April 2010 Weddings
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
How's this for an article of the day
I hate our governor. Hate Hate Hate. This is an article from the LA TIMES (aka the other side of the country) about how Gov. Scott of Florida has signed into law random drug testing of state employees. Obviously I have nothing to hide, but I do not enjoy peeing into a cup, and I don't think the taxpayers of Florida would really believe that's a good use of their dollars.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/os-rick-scott-drug-testing-state-work20110322,0,2150123.story
Re: How's this for an article of the day
i agree with you. i also agree with the welfare testing. FOR SURE. if there is reasonable suspicion then the employer should have every right to test, but as far as random? that's not a good idea.
also found this interesting line: A chain of medical clinics formerly owned by Scott called Solantic, which he has now transferred to his wife, advertises drug testing for employers as one of its services. (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/mar/24/bills-would-require-welfare-applicants-to-take-pay/news-breaking/)
i would also like to know what they are testing for as well...
9 Glorious Months!
My Photography Blog!
OMG! This guy is really a scumbag. Florida is a VERY republican State and the democratic candidate came very close to beating him, which says a lot here. Bahhhhhh......[NEED FOR NEW JOB RISES]
I applied for a job in security for a private company and had to do a drug test in order to be considered for employment. It was a little annoying, but I did it, and I don't think it was any violation of my constitutional rights. Obviously companies (state and private) want to make sure their employees aren't doing illegal things, and state employees are regarded higher than private companies because they reflect the state.
The article quotes, "The state of Florida cannot force people to surrender their constitutional rights in order to work for the state. Absent any evidence of illegal drug use, or assigned a safety-sensitive job, people have a right to be left alone." Are they trying to say it's a violation of the "unreasonable search and seizure" ammendment? Sometimes the ACLU infuriates me because they seem to focus on a lot of petty things when they could be focusing on bigger items. It's just peeing in a cup, it's not like they want to do a body cavity search.
I mean, if you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't be worried. Are there any statistics if random drug testing is actually worth the $$ put in? That would be interesting to see if there's any correlation.
Tales From a Kitchen Misfit
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="D
First of all, I think applying to work in security is definitely different. That would fall under "safety-sensitive" job in my opinion. And frankly I wouldn't have minded taking a drug test upon hiring. But if there is no reason to suspect drug use during the course of employment, then yes it is a violation of the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Forcing someone to provide a sample of breath, blood, urine, etc. is a search, which is why there has to be probable cause for a DUI (for example) before the police can just make you pee in a cup or blow to test your blood alcohol content. No probable cause = no search allowed.
If someone came in my office right now and told me I had to go pee in a cup, yeah I'd be pissed. It would be clean but that doesn't mean I should be made to feel like one of my clients who is on probation. However definitely the cost is what pisses me off the most. Drug tests are like $20 a pop. Multiply that by the number of State employees and that's A LOT of money to be spent on people who aren't exhibiting signs of drug use or poor job performance, especially when job and salary cuts are being threatened b/c our deficit is so high.
I see where you are coming from Rachel and I think it makes sense. I'd still be curious to see if there are any benefits to the random drug testing anyway. I didn't realize that there were job and salary cuts going on, so I agree that it's probably not the right time to enact mandatory random drug testing especially if there's no evidence that drug abuse is happening. Are there any kinds of rules that you have to submit to a random drug test if you are suspected of being on any kind of narcotics or that you have to submit to a drug test in order to accept employment?
Tales From a Kitchen Misfit
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="D
Something smells fishy here. . . I agree with Mandah that peeing in a cup is irritating but not REALLY a big deal. But, there are a few things that irk me here: 1. how is he going to pay for this? will he raise taxes, and if so, will the people of Florida really think this is a necessary program? 2. Like dayzchic9 pointed out, where is this money going? If it really is going to his wife's company, there needs to be a second party to agree to this program. 3. Why an executive order? This should be something that is decided by the legislature or even the people themselves. I would be more inclined to support this if it were passed by the people as a proposition. PLUS this exact program has been deemed unconstitutional by the courts, you can't just ignore whole sectors of government here!
Thanks for the article, I hadn't heard about this.
Post-Wedding Life Blog!
A10 Siggy Challenge: Next Vacation Destination: San Francisco!
@Mandah - i would like to see statistics, too, but unfortunately I don't think that's something he considered in enacting this
@Margaret - yes the people of Florida would pay for it. I don't know where the money would go, but it's definitely fishy with his wife having that company! It's more disturbing because he's already been taken to court by Congress once (and he's only been in office a number of months!) for unilaterally refusing federal runding for a rail project, although the Fl. Supreme Court did say he was acting within his authority to do that. But, yeah, there's a lot of executive decisions being made without the support of the people
I like this one!
Okay, first of all, about the spending. It is INSANE! Jeff's company did random drug tests quarterly, and, of course, never found a single positive. It cost them thousands of dollars. I can't even imagine what it would cost the state of Florida. If someone is abusing drugs, you would be able to TELL. Trust me, Rach couldn't go in there and make a good case in front of a jury if she was twacked out of her mind.
I also would be interested in what they are testing for. If it purely for weed, that is the biggest joke on the planet. I don't smoke weed, but I also don't understand why it is illegal. I, personally, find it to be way less of a problem than alcohol is. Want to talk about a way to get our government out of debt! But...this is a different argument all together.
I do, however, support random drug screening for people on welfare (not unemployment, that's different). If we have to take drug screens to earn that money, you should have to take one to receive it! The costs, as far as that goes, if you only tested say 33% of people on welfare, but make it completely random, and took out the money to pay for it from the welfare fund as a whole initially, the money that wouldn't be handed over to someone that failed their UA would eventually more than cover the costs. It is absolutely insane to me that this isn't being done yet. And, it might (gasp!) actually create some REAL jobs that will STAY by hiring people to do the testing, rather than hire another company to do it that can jack up the prices whenever they want. I hear some complaints about, well, if someone fails a UA, doesn't get their welfare check, then what about their children. Okay, so let's think about this...so, you want to continue handing money over to someone that is USING that money to pay for DRUGS and you think that is a good place for that child to be? People don't want to take the drug tests, fine, get off of welfare. And if you are a person that really needs it, then stop using drugs! Want to continue to get twacked, get a job...but they would currently have to pass a UA, so it is easier to not get a job for those that want to be addicts and do nothing else. This arguement has NOTHING to do with those that actually need welfare, are trying their hardest, and are not using. That is what the system is FOR! But we need to stop letting people abuse it!
Tales From a Kitchen Misfit
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="D
I didn't know that part but
Thank you Danie! That is my poison of choice (tho obv not at work and typically in the baked goods form) and it is unfortunate that it stays in your system for a month +. Thankfully I don't have to do any testing for this job but if i did it would be unfortunate as it does in NO WAY impede my ability to teach. I am all for the "legalization" to help unburden the financial state of the nation. I could go on and on on this topic - but, that's for another day.
9 Glorious Months!
My Photography Blog!