If this happened on Monday, like the thread says, I can't believe by Friday night we have not heard of the results. Surely some one up there knows, and with out incriminating themselves, should be able to say something, either positive or negative. I would think in a yard that big, something would come out of it.
FedEx Freight | Denver center gets Monday morning surprise
- Thread starter roogie
- Start date
screamingeagle35
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 36
Yeah I had the same procedure,said it would help me breathe better...that is still debatable..but atleast I got to eat all the ice cream I wanted for a week!~ YEAH!
.
The deal is that several, (most) buy into the assumption that "random" drug testing keeps people on the road safe. It does not.
Test me at 8 in the morning. Cool. At 10, I score from my dealer and smoke some Meth, (which doesn't stay in the system long), and go about my way killing a busload of children.
You must also note that you are allowed to drive after a "random" drug test. Why is that? If you are suspected of being impaired, which is why you are being tested since you are now guilty until proven innocent, why shouldn't you be required to sit at home until the test results come back? What if I'm under the influence of something, but maintain? They send me on my way, and after I turn in the forms to my red shirt, I get to go out and do my job.
It is what it is. A violation of your rights to make the motoring public that big trucking companies are doing something to keep them safe. It's expensive and catches a tiny, tiny amount of people who are stupid.
I can smoke a joint right now, be tested Monday, and they won't find any in my system. You know why? They test for tolerance. If I smoke a doobie every couple of months, they won't "catch" me.
But I can go on a alcoholic binge every weekend and I'm good to go. As long as I don't test positive for alcohol, I'm golden. I can be hung over like a dog, but that's ok.
The people that agree with random drug testing don't mind giving the state more than is required. I also think that most of the ones here that have no problem with random drug testing are freaking out over Obama's health care or ANY OTHER THING the government wants to do because they scream that it's socialism.
The deal is as I stated above. You are guilty until your pee proves that you are innocent. In America. The land of the free and armed to the teeth. But don't you dare even talk about my rights as a gun owner. But yeah, test all the bodily fluids you want.
I'm amazed that some here don't see the disconnect.
And don't even talk about the legality. If you've ever sped on the freeway, you've endangered more people than some schmoe having a bowl at the lake.
And by the way, I'm working to have things changed. I'm not just lip service.
The deal is that several, (most) buy into the assumption that "random" drug testing keeps people on the road safe. It does not.
Test me at 8 in the morning. Cool. At 10, I score from my dealer and smoke some Meth, (which doesn't stay in the system long), and go about my way killing a busload of children.
You must also note that you are allowed to drive after a "random" drug test. Why is that? If you are suspected of being impaired, which is why you are being tested since you are now guilty until proven innocent, why shouldn't you be required to sit at home until the test results come back? What if I'm under the influence of something, but maintain? They send me on my way, and after I turn in the forms to my red shirt, I get to go out and do my job.
It is what it is. A violation of your rights to make the motoring public that big trucking companies are doing something to keep them safe. It's expensive and catches a tiny, tiny amount of people who are stupid.
I can smoke a joint right now, be tested Monday, and they won't find any in my system. You know why? They test for tolerance. If I smoke a doobie every couple of months, they won't "catch" me.
But I can go on a alcoholic binge every weekend and I'm good to go. As long as I don't test positive for alcohol, I'm golden. I can be hung over like a dog, but that's ok.
The people that agree with random drug testing don't mind giving the state more than is required. I also think that most of the ones here that have no problem with random drug testing are freaking out over Obama's health care or ANY OTHER THING the government wants to do because they scream that it's socialism.
The deal is as I stated above. You are guilty until your pee proves that you are innocent. In America. The land of the free and armed to the teeth. But don't you dare even talk about my rights as a gun owner. But yeah, test all the bodily fluids you want.
I'm amazed that some here don't see the disconnect.
And don't even talk about the legality. If you've ever sped on the freeway, you've endangered more people than some schmoe having a bowl at the lake.
And by the way, I'm working to have things changed. I'm not just lip service.
Give an inch, give a mile.
And you are the one who decides which side of the argument is the "right" and the "wrong" side? Why is that?
The fact that I won't drink the kool-aid in areas you accept bugs you doesn't it? Why is that? I mean, no one forces you to read my posts. You have a choice don't you?
Sorry, but life isn't all cotton candy and oh wells.
To keep the public safe, and become the socialist state the right screams about, we need drug testing every morning. We need to test everyone before they punch in. We also need to test the motoring public. And teachers. And bank tellers. And 911 dispatchers. And firemen. And cops. And medics. And doctors. And judges. And lawyers. And pilots. And mechanics. And construction workers. And flagmen. And warehouse workers. And school children.
Every single morning, every single day.
If you want to be safe. They shouldn't mind. Right?
And you are the one who decides which side of the argument is the "right" and the "wrong" side? Why is that?
And why does this bother you so much? And how can you have a "discussion" without an opposing viewpoint? What you have then is the rush dittoheads who can't wait to agree with whoever it is they agree with. Pretty damn boring if you ask me, but that's what passes for debate in this country now. "Yeah, they suck!" "Yeah, you're right! They suck!" "Yeah! They suck so much they're sucking suckers who suck!!!" I understand your not liking my views, but you really want nothing but agreement to your position? How boring would that be?
The fact that I won't drink the kool-aid in areas you accept bugs you doesn't it? Why is that? I mean, no one forces you to read my posts. You have a choice don't you?
Sorry, but life isn't all cotton candy and oh wells.
I stand corrected. I understand the reasoning behind check points, but to be my opposing self, why can a cop stop me just because? In the name of public safety? Why, that smacks of socialism to me! Or is that Marxism? Or is it Marxist? I get confused when the side of the right let things that they should deplore occur because they bought the reasoning behind them. I mean, how can you fight for the second amendment when you allow illegal search and seizure?
Ok, I agree. But what random drug testing does is reach inside your home. That's what you don't want to see. I know most drug activity is illegal. Duh. However, it is my choice as a citizen to make. If I want to smoke a bowl once in awhile, that is my choice. And I have yet had someone explain to me how getting high on a Friday night is going to affect my motor skills on the next Wednesday. If I'm an addict of any sort, it's going to be obvious. And what about the people you know that get tested once every two/three years? How does that insure the public safety? And now that they have the "right", just what stops them from arguing that they need to check you at home? I've already heard the right say that those that receive Federal/State aid should be drug tested. What about those that hold a driver's license? Why not test them at home? I mean, at any moment, someone may drive drunk or impaired in some way. You already say it's ok, so why not? You let the Adventist into your home, you have no one to blame but yourself when he won't leave.
To keep the public safe, and become the socialist state the right screams about, we need drug testing every morning. We need to test everyone before they punch in. We also need to test the motoring public. And teachers. And bank tellers. And 911 dispatchers. And firemen. And cops. And medics. And doctors. And judges. And lawyers. And pilots. And mechanics. And construction workers. And flagmen. And warehouse workers. And school children.
Every single morning, every single day.
If you want to be safe. They shouldn't mind. Right?
fedex_employee
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
I can get a bonafide written prescription in California for Marijuana if I have needed it. I can have it at home and smoke it whenever needed as necessary and it is perfectly legal. I can get a card that I show to law enforcement in case they find it in my possession that I have it legally(onder 1 ounce). So FYI it used to be illegal everywhere but not anymore.
The test results are not back yet. I've heard a lot of rumors in the last week, I went to Denver and ran on their extra board the end of this week, just got back this evening. No official word, no one I've talked to in management can talk about it, everything else is just rumor. It was a Denver only deal based on a tip.
I can't disagree with anything you just said :thumbsup:
And as it appears, (base on logic) neither can anyone else
Like most boneheaded rules and regulations, we can thank our all powerful, all knowing, all careing, Federal Goverment.
You must also note that you are allowed to drive after a "random" drug test. Why is that? If you are suspected of being impaired, which is why you are being tested since you are now guilty until proven innocent, why shouldn't you be required to sit at home until the test results come back?
Because, Frankie, it's a 'random' test. It allows them to circumvent a little legal thingy called "Probable Cause". However, if you are tested for 'reasonable suspicion' you will be sent home until the results come back. If they come back negative, you get paid for lost time at work.
I can smoke a joint right now, be tested Monday, and they won't find any in my system. You know why? They test for tolerance. If I smoke a doobie every couple of months, they won't "catch" me.
I wouldn't recommend that but I do agree in part with what you're saying. If companies (and the gub'ment) were really serious about drug testing, they would test your hair......can't beat one of those. No, you're right Frankie, it's a very low level kind of test only meant to weed (no pun intended) out the most serious abusers.
Finally, driving is a 'privilege' not a right. That is why they can require all sorts of things as a condition of granting that 'privilege'. Now, one might disagree about whether or not the government should be granting 'privileges' in the first place, but in reality, that's the way it is.
Peace
No one said you shouldn't debate the issue. I said you were being a :
: disturber and you are. Your presentation is what is at issue. You lump together thing that have no relevance and present them as fact. Let me show you... This has no bearing on random drug checks in the trucking industry. The fact that an officer can stop you (and it's not as cut and dry as you say) is based on public safety. If you are doing something that the officer deems unsafe (i.e. speeding, reckless driving, driving under the influence) and will endanger the other people sharing the highways with you, damn right he should pull you over. What gives him the right? Me, you, and the many other motorists and citizens that pay taxes, elect public officials and live relatively law abiding lives.
You really should bring up the fact that a DOT officer can stop a commercial vehicle and inspect it's cargo without probable cause whenever they want to. But then again, it has no bearing on random drug checks in the trucking industry.
Socialism (according to dictionary.com)
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
Marxism
the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.
Now lets look at the 2nd amendment for a minute.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Checking a motorist to see if they are under the influence really has no bearing on the 2nd amendment. I've never been asked if I have any weapons at home when stopped by a police officer. I have been asked if I have any weapons in the vehicle. I always assumed that was for the officer's safety, but I could be wrong.
Do they come to your home to collect urine?
It is your choice, however, you choose to work in an industry that does random drug checks.
It won't affect your driving ability on Wednesday. But then again, how do they know you stopped smoking it on Friday? They don't, so they check your pee.
That's where you are a little confused. It's not the check every few years that keeps them safe. It's the chance that they might get selected Monday for a random that keeps them from doing it.
We do. We elect the people that make the rules. It's our right to communicate with them about the rule changes. If we don't like the job they do, we elect someone else.
I don't have any problems with that. It's my money they are receiving. I don't really want them spending it on drugs. The government shouldn't be in the business of supplying drug users with funds to continue being drug users. Want to continue using drugs? Get off the government's coat tails.
You're being a little reactionary now, aren't you?
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.
Now that's the Franklin we all know.The ones in bold are already checked. Where have you been?
You really make it too easy Franklin. Remember, for those that sometimes forget their morals and values, it's the threat of getting caught that keeps them from breaking the law.
You are free to go work as a burger flipper for McDonalds, but I think they do pre-employment drug checks. Better lay off the bong before applying.
And as it appears, (base on logic) neither can anyone else
Like most boneheaded rules and regulations, we can thank our all powerful, all knowing, all careing, Federal Goverment.
Read on.
You elect (or are given the chance to elect) the Federal Government. Use the same keyboard you used to write this post to send a letter off to your elected officials in Washington and let them know how you feel. Don't want to do that? Then don't complain.
imported_cocheesehead
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 0
Guardrail-I like your style, I don't think many could disagree in your response to Franklin;;;;;;;;;back to original issue of this post, heard from fedex driver, who runs same city route as i do(i drive for fedex ntl) that 8 city drivers refused to test, 1 dispatcher, 2 office workers, and the rest were dock. He said that it was on film from security cameras that drugs were being passed between employees on the property, I believe the employee parking area, and that there were rumors of drugs, so the test was done> just what I heard so do not take it for fact unless verified by higher ups.
Slackdragon
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 0
Colopurple
TB Lurker
- Credits
- 26
Slackdragon
TB Veteran
- Credits
- 0
If you have cameras on the dock ...you might want to take a gander at the outside corners of the building.
When they were first put up at the hub I run to we had some damaged freight that the sup tried to pin on 3 of us ... I pushed the issue and got to look at the footage ...they are using some good cameras ..
btw ... the redshirts favorite boy did the damage ....
I'll give you credit for a reasonable reply. You do make some sense. As does Franklin.
I have to side a bit with Franklin on the principal of the matter. But untill they come up with a way to test to see if you are under the influence (LIKE ALCOHOL), I think we're stuck with the current system. Like you said, the threat of random testing, does what it's supposed to do. It's a deterrant.
And Yeah, I've written congressmen and senators. Not on this issue, but others. Judging by the way things are going, They are NOT LISTENING to me...
If you have cameras on the dock ...you might want to take a gander at the outside corners of the building.
When they were first put up at the hub I run to we had some damaged freight that the sup tried to pin on 3 of us ... I pushed the issue and got to look at the footage ...they are using some good cameras ..
btw ... the redshirts favorite boy did the damage ....
In STL they only have one outside camera, at the entrance to the office, none on the corners or employee parking or fuel bay and shop.
FM
That's because at a center as small as STL, they would never have to worry about stealing and such?
Is it almost Friday?
- Credits
- 412
Still waiting to hear the results.