-owned grocery store. Strapped in and answered all the questions.

Could be, I had to take one for my first "real job" as well, but that was the early 80's. The practice was made illegal for most jobs by the "Employee Polygraph Protection Act" of 1988.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Spuds

What about when somebody does something stupid while high and gets hurt or hurts someone else on the job? Wouldn't that also be a fine or pay out?

I am not even sure you can fire someone for that, even if they hurt someone else. I think you have to give them the option for rehab first. This came up recently but I don't deal with personnel stuff that often anymore.

That has always been my thing and I have gotten it as a complaint several times in reference to our no drug policy. I don't care if people smoke pot, but we have employees' that use some pretty dangerous equipment that can also hurt someone else if used incorrectly. Forklifts, punch presses, metal shears, cranes and some extreme heat. If I suspect any type of impairment I will send them to get UA'd. Weed stays in your system for so long it is very difficult to know the level of impairment at the time of an incident. I know people that have passed mouth swabs after smoking at lunch

[ichitaka05]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

Your manager isn't doing anyone any favors by doing that, including the employee. Just reinforcing that behavior and undermining their own rep.

On the same subject. Our company president has also held a dual role as our GM. He has been at it for 10 years with both positions. He is handing off the GM position to someone else so he can more focus on other things. That and he has been notoriously weak when dealing with personnel decisions. He has been talking with me about this for about a month and I was surprised he gave himself an F in that category. I don't know if the new GM will be any better, but it is a change so we will see what happens. We have a lot of key hires that need to be made in the next couple years. I kinda see this transition as him just passing them buck to someone else as it is something we have known we need to look into for a while but I will try to be optimistic when talking with staff.

Most def… that’s why often time, supervisor take care of firing staffs. I said this before, but getting fired from here, you REALLY gotta be stupid or fuck it up to get fired. So it’s not often firing staffs.

At least he admit his weakness… not like my manager. She knows it, but doesn’t wanna admit it.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

At least he admit his weakness… not like my manager. She knows it, but doesn’t wanna admit it.

Yeah, but at the same time he did at while passing the problem to someone else

[spcmafia]

I recently recall reading an article about certain generations constantly switching jobs because of high job expectations, pay raises, and happiness.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

I enjoy new staff tells me "I can't do that... It wasn't part of the job description." First of all, yes it is. When we interview you, we explained that you will be doing that (not everyday, but once a while) AND when you got hired we explained AGAIN and you agreed. Secondly, we're not expecting you to know it all and toss you by yourself, that's why we have 3 freaking long hrs of training AND 8hrs of buddy system (someone supervising next to them) to make sure they can do it.

That dude should have had to spend some time in the old Army -

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by ichitaka05

Most def… that’s why often time, supervisor take care of firing staffs. I said this before, but getting fired from here, you REALLY gotta be stupid or fuck it up to get fired. So it’s not often firing staffs.

At least he admit his weakness… not like my manager. She knows it, but doesn’t wanna admit it.

Staff.
Just staff.
Not "staffs".
Staff refers to the group of people at your work.
Staffs would be the groups of people that work at two or more places not the plural of the individuals that work with you.

i.e. - The library staff got together with the restaurant and kitchen goods staffs to make a cookbook.

Won't even go down the road of how many other meanings the word "staff" has since English is stupid sometimes.

[humfrz]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Staff.
Just staff.
Not "staffs".
Staff refers to the group of people at your work.
Staffs would be the groups of people that work at two or more places not the plural of the individuals that work with you.

i.e. - The library staff got together with the restaurant and kitchen goods staffs to make a cookbook.

Won't even go down the road of how many other meanings the word "staff" has since English is stupid sometimes.

Another slow day in London?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by humfrz

Another slow day in London?

Nope. Rather busy actually. Just couldn't get over the repeated use of the word "staffs".