Pitting Jane Says and Terminator Gold 3000 - by Manhattan's Request

The BBQ Pit
61

Gracious sakes alive, Broomstick! Yesterday I was willing to believe that maybe you’d had a bad day and chose to take it out on some anonymous person on a message board who you felt was so vile and evil they deserved nothing but contempt and filthy insults. That was fine by me as I considered the possibilty that your letting some steam off on me might keep you from smacking some Girl Scouts around, but it looks like you’re just a grouchy bear in general. I wonder if you talk that way all the time or if you’re just bulking up your Nasty Quotient for effect, maybe to demonstrate the seriousness of my heinous crime. You know, the one which made me less worthy in your eyes of…what was it? Oh, yes! Scrapings from beneath the fingernails of a homeless man’s crackwhore’s red-headed toilet seat…uh, well. You remember, I’m sure.

It’s a shame that your FOUR YEARS in drug rehab didn’t do anything for your people skills or attitude. It’s a shame that you are so intent on being right that you are blind to anything anyone says to you. It’s also a shame that you couldn’t Pit me without instructions from someone else. But you know what? I forgive you. I forgive you for your misplaced anger and vitriol, and whatever other issues you have that would cause you to attack me in the outlandish way you did, calling names like a child having a temper tantrum. I forgive you for not being a big enough person to say “You know, I got a little overzealous. You said something I disagreed with, I was angry, and I said nasty, viscious things. I still think you shouldn’t have said what you did, and I disagree with you completely and wholeheartedly. But the things I said you were over the top.”

And no, I haven’t spent any time reading your other Pit posts, for they matter not to me. The Pit is a place I generally try to avoid as I don’t enjoy meanness and I don’t get off on insulting strangers. I don’t think that an ability to talk trash is something to be proud of. I’m sorry if you do. I’m sorry if you think I’m a sleezball [sic], and I think it’s absurd that you would say such a thing as I had never even seen your name on the boards until yesterday, so unless you’re some sort of stalker, I doubt you know much about me either. I mean, after processing all the information in that ONE POST you read, and all.

I bet your mother taught you better than to talk to people that way. I can’t make you apologize. You go ahead then, and be self-righteous, and feel you’re better than me. Maybe it’s all you have to keep you going, that feeling of superiority to someone you’ve never met. Far be it from me to take it away from you.
I am truly sorry that I upset you so. Be well, and please accept MY apology.

62

And no, Broomstick, I won’t be Pitting you in retaliation. I think one thread full of this juvenile silliness is plenty.

Thanks, however, for your concern about my posting status. As of yet I have received no email or other notification from a mod, and it still says “Member” (hehe - I said member!) beneath my name, so I guess things are okay for now. Maybe I’ll ask later for your advice, though. :slight_smile:

63

Let me just say that all things being equal, I think Broomstick’s lack of apology is certainly bad form. Of all the pit victims I’ve read, jane_says seems to be one of the more level-headed, well-spoken, and reasonable.

Come on-- “Lets agree to disagree” ? Thems not fightin’ words.

64

OH, but he does! Why, you ask? Maybe it has something to do with the face that he’s paying you fucking thousands of dollars a year! He’s under no obligation to do so, you don’t a fucking right to a job. You want his or her money, you do what the employer asks you to.

Actually, I think he can ask that. The only reason they avoid it, is that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of “fertility”, i.e. “is this person I hire going to end up pregnant, possibly cost me thousands to retrain the position if she retires to raise the child, or cost me money hiring an incompetent temp while she’s on maternity leave.” The questions like this tend too strongly to indicate fertility status. Frankly, I think considering the possible costs not only to the employer but to his employees, an employer should be able to ask about this, it’s his fucking money after all, he doesn’t owe it to you or anybody until you earn it. And everything he wastes on training a person who won’t be around too long, that much he has to adjust the budget. Be that as it may, “fertility” is not something you can ask about according to the law. But that doesn’t prevent the employer from asking about your private life or discriminating on that basis. As I noted at the top of page 2, employers can hire/fire on any basis they choose, so long as it does not violate the rights of a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Basically, if you want to take thousands of dollars of your employers money in exchange for services you provide, you do so at his/her sufferance, at his or her discretion, and on his or her terms.

65

This is a crock of shit. If the work gets done, then thats the end of it. It’s none his motherfucking business what I smoke on the weekends. Either I’m doing my job or I’m not. He can suck his fucking piss test out of my dick. There is nothing at all wrong with cheating on a drug test. It is good and it is righteous to cheat on a drug test. I have done it myself and would do it again. When did this country become a feudal system where employers are our lords and we are their serfs? Drug testing is invasive, immoral and un-American. It is our duty to thwart those bastards who would sniff our very piss to ensure that we are obedient sheep. Fight the powers, people. Don’t let the suits win.

66

Yeesh, RT, you can get so snippy so fast. I never saw that side of you before. :rolleyes:

OK, fine. So I guess toking and looking at want ads are two incompatable activities, then? If they look at the ads knowing that if something prime comes up, they run the risk of not testing clean, and therefore they won’t get the job?

Then we are in agreement with that.

Let me get this straight—they look through the classifieds regularly, so they must be on the lookout for a job, at least on some level. Right? But they have a habit that is going to make it more difficult for them to take many jobs (perhaps their “dream job”), because they sometimes smoke pot. So they need to make a choice—either the potential “dream job” that may come up at any time, or the pot.

But they don’t have a problem even though they don’t want to give up the pot for the vague (but real) potential for a different job. A job that they want. A job that they want enough to look for in the classifieds on a regular basis. OK…

I think they need to shit or get off the pot. (Pardon the pun.)

67

Diogenes, blow it up yer you-know-where. The employer has money. The employer decides he wishes to use some of that money to hire a person to do services for him. He’s under no obligation to make that decision, he doesn’t have to hire anybody. He choose to use his own property to acquire labor. That choice is on his terms, because it’s his money. The US government has decided that employers should not be allowed to make that decision based on race, gender, religion, etc., because it contradicts public policy, but has not interfered with the employer’s other freedoms. The employer can be arbitrary, it’s his money and his right, he just can’t do so in a way that blatantly violates public policy discouraging discrimination.

You take his money. He doesn’t want employees smoking pot. He might be wrong, maybe potheads are fine employees (yeah, if the job involves sleeping on the couch in your mother’s basement all day) and maybe he’s missing out on such a fine labor source. But that’s his problem, and his prerogative. Until the government chooses to step in and say that dopefiends are a protected class, then employers are still able to spend their money how they choose and on whom they choose. Deal with it.

68

How is “smoking pot sometimes” a “habit that is going to make it more difficult to get a job?” Occasional use of pot in no way diminishes one’s capacity to do one’s job any more than occasional use of alcohol does. Drug testing only serves to gratuitously create a phony obstacle to employment. What the employer doesn’t know won’t hurt him.

69

I never said it did. But it does make it more difficult to pass a drug test. Which means that a occasional user may miss out on some “dream jobs” that happen to have drug testing. That was my only point.

In some cases, this may be so. I personally don’t think an employer is entitled to know every facet of their employees’ personal lives. But this is a different issue than whether or not a drug user knows ahead of time that this is how it is. That some jobs have drug testing. Right or wrong, they test. And anyone who wants the job better test clean.

I don’t think it’s terribly unreasonable for an employer to want to weed out possible risk factors. In some cases, they may get a break on their insurance rates. (I don’t have a cite for this, it’s just what I’ve heard.) I think they have a right to try to protect themslves, in this imperfect world.

I work in a job that takes care of the developmentally disabled, and trust me—I wasn’t thrilled about taking a piss test. But I understood the reason behind it. I was later asked to submit to a voluntary piss test after a joint was found at the workplace. (I thought it was pretty funny, actually. Who would be that stupid?) I griped a little bit about my privacy, but finally agreed to the test. My job is rather unique and I understand my employer’s desire to be extra careful.

70

Bullshit argument, let me tell you why.
The employer/employee contract is that money will be exchanged for a specific service, If the service is provided then the contract is fulfilled. The employer has no more right to tell me I can’t smoke pot than he does to tell me I can’t watch cartoons. My contract with an employer does not obligate me to surrender my own right to privacy. The service I provide him is just as valuable (by definition) as the money he provides me. He is not my superior, he is my peer. We are on equal footing. We are two guys making a deal. His demand for my weekend sobriety is just as absurd as if i demanded that he go on a diet. If he wants to give me extra money not to smoke pot, that can be discussed, and if he wants to pay me extra not to nail his wife, I’ll listen to that to.

I have no patience for this craven idea that I am supposed to be a crawling, servile peon on the premise that he is showing me some kind of grand magnanimity by paying me what he owes me.

71

I’m with you on this, up to a point. I don’t hold any employer in great awe. They need us, we need them, and that’s the way it is. They are not our overlords, they want something from us and they damned well better pay us for our time. They are not entitled to try to micromanage every facet of our personal lives merely because they give us a paycheck that we EARN.

On the other hand, they also don’t owe any of us employment. They are entitled to have certain standards and certain hiring policies. As long as these standards and policies are not illegal (i.e. “no Jews” is not a reasonable standard and is very illegal) then they are entitled to them. If they don’t want drug users because they have certain fears and concerns, then they have the right to not hire drug users.

As Rex says, until drug users become a protected class under the law, that’s how it will be. And the drug users know this up front. So they make a choice—drugs, or an easier time finding a job.

72

Coincidentally, I also work with DD (don’t worry, my drug days are long behind me, I’m only arguing on principle here). I’ve done group home, in home and vocational services and I’ve never had to take a drug test. Maybe it’s a regional thing, or maybe it’s a company thing. At least one guy I used to work with at a group home was a perpetual stoner but he manged to navigate at the workplace. I could have ratted him out (I caught him smoking a doobie in the garge once) but I didn’t. I couldn’t bring myself to be a narc (old stoner code of ethics). I did talk to him privately and explained that I wasn’t going to report anything I didn’t see, but that he should probably make sure there was nothing I did see. I never caught him again, and he was really a pretty good worker. He had a very easy and patient way with the clients and he genuinely liked them. He would have been a loss to the house.

Conversely, I have seen employees who drink a lot come stumbling in to work bleary eyed and hung over after partying all night. I think that this has a far more detrimental effect on their job performance than a little bit of weed.

73

Just because I find the coincidence interesting, I wanted to let you know I am a resident advisor at a group home for MR (DD to you guys) adults.

74

My former husband used to take something which I won’t mention and it most certainly did cover up his drug use, which was daily, and marijuana which stays in your system for 30+ days.
I’m not saying it was a good thing to do, but it certainly can be done, without drinking anything.

75

IANAL, but I have a suspicion that asking socially improper questions about a potential hire’s sex life during the interview process could potentially be construed as sexual harassment.

76

Hey man, I worked with Drug Addicts for 5 years!! That means my opinion is very, very important. Also, a mod told me to call you names, making sure I use the word “slime,” so here you have it. Slime…

77

I’ve always been snippy when people’s responses seem to directly ignore what I’ve actually said. Why, I remember a GD thread all the way back in 1999…but I digress. And I apologize.

That’s what you are apparently saying.

Assuming, of course, that that employer tests for drugs (I’ve yet to experience that) and actually looks at the results (since our ‘experts’ here are saying that employers’ not doing so is the source of everyone’s false negatives).

So yeah, if you’re not really looking for a job, but continually scan the want ads anyway, and periodically smoke dope because you really aren’t expecting to be interviewing anytime soon, and you see a job you want and decide to apply, there is some chance you won’t get the job because you’ve been smoking.

I don’t think such a person Has A Problem. At any time, the risk that they’ll fail to get a job on account of their drug use is negligible.

Just to toss in some numbers as a starting point: if there’s a 2% chance that they might actually apply for a job they see advertised that week, and there’s a 20% chance that they’ll have a positive drug test which will then keep them from getting the job, then the chance that their dope-smoking may cost them the difference between the job they’re in and the job they might get is 4/10 of 1%. If the difference in salaries is $5000/year, then the expected cost of having smoked last weekend is $20.

For some odd reason, I don’t think the difference between having a dope problem and not having one, should be the difference between being a habitual want-ad scanner and not being one. If you took dope out of the equation, and weighed the habit of scanning want ads as heavily as you do, certainly you’d regard the guy who scans the ads to be the more motivated one in terms of his career.

Now put dope back in. The rap on dope is that too-frequent use supposedly makes people less motivated about grades, jobs, etc. You see what I’m getting at?

78

I have to disagree with this. My employer’s stance (and the stance of two professional organization to which I belong) is that getting into legal trouble discredits their trademarks. They don’t want to see in the paper “D_Odds, who worked at ABC, was arrested this weekend for attempting to smuggle fissionable nuclear material into Iraq.” Even though I did it on my off time, and even though it has nothing to do with my employer (whose profession is taking a public relations beating as it is), there is guilt by association. An employer has the right to mitigate this. Unless you provide a unique service that no one else can duplicate, the employer has the right and duty to protect its image by getting rid of a perceived (not necessarily actual, just perceived) threat to its goodwill. I know I don’t provide a totally unique service, and I am always worried someone younger, smarter and cheaper is waiting for my seat (that paranoia helps prompt me to continually improve myself).

79

Hi RTF, how you been doing? :smiley: Having a problem with your pot and kettle?
Sure is good to know that you never misread what anyone says. Have a nice day now, hear?

80

Again, I must point out that he is under no obligation to form a contract with you in the first place. Once you have formed a contract…

It’s a contract for employee-at-will, or perhaps for some fixed period of time. He can make, as part of the terms of the contract when you agree to it, that you will not use illegal drugs and that if you are caught using them you will be fired. If he presents those terms, and you don’t like them, then don’t sign the contract.

Actually, the market psychology only dictates that the person believes he is getting equal or greater value in return, not that values are actually equal.

In a way, he already IS giving you “extra” money not to smoke pot, if he’s drug testing. Clearly if he’s drug testing, then he believes that a drug-free employee is more valuable to him than a drug user, and thus he’s selecting for that trait. Perhaps he’s willing to pay you that much money only because he believes you are drug-free. If you in fact are not, because you cheated a drug test, then you have essentially committed fraud against him, you have misrepresented yourself as something you are not in order to acquire a job.

And the employer could just as easily turn your argument around on the same terms. He might say “alright, you can smoke pot, but I’m going to give you less money than I otherwise would.” That’s basically the same thing as asking him to pay you extra to quit, but something tells me you wouldn’t like that idea.

Anyway, the point is that an employer bargains with you (as you say), offering his money for your labor-power. As with any bargain from buying a used car to deciding what to put on the pizza, the person with the superior bargaining position (i.e. one persons needs the deal more than the other one does) can to some extent dictate the terms. If your need for the job is less valuable to you than your desire to maintain your lifestyle, then when he offers drug testing as part of the contract you can just walk away from the table, or leverage him into better terms…especially if you have skills valuable to him that set you apart from others, such that he needs you more than you need him. If you need the job more than he needs your labor-power, if you have no special skills and are just another piece of raw physical labor no different than millions of others, then he can basically dictate terms because his bargaining position is superior. But in either case, both parties are free at any time to simply end bargaining and walk away, nobody can force you to reach agreement.

Don’t like it? Once you get the job, unionize. Increase your bargaining position through numbers and through the NLRB’s mandatory arbitration. Get rid of the drug testing in contract negotiations. You think I had to do a drug test to get a job in Detroit? No way. But I sure did for the same worthless job here in Missouri. Difference? Union bargaining power.

I’m certainly not suggesting anything of the sort, not in the sense of this psychological class warfare jargon you’re using. You bargain with him, once you’re hired he owes you if you fulfill the terms of that agreement. But if you need the job more than he needs you to work for him, then you have to face up to the fact that you may have to more or less accept the job on his terms. If you want to avoid that, if you want to have the power to say no to the drug test requirement, then increase your bargaining position. It’s up to you to decide what it’s worth to you, and it’s up to you to get the power to obtain it.