Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Teacher's New Contract

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Teacher's New Contract

    Originally posted by GnosticWarrior View Post
    Just for the record, I am pro Pakalolo, peyote, LSD, DMT, Psilocybin and other conscious enhancing drugs.

    However, your choice of employer is voluntary. I don't see any violation of the constitution. The constitution does not grant you the right to employment.
    So if every single employer, public and private, mandated drug testing, would that end the problem of abuse? Because then, addicts would have no "safe" places to work where they would be immune from testing. Would they all go on welfare? Or all become bank robbers or murderers in order to feed their addictions?

    Miulang
    "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

    Comment


    • Re: Teacher's New Contract

      Originally posted by Miulang View Post
      So if every single employer, public and private, mandated drug testing, would that end the problem of abuse? Because then, addicts would have no "safe" places to work where they would be immune from testing. Would they all go on welfare? Or all become bank robbers or murderers in order to feed their addictions?
      Employers by nature want to cut cost. Some must have done an analysis of the cost effectiveness of drug testing. For private employers, profits are the bottom line. The cost of drug testing ultimately falls on the consumer or taxpayer. As long as people are willing to pay the higher costs due to the drug testing, the employer will keep mandating it. There are some jobs offered by corporations that don't drug test. I had no pre-employment or random drug testing to work at 7-Eleven. Maybe it changed since then?

      As long as people will continue to sue employers bcs they hired someone who was under the influence of drugs, the employer would want to test their employees. If you was a small business owner, and had to put up a financial risk to hire an employee and could also be held liable for their conduct on the job, you might think that it is a pretty good right to drug test them. If you were the owner, you would want to know every single piece of information about your employee that you could legally obtain. The limiting factor would be the cost to acquire such information.

      If drug testing were not cost effective, someone might get the bright idea of starting a business that chooses not to test their employees and gain an edge by having lower costs, versus the competition.

      Most people brought up their view points of the rights of the individual. Just wanted to bring up the rights of an employer.

      Comment


      • Re: Teacher's New Contract

        Originally posted by pzarquon View Post
        Wow. I don't think I've ever felt better to see a workforce elect to have drug testing than this very moment.

        Private companies have been able to require drug testing for years. Most of those employees didn't have the benefit of an all-powerful union to fight it. You want to work at Company X, you take the test. Even if your job doesn't bring you in contact with kids, little fluffy bunnies, or anyone or anything else, for that matter.

        I had random drug testing at my last job, and I sat in a cubicle and worked on manuals and policies all day.

        Public school teachers are not private employees of private companies. They'd be the first to tell you they're "special," with an all-important mission, and meanwhile paid by everyone, even people who don't consume their services. But they do have an all powerful union to fight for them. They're lucky to even have the choice to vote on this question.

        And it looks like they're going to approve it. In part, of course, because with the stick comes the carrot of a raise. But in part, I'm certain, because they're just as annoyed with the effect drugs have on their ranks than anyone else would be.

        And for the record, the provisions for a teacher who tests positive seem positively generous compared to most zero-tolerance, one-strike arrangements. Even if a teacher is an addict, they're going to work to get them back on track and back in the classroom. I doubt everyone would be so forgiving.

        When it comes to the question of drug tests, I certainly don't think there's sinister specter of absolute catastrophe, some unproven, immediate danger posed to our children where drug addicts threaten the very fabric of our education system. I don't think that we need to act "proactively" against all teachers because of one teacher that might be a disaster waiting to happen. I agree, there are a lot more real threats out there.

        But frankly, if drug tests are keeping widgets flowing over at Bob's Widget Co., I would almost expect they'd be applied to the people who are teaching my kids.You like to say this, I see. It's your choice to "opt out," and more power to you, man. But I guess I have more confidence in public school teachers than you, or than most, 'cause of those things my kids are probably missing out on, teachers who don't like drug tests aren't high on the list.
        I have been a member of one union or another for nearly all my professional life, which amounts to over three decades.

        Drug tests were not required years ago but times have changed. Unionized or not, many if not most health care facilities require pre-employment drug testing. I am pretty sure that the places I have worked in recently could also request that an employee submit to a drug screen if he or she were suspected of being under the influence.

        I have also worked with more than a few nurses who were substance abusers. One guy was sharing morphine with the burn unit patients and stealing their fentanyl patches. He collapsed in the burn unit bathroom behind a locked door. That was a fun evening for all involved.

        He went through rehab, came back to work, and did it again. Rehab again. Slipped again. This time he was out---no more chances. He actually went to court to try and get his job back but that didn't fly.

        Do I mind drug screening? Nope. Do I feel that my rights are being violated? Nope.

        Do I think that those who are substance abusers deserve a chance at rehabilitation? Certainly. Many workplaces provide for employee assistance in such cases and they should. If we subscribe to the belief that addiction is an illness then we owe the victims of that illness all the treatment we would offer for those suffering from other illnesses. But yes, they should be pulled off the job if they test dirty.

        Why should teachers be exempt from the scrutiny of drug screening? Because they are held to higher standards? Nurses are not?

        The healthcare profession has accepted that drug abuse can be a problem with its workers. It has accepted that nurses and other health care workers are human with all that being human entails, including frailties that lead to us being less than perfect in many areas.

        Teachers are somehow different, more special, less human?
        Last edited by WindwardOahuRN; May 1, 2007, 11:59 AM.

        Comment


        • Re: Teacher's New Contract

          Originally posted by WindwardOahuRN View Post
          The healthcare profession has accepted that drug abuse can be a problem with its workers. It has accepted that nurses and other health care workers are human with all that being human entails, including frailties that lead to us being less than perfect in many areas.

          Teachers are somehow different, more special, less human?
          While I have a great number of things to say here, I'm going to limit myself to one, mostly because I'm at work and have to get to something in a minute. I want you to understand that I am not saying teachers are "more special" than nurses. It might be construed this way if I ever agreed that you should be required to test and teachers not. I honestly don't know how I feel about that; there are issues more complex than I'm willing to leap to conclusions about there.

          Just try to understand this: If someone accepts one condition of employment and someone from another profession does not, there is no implication that the refuser thinks he is special. Different, sure. We have different jobs and we are different people. What's at stake when you screw up and what's at stake when I screw up are different. Please don't interpret anything I've said as implying I'm more special than you.
          But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
          GrouchyTeacher.com

          Comment


          • Re: Teacher's New Contract

            Originally posted by scrivener View Post
            While I have a great number of things to say here, I'm going to limit myself to one, mostly because I'm at work and have to get to something in a minute. I want you to understand that I am not saying teachers are "more special" than nurses. It might be construed this way if I ever agreed that you should be required to test and teachers not. I honestly don't know how I feel about that; there are issues more complex than I'm willing to leap to conclusions about there.

            Just try to understand this: If someone accepts one condition of employment and someone from another profession does not, there is no implication that the refuser thinks he is special. Different, sure. We have different jobs and we are different people. What's at stake when you screw up and what's at stake when I screw up are different. Please don't interpret anything I've said as implying I'm more special than you.
            What is at stake minimally, when either of us screws up, is the trust that the public inherently places in us. The trust that those for whom we have, in good faith, taken responsibility are indeed safe. That we are trustworthy and have nothing but the best interest of our charges at heart.

            Whether I would be more likely to kill someone due to a screw up is not the issue, IMHO.

            As stated previously employers are increasingly likely to require drug screening even of employees whose jobs would have very little likelihood of impacting others negatively if those employees were screwing up on the job due to substance abuse.

            Sears, for example, requires drug screening for applicants for cashier positions. With the exception of delivering incorrect change, slamming fingers in cash drawers or being a general annoyance to others I can't think of much that they would do that would result in injury to others on the job. I suppose there is the supposition that drug users would be more likely to lift from the till, too.

            So I'm sorry but the "you can do a lot more harm to others than I can if either of us screws up" argument does just not hold water.

            In our professions, especially, it is a huge issue of trust.

            Comment


            • Re: Teacher's New Contract

              Originally posted by WindwardOahuRN View Post
              So I'm sorry but the "you can do a lot more harm to others than I can if either of us screws up" argument does just not hold water.
              I never said this; nor did I imply it.
              But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
              GrouchyTeacher.com

              Comment


              • Re: Teacher's New Contract

                Originally posted by scrivener View Post
                Just try to understand this: If someone accepts one condition of employment and someone from another profession does not, there is no implication that the refuser thinks he is special. Different, sure. We have different jobs and we are different people. What's at stake when you screw up and what's at stake when I screw up are different.
                What is the difference between the teachers and the nurses, and how is this difference so different than the difference between bus drivers and police officers, in terms of what's at stake?

                pax

                Comment


                • Re: Teacher's New Contract

                  Originally posted by scrivener View Post
                  I never said this; nor did I imply it.
                  Then I apologize for the misinterpretation. Just what did you mean, then, by saying "What's at stake when you screw up and what's at stake when I screw up are different."?

                  Okay---you used the word "different."

                  But to me the implication is that I can do more harm than you can.

                  The fact that either of us is capable of inflicting harm on others if we practice under the influence is the issue, IMHO---not the type or degree of harm which we might be capable of inflicting. What either of us, or any other person, might do while under the influence and its possible impact on others can be argued ad nauseum.

                  Any type of harm at any level is unacceptable, given the trust that has been placed in us.
                  Last edited by WindwardOahuRN; May 1, 2007, 02:15 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Teacher's New Contract

                    .
                    "...inflicting harm on others if we practice under the influence is the issue..."

                    Coming from an alleged RN such a statement makes one question more than her sobriety at the moment when the issue being discussed is urine testing subjects for drug use.

                    Practicing under the influence? A blood alcohol level test can most always, a breath analyzer test for alcohol content can usually provide information that relates to one's immediate realtive degree of "being under the influence", but, urine tests do not reveal such regarding chemicals and chemical components. Instead the tests are designed to determine not a subject's actually "being under the influence" at the moment of acquiring a test sample and are limited to determining the possibility that a subject may have been under the influence at some time (up to three weeks in some cases) in the past.

                    Choosing between a professional teacher and a medical professional who practices under the influence of false presumptions? ---I'll choose the teacher anytime!

                    Teachers are advised not be on the internet for personal use during classtime work hours. What about nurses, are they permitted personal use of their own or their employer's computers during working hours?
                    Last edited by waioli kai; May 2, 2007, 06:54 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Teacher's New Contract

                      Originally posted by waioli kai View Post
                      .
                      "...inflicting harm on others if we practice under the influence is the issue..."

                      Coming from an alleged RN such a statement makes one question more than her sobriety at the moment when the issue being discussed is urine testing subjects for drug use.

                      Practicing under the influence? A blood alcohol level test can most always, a breath analyzer test for alcohol content can usually provide information that relates to one's immediate realtive degree of "being under the influence", but, urine tests do not reveal such regarding chemicals and chemical components. Instead the tests are designed to determine not a subject's actually "being under the influence" at the moment of acquiring a test sample and are limited to determining the possibility that a subject may have been under the influence at some time (up to three weeks in some cases) in the past.

                      Choosing between a professional teacher and a medical professional who practices under the influence of false presumptions? ---I'll choose the teacher anytime!

                      Teachers are advised not be on the internet for personal use during classtime work hours. What about nurses, are they permitted personal use of their own or their employer's computers during working hours?
                      I honestly have never seen urine tests used for alcohol screening. They would be extremely unreliable. Breathalyzer analysis is more reliable, analyzing blood levels is most reliable.

                      As far as your "alleged" crack I'll just consider the source and bid you a good day. If that was supposed to be an irritant rest assured that it got nothing but a hearty chuckle in light of what I've been doing for the last thirteen hours or so.

                      Have you no one more exciting to try to goad this early in the morning?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Teacher's New Contract

                        [QUOTE=GnosticWarrior;144115]Just for the record, I am pro Pakalolo, peyote, LSD, DMT, Psilocybin and other conscious enhancing drugs.
                        QUOTE]

                        Just for the record, I had a friend who was also pro all that stuff, not limited to but also including GHB, K, and other things. He eventually went on disability and syphoned off thousands of taxpayers money because he did too many drugs as a teen (and adult). He had a child with a woman that took said child and moved far, far away and subsequently died of alcohol poisoning not many years later.
                        Sadly, he was genius-level IQ at one time and a talented audio engineer.
                        Off topic, but had to be said.
                        Aquaponics in Paradise !

                        Comment


                        • Re: Teacher's New Contract

                          [quote=Hellbent;144323]
                          Originally posted by GnosticWarrior View Post
                          Just for the record, I am pro Pakalolo, peyote, LSD, DMT, Psilocybin and other conscious enhancing drugs.
                          QUOTE]

                          Just for the record, I had a friend who was also pro all that stuff, not limited to but also including GHB, K, and other things. He eventually went on disability and syphoned off thousands of taxpayers money because he did too many drugs as a teen (and adult). He had a child with a woman that took said child and moved far, far away and subsequently died of alcohol poisoning not many years later.
                          Sadly, he was genius-level IQ at one time and a talented audio engineer.
                          Off topic, but had to be said.
                          I hear you there, Hellbent! I know people who hurt themselves and others thru the misuse of drugs. Also I myself have misused in the past and hope not to in the future. But, I've come to the conclusion that drugs is not the actual culprit of them problem. It goes deeper into the individual. All people have vices and character flaws that are impeding them from achieving their maximum potential. We are all on our own path towards perfection.

                          Human beings have a tendency to misues the resources provided to them. Things can be used as tools to help or weapons to hurt. It's proper application lies with the user. And so the user must be educated. Right now, with regard to illicit drugs, there is too much propaganda instead of real information being spread.

                          Due to the mindset of society, real research on the practical applications of the drugs I mentioned have been stifled. One of the leading researchers/scientists was Alexander Shulgin. He even was the one that helped the DEA develop the scheduled classifications of various drugs. The DEA, did not like his personal research and shut him down.

                          I know, its hard to imagine that a DRUG could actually be a tool to help people overcome some of the mental obstacles that are impeding themselves.
                          Last edited by GnosticWarrior; May 2, 2007, 12:57 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Teacher's New Contract

                            My last off-topic post in this thread.

                            You sound just like he did, he read Erowid.com, noted that various drugs were legally prescribed drugs by psychiatrists at some point, and self-medicated.
                            I'm not lecturing you, I agree that it varies on the user - but he had a predisposition to addcition / would eat any drugs that were lying around and/or were infront of him and he thought he had it under control. At the last spirals he knew he had problems but just couldnt stay on the wagon. Not even for his life or his daughter's sake.
                            Aquaponics in Paradise !

                            Comment


                            • Re: Teacher's New Contract

                              The results will not be released to the media until 6:30pm ,This is according to a memo this morning.
                              Listen to KEITH AND THE GIRLsigpic

                              Stupid people come in all flavors-buzz1941
                              Flickr

                              Comment


                              • Re: Teacher's New Contract

                                results were announced: 61% approved, 38% said no, 1% votes were rejected.
                                "Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be."
                                – Sydney J. Harris

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X