I work for a mechanical contractor myself.
The biggest problem we have in finding qualified help of any age is people can't pass a simple drug test, no drivers license or both.
This has happened over and over from young to old. Oh you should hear some of their sob stories.
We had an older guy come in the other day and we were going to hire him. He really seemed to know his stuff and had worked for 1 company the last 15 years, something you don't see much these days. Sent him for a piss test and he comes up positive for meth. Do you think we hired this guy, hell no! Seems people put there habits before their careers these days.
Oh yeah......the failed drug tests. You nailed the other problem, hypoc8! I don't know how many times I've told an applicant that they would be taking a drug test before hire. "Oh....no problem, I'm totally clean!", only to have them fail the drug test :slap:
"Sob stories." That's a common phrase from selfish, elitist conservatives.
It's amazing how people refuse good workers just because of their own moral hang-ups.
It's no wonder these people stay poor when guys like you refuse them a job because they don't have a drivers license.
So, you were essentially saying that you became a success because you worked hard, but now you're saying that it's just fine to deny a job to somebody who is willing to work hard.
BTW, Fuzzy is an employer too. Most of this is outsourced and Fuzzy has never met many of these people. Fuzzy couldn't care less if they smoke crack all day, just as long as they finish the deliverables on time and do a good job (which they do). Unlike you, Fuzzy care's more about the quality of the product than whether the hell somebody smoked meth. Seriously?
Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ We live in a very retributive society where people who are immature and are given a position of power tend to abuse that position, whether it's managers, employers, prison guards, police officers, foreign 'freedom' fighters. Douchebaggery is a choice.
If you're claiming that you were about to hire a person with good job experience and a good education, but then denied him that job just because you didn't like an aspect of his lifestyle, it smacks of sadism. Should kids have to starve because you don't like his lifestyle choices?
It seems like you're more of a welfare creator than a job creator, but you'll still complain about 'welfare rats' and their 'sob stories', no doubt. It's an odd sport.
The next time you blame the poor for their poverty or unemployment, Fuzzy will remember this post and "how many times" you've refused work to someone.
Pathetic.
Fuzzy, as someone who enjoys marijuana myself, yet also owns a businesses and manages $multimillion projects, I understand that people can use responsibly (just like drinking responsibly). The other side of the coin is that outside of marijuana, most illegal drugs get out of your system in a relatively short time frame, within a few days. So for people who use those drugs, a screen is a litmus test for your ability to just get your shit together. It's no different from meeting a deadline - show up at this time and date clean of any drugs. Now, if you have someone show up with dirty pee, and more importantly, they are using meth, there are some serious questions about future reliability. I'm sorry, but I have never met a person who "casually" smoked meth without it disrupting their ability to be a functional human being in the long-term. Same goes for heroin. Those are just highly addictive drugs that destroy you. It's not a matter of morals, its science. Hiring someone who fails a drug screen with those drugs is just a poor business investment and decision.
And again, as a habitual consumer of marijuana, I have gone through many drug screens for past jobs, and have never failed. So yes, any story trying to justify why you peed dirty when you knew you had drug screens upcoming is a sob story - doing drugs when you know you'll get tested means you don't have your shit together, and it shows self-destructive tendencies.
"Sob stories." That's a common phrase from selfish, elitist conservatives.
It's amazing how people refuse good workers just because of their own moral hang-ups.
It's no wonder these people stay poor when guys like you refuse them a job because they don't have a drivers license.
So, you were essentially saying that you became a success because you worked hard, but now you're saying that it's just fine to deny a job to somebody who is willing to work hard.
BTW, Fuzzy is an employer too. Most of this is outsourced and Fuzzy has never met many of these people. Fuzzy couldn't care less if they smoke crack all day, just as long as they finish the deliverables on time and do a good job (which they do). Unlike you, Fuzzy cares more about the quality of the product going to the client than whether or not he agrees with their lifestyle choices or have a driver's license.
Would you prefer to hire a raging alcoholic than somebody who smoked meth once?
Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ We live in a very retributive society where people who are immature and are given a position of power tend to abuse that position, whether it's managers, employers, prison guards, police officers, foreign 'freedom' fighters. Refusing good work to good people for petty reasons and then bragging about it seems like a sadistic sport.
If you're claiming that you were about to hire a person with good job experience and a good education, but then denied him that job just because you didn't like an aspect of his lifestyle, it smacks of sadism. Should their kids have to starve because you don't like his lifestyle choices?
It seems like you're more of a welfare creator than a job creator, but you'll still complain about 'welfare rats' and their 'sob stories', no doubt. It's an odd sport.
The next time you blame the poor for their poverty or unemployment, Fuzzy will remember this post and "how many times" you've refused work to someone. Does it rival the number of times you've complained about the poor?
Pathetic.
Company policy is you have to have a valid drivers license, period. They are told this upfront. Also they are asked if they can pass a drug test upfront. We don't want to knowingly waste money on a lab test if we know the person is dirty. What would the point be?
Normally we have the lab do a hair strand test but on occasions we only have them do a pee test, have no idea what would have been found if this guy had a hair strand done.
It has nothing to do with moral hang-ups, it's about keeping drug users from hurting themselves and others on the jobsite because there coming off a weekend bender.
You'll care when one of your weekend crack smokers ends up killing or hurting someone and you get sued.
Fuzzy......you ought to get your facts straight regarding the construction industry before you start the pathetic shit Probably 75% of the projects we work on require all my jobsite employees to have been drug tested within the last 30 days to 6 months. And many of those are state or federal projects. Yep......the same gov't you are so in love with require this of my employees to set foot on a jobsite. So tell me Fuzzy.....would you be that dense to hire someone to work for you that can't pass a piss test, knowing they couldn't work on 75% of your jobsites? :twak: If so, you wouldn't last the week working for me. And before you jump to any more fuzzy conclusions, I am one who believes drugs should be legalized. I don't do them, but it should be a legal personal choice, should you decide you want to. But......and it's a big BUT......if you're gonna play in the construction industry......you gotta play by the rules. And the current rules require drug testing.It seems like you're more of a welfare creator than a job creator, but you'll still complain about 'welfare rats' and their 'sob stories', no doubt. It's an odd sport.
The next time you blame the poor for their poverty or unemployment, Fuzzy will remember this post and "how many times" you've refused work to someone. Does it rival the number of times you've complained about the poor?
Pathetic.
Fuzzy......you ought to get your facts straight regarding the construction industry before you start the pathetic shit Probably 75% of the projects we work on require all my jobsite employees to have been drug tested within the last 30 days to 6 months. And many of those are state or federal projects. Yep......the same gov't you are so in love with require this of my employees to set foot on a jobsite. So tell me Fuzzy.....would you be that dense to hire someone to work for you that can't pass a piss test, knowing they couldn't work on 75% of your jobsites? :twak: If so, you wouldn't last the week working for me. And before you jump to any more fuzzy conclusions, I am one who believes drugs should be legalized. I don't do them, but it should be a legal personal choice, should you decide you want to. But......and it's a big BUT......if you're gonna play in the construction industry......you gotta play by the rules. And the current rules require drug testing.
.
Company policy is you have to have a valid drivers license, period. They are told this upfront. Also they are asked if they can pass a drug test upfront. We don't want to knowingly waste money on a lab test if we know the person is dirty. What would the point be?
Normally we have the lab do a hair strand test but on occasions we only have them do a pee test, have no idea what would have been found if this guy had a hair strand done.
It has nothing to do with moral hang-ups, it's about keeping drug users from hurting themselves and others on the jobsite because there coming off a weekend bender.
You'll care when one of your weekend crack smokers ends up killing or hurting someone and you get sued.
Fuzzy......you ought to get your facts straight regarding the construction industry before you start the pathetic shit Probably 75% of the projects we work on require all my jobsite employees to have been drug tested within the last 30 days to 6 months. And many of those are state or federal projects. Yep......the same gov't you are so in love with require this of my employees to set foot on a jobsite. So tell me Fuzzy.....would you be that dense to hire someone to work for you that can't pass a piss test, knowing they couldn't work on 75% of your jobsites? :twak: If so, you wouldn't last the week working for me. And before you jump to any more fuzzy conclusions, I am one who believes drugs should be legalized. I don't do them, but it should be a legal personal choice, should you decide you want to. But......and it's a big BUT......if you're gonna play in the construction industry......you gotta play by the rules. And the current rules require drug testing.
.
Fuzzy wasn't writing about your field of work -- which Fuzzy knows nothing about. Fuzzy was writing about the fact that you two complain about the poor while bragging about how many people your businesses turn away. It's hypocrisy.
"Sob stories." That's a common phrase from selfish, elitist conservatives.
It's amazing how people refuse good workers just because of their own moral hang-ups.
It's no wonder these people stay poor when guys like you refuse them a job because they don't have a drivers license.
So, you were essentially saying that you became a success because you worked hard, but now you're saying that it's just fine to deny a job to somebody who is willing to work hard.
BTW, Fuzzy is an employer too. Most of this is outsourced and Fuzzy has never met many of these people. Fuzzy couldn't care less if they smoke crack all day, just as long as they finish the deliverables on time and do a good job (which they do). Unlike you, Fuzzy cares more about the quality of the product going to the client than whether or not he agrees with their lifestyle choices or have a driver's license.
Would you prefer to hire a raging alcoholic than somebody who smoked meth once?
Stanford prison experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ We live in a very retributive society where people who are immature and are given a position of power tend to abuse that position, whether it's managers, employers, prison guards, police officers, foreign 'freedom' fighters. Refusing good work to good people for petty reasons and then bragging about it seems like a sadistic sport.
If you're claiming that you were about to hire a person with good job experience and a good education, but then denied him that job just because you didn't like an aspect of his lifestyle, it smacks of sadism. Should their kids have to starve because you don't like his lifestyle choices?
It seems like you're more of a welfare creator than a job creator, but you'll still complain about 'welfare rats' and their 'sob stories', no doubt. It's an odd sport.
The next time you blame the poor for their poverty or unemployment, Fuzzy will remember this post and "how many times" you've refused work to someone. Does it rival the number of times you've complained about the poor?
Pathetic.
Fuzzy wasn't writing about your field of work -- which Fuzzy knows nothing about. Fuzzy was writing about the fact that you two complain about the poor while bragging about how many people your businesses turn away. It's hypocrisy.
These things are the very definition of someone with success keeping others from gaining success.