1062
Some people are so greedy.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
1062 points (96.4% liked)
Antiwork
3627 readers
1 users here now
A community for those who want to end work, are curious about ending work, want to get the most out of a work-free life, want more information on anti-work ideas and want personal help with their own jobs/work-related struggles.
The new place for c/antiwork@lemmy.fmhy.ml
This server is no longer working, and we had to move.
Active stats from all instances
Subscribers: 2.1k
Date Created: June 21, 2023
Library copied from reddit:
The Anti-Work Library 📚
Essential Reads
Start here! These are probably the most talked-about essays on the topic.
- The Abolition of Work by Bob Black (1985) | listen
- On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber (2013) | listen
- In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell (1932) | listen
c/Antiwork Rules
Tap or click to expand
1. Server Main Rules
The main rules of the server will be enforced stringently. https://lemmy.world/
2. No spam or reposts + limit off topic comments
Spamming posts will be removed. Reposts will be removed with the exception of a repost becoming the main hub for discussion on that topic.
Off topic comments that do not pertain to the post at hand may be removed if it is deemed they contribute nothing and/or foster hostility at users. This mostly applies to political and religious debate, but can be applied to other things at the mod’s discretion.
3. Post must have Antiwork/ Work Reform explicitly involved
Post must have Antiwork/Work Reform explicitly involved in some capacity. This can be talking about antiwork, work reform, laws, and ext.
4. Educate don’t attack
No mocking, demeaning, flamebaiting, purposeful antagonizing, trolling, hateful language, false accusation or allegation, or backseat moderating is allowed. Don’t resort to ad hominem attacks against another user or insult other people, examples of violations would be going after the person rather than the stance they take.
If we feel the comment is uncalled for we will remove it. Stay civil and there won’t be problems.
5. No Advertising
Under no circumstance are you allowed to promote or advertise any product or service
6. No factually misleading information
Content that makes claims or implications that can be proven false or misleading will be removed.
7. Headlines
If the title of the post isn’t an original title of the article then the first thing in the body of the post should be an original title written in this format “Original title: {title here}”.
8. Staff Discretion
Staff can take disciplinary action on offenses not listed in the rules when a community member's actions or general conduct creates a negative experience for another player and/or the community.
It is impossible to list every example or variation of the rules. It is also impossible to word everything perfectly. Players are expected to understand the intent of the rules and not attempt to "toe the line" or use loopholes to get around the intent of the rule.
Other Communities
Server status for big servers http://lemmy-status.org/
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
it's really insane how invasive drug tests are and how people think it's totally fine for companies to do
The population seems complacent to accept that employers seek unlimited power, merely because no other channel is available for earning one's survival.
No way of relating to an abusive system is ever considered, except capitulation.
In fact, I feel alarmed at how readily many will imagine some grave threat from a hypothetical coworker who uses substances, without ever considering the threat of abandoning one's own privacy.
I'm divided on this one. I think testing is ultimately wrong but I would also like for a way that hr can determine my company won't hire a coke head.
What are your thoughts on this and what would you propose instead?
If it's not noticeable enough that you need to look at their pee, it's not a big deal. If it is noticeable enough that it affects their work performance, then you don't need to even test for it.
But you’re happy to work with alcoholics, as it’s legal? What is about coke heads you don’t want to work with? What about stoners? Benzo heads?
Shouldn’t we judge people on their work and not their extra curricular activities.
I would hate to be so biased for no reason whatsoever.
Why not judge them based on their work and performance? The employer is entirely free to hire or fire someone for how they perform on the job, especially in at will states.
If someone has a drug problem that impacts their performance, get rid of them.
If someone has a drug addiction that doesn’t impact their work, is it really something their employer needs to police?
Cocaine is a poor example because it is out of most people's urine and blood very quickly. Same with Meth. You probably already work with some people who use, they just know how to hide it and not let it affect their work performance.
These drug tests almost exclusively catch marijuana users. They are also very easy to bypass with synthetic urine, mouthwash, and detox. I used to work at a shop that sold these products and helped people pass drug tests every day.
Hair samples drug tests are the most reliable test method if you really are looking to not hire coke users. Hair samples can show drug use going back many months and even years, so it is way overly intrusive and often catches people who haven't used in a long time. They also make shampoos to help people pass these, but I know they are difficult to use.
My question to you is, Why do you care what someone does drugs if it doesn't affect their work, even harder ones? There are plenty of nice normal people who use drugs that you would never know.
Personally, I just think drug tests are mostly a waste of money and are detrimental to employee rights. I don't think a company should get to tell their employees what they can and can't do in their freetime. The severely addicted people with problems will make themselves known through poor work performance.
Honestly, why does it matter? If they behave inappropriately or don't do their work, that's cause to fire them. Who cares what drugs they may or may not use if it doesn't effect their behavior at work?
Hopefully they get caught in the "is this guy a lunatic" phase of the interview process. If they are functional and otherwise normal and reasonable then who cares if they've got an eight ball in their pocket.
Related story: my ex worked at a vet clinic for a while. She said they hired a new vet tech and he got fired on day one. He'd stolen some animal tranquilizers or something and disappeared. They found him passed out in his car drooling. Called the cops/ambulance and fired him on the spot obviously.
Point is, crazies are easy to spot, who cares what otherwise normal well adjusted people do.
But wouldn't you want to prevent that from happening ?
He could've easily been sober and outside the test's sensitivity window. Pass, then still go on to steal horse tranquilizers and get his shit fucked. The test is always an invasion of privacy and only sometimes detect risky persons. Mind you, sometimes it will also give out a false positive and make you refuse a perfectly sober person.
Counterpoint:
A company should not care whether someone is a cokehead.
They should care whether they're reliable, competent etc.
There's established methods of figuring those things out without a drug test.
You act like companies do this because they want to. They do it because they can't get insurance if they don't because drugs are illegal and they refuse to insure people participating in illegal activities.
That makes no sense unless people are doing the drugs at work. Why would an insurance company not underwrite a company based on what their employees do in their free time?
My brother in law is the owner of a electrician company, we live in Washington state where cannabis is legal. His insurance company will drop him if they don't have a strong anti drug policy. It's pretty lame.
How would you prove that the drugs were only taken during off hours? Drug use is stigmatized to the point that anyone who uses illicit substances must be an addict. It is an excuse for an insurance company not to pay a claim and they simply won't insure drug users. You may not like it but that's simply the way it works
You couldn't. And I don't even care if they're an addict. If they smoke meth daily or drink twelve beers when they get home, so what? As long as they can do their job, fine. I worked with a major alcoholic. He was an asshole, but he got his job done and did it well. So apart from it being unpleasant to work with him, who cares? And if it was cocaine or meth or whatever instead, again, who cares?
You just gave me an idea.
What if insurance were underwritten by a company?
I smell profit.