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

Unpopular Opinion

6356 readers
528 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 1 year 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
[–] Subverb@lemmy.world 72 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I run a manufacturing business; you oversimplify.

Quite coincidentally my HR person came to me just an hour ago and told me that two people have complained of a coworker smoking on breaks and at lunch and being high on the job.

He drives a heavy forklift. Am I to ignore the situation? If I do I expose my employees to danger and my small business to lawsuits.

How are the employees that reported it supposed to react if I say "Whatever, that's his business."

To a large extent businesses have their hands tied by the rules and laws of society.

[–] viking@infosec.pub 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But what you are saying is probable cause. I think the OP complains about random testing without any justification.

In your example, even if you were not legally entitled to carry out a drug test, you could simply call the police and let them do the check.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Random drops are how you catch functionals before they fuck up and cost business.

Not really, the person could refuse and the cops can't do anything unless it's operated in public which most forklifts are not.

[–] HerrBeter@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I've also worked a lot in heavy industry and if choices were. I'd rather have drug testing at an interval than not, and alcohol blow test every morning.

Narcotics, and alcohol, do not belong in the workplace and I dispise apologists. Then I'm also biased against since I've seen too many ruin their lives catching the next high or dying of it. A bit irrelevant to your post but it really rustles my jimmies.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Random tests could be fairer and avoid discrimination or prejudicial testing.

[–] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Random tests are used as discriminatory and prejudicial testing.

They are never actually random.

[–] Aermis@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My union pays you $100 if you get hit with a random. They're also the ones who issue them. Not my employer

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

This is kinda nice

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a very easily solvable problem

[–] Oszilloraptor@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unless your idea is to use a daily meeting where a d100 is rolled ro determines who is tested today in front of everyone you cannot really rule out any suspicion for bias.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

You just came up with a single super simple way to do it. I'm sure there's loads of other solutions that offer similar sort of randomness with more convenience.

And remember, we're comparing this to people asking to be tested on a hunch. Do you not think these randomness measures are better for fighting bias and discrimination, or is the issue that you can't have 100% always free of bias randomness?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you test your forklift drivers with breathalyzers too?

I guarantee you more of them are drinking before they go to work than getting high on break.

[–] Subverb@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My business doesn't test at all because I don't care what my employees do when they're not a work. I have no desire to get involved in their personal lives.

But just as with weed, If an employee told me that another employee was drinking on breaks and at lunch my hands are tied. I can't ignore it.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Many of the drug tests don't check for drugs currently in your system. Many of them are akin to checking your liver levels to see if you've had alcohol at all in the past week.

Also, what a massive straw man.

[–] Saganaki@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure…but it’s not on him. Realistically, there’s:

  • The insurance company that has the restriction (required by law)
  • Lawmakers that make the law putting anyone under the influence responsible for any accidents, and by extension the company for letting it happen (if they knew)

I wouldn’t necessarily blame this guy, but our elected officials. If anyone’s to blame, it’s mostly Republicans (and Democrats in the early 90s) for pushing these laws so hard.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

Okay, see, now this is the sort of nuance that I think is good for the discussion!