Re:Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence
by poikniok on Friday June 19, 2015 @10:08AM
(#9744821)
I am confused by your point. Would you rather sick people come into work and get even more people sick?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence
by bediger4000 on Friday June 19, 2015 @12:00PM
(#9745627)
My point is that potheads probably don't call in "sick" from a weekend bender hangover, but we know alcoholics do. We test for marijuana use, we don't test for alcohol use. We know for a fact that even a teetotalling, cautious person calls in real sick every once in a while. So the reason for drug testing being "to avoid absences" is logically inconsistent.
Re:Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence
by JoeAltmaier on Friday June 19, 2015 @12:05PM
(#9745656)
Its incomplete; still useful if we assert that potheads will miss work.
Re:Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence
by bediger4000 on Friday June 19, 2015 @01:33PM
(#9746365)
Stipulated. But experience with co-workers tells me that drinkers miss more than potheads work, and can have catastrophic life collapses. "Drug" tests don't often test for alcohol consumption. So, I still think that "drug" tests aren't in place for that particular reason.
Re:Seen that job listing for a while, its no coincidence
by JoeAltmaier on Friday June 19, 2015 @02:06PM
(#9746566)
Arguable. I personally don't think any invasive test is warranted. Measure my performance; all else is irrelevant.