Drug testing for benefits in Tennessee yields only 65 positives
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
22....my last several years of employment, I never worked OT and refused all opportunities to do so. The problem was my employer kept wanting to do more with less and the math didn't support their goals with out OT. I figured other guys needed the money more than I. But I would never work OT unless it was an obvious emergency situation. Any needs for OT other than emergencies are the result of poor planning and bad management practices. I refused to participate in that plan.
You misunderstand his post. There are many laws, especially in union context, on how/when/what drug tests are requested of employees.
And you would not be employed very long in today's business environment... and I think you are 100% correct. It's just not reality.
define "today's" environment? I work the job for 33 years.....and the last 14 I never, ever working a day of "OT".....Some folks get around this by "salarying" jobs and "expecting 50 or so hours of work.....Any employer that would "expect" his workers to work more than 40/week is a tad bit unethical....This is another reason why unemployment is an issue today.
Would you rather have 10 hours of OT spilt between 4 guys every week or have them hire another worker and have 5 guys work 34 hours a week? Sometimes OT is planned and is the best management practice.
No, it isn't. Numerous cases have upheld it as constitutional. In fact, the 8th Circuit just recently issued a decision upholding drug testing as a pre-requisite for admission to a Missouri technical college.
So you would agree that anyone receiving free healthcare should also be tested so that costs don't rise on the taxpayers. No?
As a general rule it is. I'm familiar with this case, and it is based on safety of the students and falls with Supreme Court prior precedent that allows for testing under narrow conditions. It was a 2-1 decision and has little to do with whether a Stare can condition the receipt of benefits on agreeing to be drug tested. I'll check but I'm guessing the ACLU will ask for the case to be reheard.
No. You generally can't condition the receipt of benefits on a waiver of constitutional rights.
Were you receiving government aide?
We have plenty of folks who would quit if they weren't granted OT.
They would think we were purposely overstaffing.
Last edited:
Where I worked, there were generally 40-100/week that were "uncovered" as far as manpower was concerned...Never enough folks to "do the routine" and when folks started taking vacations and PTO, the schedule became a first class mess....
There is a reason why the "40 hour work week" is held somewhat sacrosanct......That is about the best number of hours where efficiency is maintained....
Please support this.
People can feel free to limit themselves to 40 hours a week, but they shouldn't complain when they are lapped by those willing to go above and beyond.
Back in the day, I took a labor economics course and in Psych 101 this subject was covered also....but that was clear back in the late 60's and early 70's. I am sure man (and woman) has evolved considerably since then and reverted back to the ways of slave labor and child labor days...and man (woman) can easily work 50-60 hrs, weekly at peak efficiency for an infinite amount of time.
Even in my time working there were numerous studies about peak efficiency and work time....but I can't provide a link 22, I would just hope some here are smart enough to understand. Guess not, though......
People are smart enough to know that a $20 an hour job is good. Working OT for $30 is better.
That kind of worker is also likely to get raises and promotions over the worker that settles for the minimum expected effort.
Again nothing wrong with the expected effort.
It's just that person is not likely to compete with someone more driven.
So you really believe that QUANTITY is preferable to QUALITY? You just might be "management scum" that I learned to detest. You judge a persons "devotion" to his/her job by their desire work extra hours? You "desire" to do a good job would be questioned by me because you refuse to adequately staff a department....to "make budget"? What makes the American worker unique is his/her desire to be accountable to management and customer over job performance, not burning themselves out by working "overtime" to cover managements basic flaws.
You'd have fired me a long time ago....unless I would have walked away from you and your "job"........Your success at your job should not require me to sacrifice for you.
Work ethic and quality are easy to judge.
Sometimes they are contained within a 40 hour work week sometimes the customer demands more. You've already stated you would not give more.
Leadership, attitude and flexibility are equally important.
Yes. I likely would have fired you for at least one, or two of the aforementioned.
See 22...you limit yourself. I always felt I gave as much as I could every second I was on the clock. Leadership....that is tantamount to ass-kissing for many of my insecure management types. I would do the job as required in as professional a way as was possible. Flexibility is an awfully subjective term. Often viewed much different by individual managers and that makes the "worker bee's" job that much more stressful.
My attitude was pretty simple...I liked my job, I liked my work environment and I understood what needed (and how it needed) to be done. For 33 years, I did it.,
I never stated I would never do more, either. If it was an "emergency situation" of course, I would do what I needed to do...but because "management" can't properly prepare, that my friend does NOT constitute an emergency for me. That is management figuring I will cover their ignorant arse.
By the way...I never worked in a "union shop"......But I was smart enough to understand why management dislikes unions so much....a "union" will require management to define each and every job they require and hold management accountable to these definitions. Management just doesn't like to be so damned accountable.
You work history does explain your political wish to bring everyone economically to the middle.
That is the only way you might be able to compete.
There is a much brighter future awaiting those who wish to reach up and take it.
what do you KNOW about my work history, 22? You are a presumptuous prick who is probably well suited for management. I certainly do not want "everyone" in the middle......I want those who are good to succeed. I want those who are not to fail. My life in the trenches was spent all too often extracting those incapable from the cesspool of shit they created. I used to tell co-workers...I have seen a lot of "bosses" come and go (most left by invitation), I was still there, still making grade and still gainfully employed.
You and yours certainly understand "take it" 22.
Who in the world would work in those conditions for 33 years?
Jeebuss Keeerist Joel. Make better life choices.
If I was in my twilight looking back on that I'd be pissed too.
It was a great job, in spite of some rather awkward management. Great pay, great benefits, great work environment and worked with some really great folks.......all of us doing God's work! Just some really head scratching (at times) management)....Plus, did I tell ya...I didn't have to work OT unless I wanted too.
It was a great job, in spite of some rather awkward management. Great pay, great benefits, great work environment and worked with some really great folks.......all of us doing God's work! Just some really head scratching (at times) management)....Plus, did I tell ya...I didn't have to work OT unless I wanted too.
Does sound great.
Sorry you couldn't get out of your own way and excel.
But, I understand some people are just risk adverse. Some are afraid to fail. Some are afraid to succeed.
It takes everyone to play their role.
Believe me....failure never has deterred me! I fear I just don't define success as you might. But, here I am.....Corporate America does not want one "to get out of their way" to succeed......Corporate success is best judged by making mistakes and being able to shift the blame elsewhere. I was never that smart.
Our experiences differ.
Mistakes are made by all. Own them. Learn from them. Improve upon them.
...oh yeah.
And profit.
'
Does the OT equal what he receives in EBT? If it does not why would he work overtime?
and what is wrong with that, 22? If he wants to live "that way" so be it...it is a free country. We can't all be as ambitious as you. We can only aspire to be like you.
It's not a "free country" when money is extracted from people's pockets to give to some jerk that doesn't want to work too hard.
Life is not fair. Do you really worry about that jerk? Trad...life is way tooo short, isn't it?
I'm not sure how it pencils out. I do know that he doesn't seem to mind telling people about it.
The origins of the 40 hour week goes back a ways. If the National Labor Union would have decided that 9 hour days were good we would be talking about a 45 hour work week.
Of course the ACLU will ask for rehearing, and it will be denied. It was only a 2-1 decision because of a idiotic dissent from one liberal democrat appointee. The decision was well-reasoned and supported by substantial precedent.
