this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
722 points (89.9% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6364 readers
55 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

and no one irl even has the decency to agree with me because it's so fucking drilled into the culture that these fucking BuNsInNesSes have a Right to do this because it's a bSUsniEss. like oh yeah they have an office building so they definitely get to analyze my piss because they say they want to. sick fucking freaks.

preaching to the choir a bit on lemmy (or i would hope so at least) but still

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 49 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You should see how they do it in the service industry. No tests to get the job, but if you're ever hurt at work and entitled to workman's comp they give you a test and if you've smoked weed anytime in the last month the presumption is that you were high at work and not only do they not have to pay you for your injury but they just flat-out fire you.

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

The worker's comp drug tests are such a disgusting example of late stage capitalism.

Imagine that you made a lot of money and lived comfortably off of the hard work of others. Then when one of those others got hurt while making money for you, you go out of your way to make sure you don't have to help them cover the medical costs. Also, you take their only source of income away from them so they couldn't even cover it themselves if they wanted to.

I can't imagine being that heartless, and its literally just standard pretty much everywhere in the US. It is very saddening.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

This is the intersection of two elements of our culture:

  1. everyone must always do everything they can to make as much money as possible regardless of the consequences

  2. if someone uses drugs, they're not a person anymore and it's okay to hurt them as much as is within your power

[–] JiveTurkey@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This sounds like a talking point for the right about the "extreme" left. I don't own a business but I also don't expect them to foot the bill if I come to work drunk and it sounds pretty ridiculous to say they should. Saying addicts should get jobs and not worry about the consequences of coming to work under the influence is ridiculous. I'm all for helping people when they're ready for help but giving them a pass for being reckless is too far.

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A high person isn't anymore dangerous than a sleep deprived person. Should they also be able to deny workman's comp to someone for not getting enough sleep?

I agree that people shouldn't go to work high or drunk, for the most part(honestly dont really care, I would judge my hypothetical workers solely on their work performance and behavior), but these tests catch substances used in the person's freetime. An employer shouldn't get to decide that just because someone got high in the safety of their home two weeks before being hurt on the job that they aren't eligible for assistance. It's pretty messed up.

I guess if they could somehow make a drug test that could test someone's intoxication levels and tolerance at the exact time of the incident, then maybe it would be fair. Even then, they were hurt while attempting to make you money. I think it's just the right thing to do, morally, regardless of the employee's idiocy.

And yea I know, the right thinks any sort of empathetic idea is extreme.

[–] JiveTurkey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A THC test with a short window is what's needed but that's specific to marijuana use. It's wild that you don't really care if someone comes to work high or drunk. In very real non hypothetical situations people can die or be severely injured if someone isn't paying attention. Would you allow law enforcement to work under the influence?

[–] TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think it depends on the job, and if the substance problem is actually affecting their behavior and work performance. I think the focus should solely be on those 2 things, and not on whether the person uses drugs or not. Most people with serious alcohol and drug problems will have poor work performance, and that should be the thing they are judged for in that scenario.

There should probably be limits to professions like doctors, pilots, and drivers, in my opinion. The thing is that some drugs(in the right amounts) make people perform better at these jobs. Our pilots in the US military still carry meth pills with them for long missions. If I was on a long flight, I would definitely want the pilot to remain awake and aware the whole time. If a stimulant helps them with that, then I don't mind.

As for law enforcement, I think they should be required to get high and relax, at least on their off time. Most of our killology trained cops seem to be in constant fight or flight mode with the public. They seriously need something to calm their nerves and ground them in between shifts, and right now, their go to is alcohol, which is worse than other drugs they could partake in.

If other lives depend on said job, then yea they should probably be tested. The vast majority of jobs are just meaningless drivel, though, and whether the employee does drugs or not shouldn't matter.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Saying addicts should get jobs and not worry about the consequences of coming to work under the influence is ridiculous

that's why no one is saying that. what we're saying is that smoking weed a month ago shouldn't cost you your job and your workmen's comp if you get injured at work, and that this industry has used the drug war as an excuse to manufacture a system where absolutely none of the consequences of drug use are prevented but they can avoid paying people what they owe for forcing them to work long hours in unsafe environments under the guise of a "drug free workplace".

[–] JiveTurkey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This seems specific to marijuana but I fully agree that testing in a way that covers so much time and isn't specific is unfair.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trying to think of someone who works in the service industry that doesn't smoke weed...

Yeah, they're never paying comp.

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

That's exactly the point.

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Never get between a grift industry and it's profits.