Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - AFK

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 1073
31
Apple Talk / Re: It's that time of year again...
« on: October 23, 2013, 09:22:06 pm »
I think Scooter is a shill, being paid here to front these particular opinions and make these arguments, and given that he /is/ getting paid, this is why he refuses to leave. Apparently this is becoming a popular way to spread propaganda these days, so I wouldn't put it past the FDA.


 :o


You really think the FDA, DEA, or frankly ANYONE at the federal government gives two shits about a dozen people on a message board?


I stay because I'm entertained. 


I mean, really, people denying that people go to work impaired, that is just nutty stuff that you can't find just anywhere. 

32
Apple Talk / Re: It's that time of year again...
« on: October 23, 2013, 09:02:11 pm »
And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.


Some employers are dicks.  Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way.  An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture,  If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.


But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others.  Do you disagree with that notion?  If so, why?

There you go, assuming facts not in evidence.


Are you seriously arguing that employees never go to work impaired ever?  Really?

33
Apple Talk / Re: It's that time of year again...
« on: October 23, 2013, 08:49:20 pm »
And that one hit of weed will impair you for at least 10 days.


Some employers are dicks.  Employers in an 'at-will' state can fire you for looking at them the wrong way.  An even-handed employer would look at the test along with the rest of the picture,  If you tested positive, but have been a model employee, productive, timely, etc., you are very likely not going to get fired.


But, employers should have tools available to them to catch the ones who are coming impaired and posing a risk to others.  Do you disagree with that notion?  If so, why?

34
Apple Talk / Re: It's that time of year again...
« on: October 23, 2013, 08:44:48 pm »
Including, workplace safety.

So we've also learned in this thread that OSHA isn't necessary because lawyers.


It isn't either/or.

35
Apple Talk / Re: It's that time of year again...
« on: October 23, 2013, 08:42:59 pm »
Including, workplace safety.

36
Apple Talk / Re: It's that time of year again...
« on: October 23, 2013, 08:33:08 pm »
UNNNNGGGGG!  Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test.  This is pretty straightforward.

Positive MJ test is not proof of impairment.


Are employers risk averse?

Maybe a few. If they all were, there would be no need for OSHA.


No, most of them, which is why they all have lawyers.


Dumbass.

RWHN rage is fucking awesome.  Stella just owned the FUCK out of him.  Watch the froth.


Right, the lawyers are just around for kicks, not to advise them on how to not to be on the hook and losing tons of money.  It's the blind leading the blind at PD.COM

37
Apple Talk / Re: It's that time of year again...
« on: October 23, 2013, 08:25:33 pm »
UNNNNGGGGG!  Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test.  This is pretty straightforward.

Positive MJ test is not proof of impairment.


Are employers risk averse?

Maybe a few. If they all were, there would be no need for OSHA.


No, most of them, which is why they all have lawyers.


Dumbass.

38
Apple Talk / Re: It's that time of year again...
« on: October 23, 2013, 08:22:35 pm »
It wouldn't happen that way in the real world.  In the real world, it would be a positive test along with behavior that deems the employee unfit for duty.  Now, I also happen to believe that workplaces should have substance abuse policies that are supportive, not just punitive.  Anyone can fuck up, if someone pops positive, get them to EAP and link them up with resources and get them some help.  I don't think employers SHOULD fire them on the spot, but the law says they can.


I also know that employers are risk averse and can understand why they would want to terminate someone who is coming to work positive for drugs.  That is a potential workplace safety issue that can be VERY costly.


My dad is a safety director for a large employer so I have a bit of a window into these issues.

39
Apple Talk / Re: It's that time of year again...
« on: October 23, 2013, 08:12:40 pm »
First,

THERE ARE NO LINGERING EFFECTS FROM ALCOHOL.


See reply #540

Quote
Second, your question was an avoidance of mine, and while maybe pertinent to the larger conversation, is a deliberate avoidance of our particular angle.

Y'dingus.


You've been ignoring from the start the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, with regards to workplace safety (aka people not being impaired and turning people into jelly with heavy machinery) and the legal status is a moot point.  I've tried like 3 different ways to get you to acknowledge it but you refuse to even address the point. 

40
Apple Talk / Re: Atheists and White Supremacists
« on: October 23, 2013, 08:08:45 pm »
Her statement was offensive.  Period.  Broadly making a 1:1 comparison between atheists and white supremacists.  That is offensive, period.

41
Apple Talk / Re: It's that time of year again...
« on: October 23, 2013, 08:06:58 pm »
RHWN:  What about X?
LMNO: Refutes X.
RWHN: What about Y?
LMNO: Refutes Y.
RHWN:  Well, what about X?
LMNO: Refutes X.
RWHN: Well, what about Y?
LMNO: Refutes Y.
RHWN:  Well, what about X?
LMNO: Refutes X.
RWHN: Well, what about Y?
LMNO: Stops responding.
RWHN: I guess I win.


You know darn well what I've been asking about in terms of employers being risk averse but you've been dancing around it refusing to acknowledge it.  That isn't refuting, that is obfuscating.

42
Apple Talk / Re: ATTN: ADMINS
« on: October 23, 2013, 08:02:05 pm »
Maybe this:


I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.

And I'd like to say that I would very much like to thank the hordes of PDers who spoke up at that time.

Because it warms my heart that our outrage here isn't highly selective.

DOUR,
Stupid fucking FAITHFOOL with food down his shirt and callouses on his knuckles.  Grunt.


Kinda like your selective outrage (and your subsequent posting of my PI) for me shortening your name as opposed to everyone else who did it.  Yeah, that kinds sucks doesn't it?

Quit your crying, scooter.   :lulz:


You first.

43
Apple Talk / Re: It's that time of year again...
« on: October 23, 2013, 08:01:34 pm »
Averse to wrongful termination lawsuits, for certain.


How about workplace accidents?

44
Apple Talk / Re: ATTN: ADMINS
« on: October 23, 2013, 08:00:29 pm »
Maybe this:


I'm just curious as to how many people in this thread were offended, and said so, when P3NT called me a "faithfool" about 20 times.

And I'd like to say that I would very much like to thank the hordes of PDers who spoke up at that time.

Because it warms my heart that our outrage here isn't highly selective.

DOUR,
Stupid fucking FAITHFOOL with food down his shirt and callouses on his knuckles.  Grunt.


Kinda like your selective outrage (and your subsequent posting of my PI) for me shortening your name as opposed to everyone else who did it.  Yeah, that kinds sucks doesn't it?

45
Apple Talk / Re: It's that time of year again...
« on: October 23, 2013, 07:55:22 pm »
UNNNNGGGGG!  Legalization doesn't change the fact that marijuana is an impairing substance, employers will continue to not want to have impaired employees so they will continue to test.  This is pretty straightforward.

Positive MJ test is not proof of impairment.


Are employers risk averse?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 1073