7 votes

Employee required to pee in a cup because he accidentally broke the window on his company van

A buddy of mine has been working at Coca Cola for at least 20 years. He passed me on the road the other day and I noticed his rear window was broken. I called him on my cell to give him a hard time...thinking he backed into something or whatever. He told me that he had some long light bulbs in his van and when he took off they slid and busted the window. He then said his company made him fill out a report and take an impromptu drug test.

My buddy is about 55 years old and has never used drugs. He actually annoys me he is so anti-drug...but whatever.

I told him that if more people don't start pushing back against such retarded rules and regulations that our children are going to be seriously used and abused by our corporate fascist State. He said he needed his job and he would do whatever he had to in order to keep it.

I asked him if they required him to have a red hot poker stuck up his a$$ every six months if he go along with that to keep his job? He laughed and said...well, I doubt it will ever come to that.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Mandatory drug testing

Is one of the most common sense rules ever created. I work in the oil industry, and drug testing is pretty much standard all over. I am quite happy about that - who wants to be looking over their shoulder worrying about some drugged up idiot in a backhoe, driving a truck or on a pile driver or crane?

There are enough idiots to worry about as there is.

The company needs to downsize employees, is looking for

valid reasons to do so.

Nearly the exact scenario happened to my brother 5 years ago when the HVAC company he worked for for four (4) years fired him for a minor mistake. It made no sense and he was shell-shocked until he found out the next day that 3 or 4 (four) other long-term employees were also let go. This coupled to the fact that the company was moving to a new facility 5 miles away and would have access to new employees that could start at the bottom of the wage scale.

Also, drug tests ain't cheap. Even if it comes out negative it will still be on his record that a test was ordered which may later be given as an additional reason (on top of whatever else they concoct) for why the decision to let him go was made.

The test results may also come back positive through error or by design. Not to say that the company heads are a bunch of evil prigs that way but it's likely that at least one person in the HR dept lives by the same motto as Mitt Ramen Noodle - 'I love firing people.'

How to tell if a panda's been eyeballin' your woman - next Focus on Pandas

It's darkly comedic...

how people brush off the mountain of absurdities the State pushes on them coercively, and then go ballistic when a company they voluntarily associate with does one little thing they object to.

I wish people had this kind of outrage against the state.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

158 year old secret still kept in a guarded vault in Georgia?

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Coca-Cola is a private company

they can require whatever they want of their employees wrt drug testing. If the employees don't want to work in an environment that requires drug testing, either randomly or after certain circumstances, then they can work elsewhere.

My parents owned a small business for 30+ years. They had one of their "managers" who was living in a company-provided mobile home sell all the furniture and everything not nailed down inside to buy drugs. It was at that time my dad considered requiring drug tests for employees.

If/when I ever own a company, I will likely do random drug tests as well to help prevent the losses that my dad's business went through with that bad employee.

Like I said, if the employee doesn't agree with drug testing then there are other jobs and employers out there.

Our family's journey from the Rocket City to the Redoubt: www.suburbiatosimplicity.com

How did companys deal with the issue prior to drug testing?

Also, I find your story bizarre:
"My parents owned a small business for 30+ years. They had one of their "managers" who was living in a company-provided mobile home sell all the furniture and everything not nailed down inside to buy drugs. It was at that time my dad considered requiring drug tests for employees."

You need drug testing to confirm this guy was using drugs? Once the guy started selling $hit from a company owned home...I'd have gotten a clue the guy was not to be trusted.

As far as getting another job...thats getting to be impossible. Its been a while since I've worked for someone else but last time I was filling out apps...it seems everyone was drug testing. Of course congress and bankers are exempted...in fact most "executives" are not subjected to the same rules as the rank and file...BUT, I can promise you...the % of executives that use drugs is the same as the % of rank and file who use drugs...execs are just "above" having to deal with such issues. (I'm 50 and I've been to many parties thrown by associates who I worked with in administration and drugs were always available at one of the tables by the pool or outside in the garage)

My problem with the coke driver is the guy had already been drug tested in the past as part of his condition of employment. He has been working there for 20 years and there is zero probable cause to think he has ever used drugs but "policy" demands he prove he is innocent. And yes I'm aware that insurance companys "require" this stuff now but its the collusion of corporations, government, law enforcement, medical mafia, etc that are making it impossible to live how you choose to live and still be able to secure a job of any kind if you choose to injest a substance that The State has decided it does not want you to injest.

I can't think of a single drug that is more dangerous and causes more lost work hours than alcohol. I'd MUCH rather hire someone that smokes weed or uses some other drug than I would a heavy drinker. As long as the person is not impaired or dangerous what difference is it to me what a person chooses to consume in order to make themselves feel good or be happy? Its perfectly fine to get hooked on psychotropic meds like antidepressents and get a job anywhere. The government is not against drugs...they are just against drugs that THEY don't deal to you.

Pushing back

The only valid way to do that is to quit and then start your own business that doesn't do such things.

Political activism, on the other hand, is inherently immoral.

Nothing wrong

if private company wants employees who do not use drugs. Only idiotic portion of Libertarians (populists) want to legalize drugs in order to use drugs themselves. Normal people would like to keep their faculty of reason unmolested by drugs, alcohol, etc.

Not necessarily, history has

Not necessarily, history has shown that the urge to alter one's conscious is as basic as eating, drinking etc. Your statement is a sweeping generalization- there are even accounts of our founding fathers such as Thomas Jefferson smoking cannabis. Drugs should be legal becuase we have a right to our own bodies and it is not up to the government to determine what is moral or not. As long as taking drugs does not infringe on the rights of others such as driving high etc. there should not be laws prohibiting it.

I do agree with your first statement however. If a private company wants to drug test their employees, they have every right to do so. If you want work and want to take drugs you should find a company that allows you to do so as part of the free market labor system.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

+1, but just want to stress

+1, but just want to stress that not everyone who wants to legalize drugs wants to use them or have anything to do with them personally. Totally agree though.

End The Fed!
BTC: 1A3JAJwLVG2pz8GLfdgWhcePMtc3ozgWtz

Correct

Legalization of drugs has two components 1) progmatic (to stop black market, criminals and preying on children); 2) moral (one cannot make a person acquire virtues by force), otherwise freedom is lost for "common good."

Long light bulbs? Sounds like they might

have been fluorescent. Possibly his employer was following EU protocol: "In the European Union, CFLs are one of many products subject to the WEEE recycling scheme." :) Anyway, if the job entailed transport of FL's, I'm curious if the EMPLOYER was forced to take samples to ensure there were no harmful remains in the truck.

"...it remains unclear what the health risks are from short-term exposure to low levels of elemental mercury.[64] Despite following EPA best-practice clean-up guidelines on broken CFLs, researchers were unable to remove mercury from carpet, and agitation of the carpet — such as by young children playing — created localized concentrations as high as 0.025 mg/m3 in air close to the carpet, even weeks after the initial breakage." See "Broken and discarded lamps" under "Disadvantages" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

go213mph, re your remark on our corporate fascist state, you might be interested to see: http://www.dailypaul.com/278081/new-jersey-woman-arrested-fo...

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

:o)

pee in cup > minimum wage

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

Pleased to hear report that Coca Cola is concerned about health.

There is so little evidence that Coca Cola ® is concerned about what chemicals we ingest. Beyond reports of liquids being consumed from a Pepsi ® Cola bottle, I was not aware Coca Cola had any concerns.

Might Coca Cola grade their own Coke ® concoction health effects? Might boxing federations approve of the known health risks of such drinking?

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Are you referring to high fructose corn syrup

and possible connections to metabolic syndrome, obesity, diabetes, autism, and other health problems that corelate with the substitution of HFCS for natural sugar?

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2008/dec2008_Metabolic-Danger...
http://jp.physoc.org/content/590/10/2485.full

Or perhaps the gmo aspect of the corn in HFCS? (It happens to be top of mind on account of the CVS post I just commented on re risky choices.)

Or something in Coke unrelated to high fructose corn syrup altogether?

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Lest we forget Cocaine, Alcohol & other secret ingredients.

http://www.teachat.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15128 Coca Cola recipe 'discovered?' After discovery, is it still a secret recipe? Original? When did coca disappear?

The official recipe is said to be guarded 24-hours a day in a vault in Atlanta, Georgia. The 'secret recipe:'
Fluid extract of Coca 3 drams USP

    Citric acid 3 oz
    Caffeine 1oz
    Sugar 30 (marking unclear on quantity)
    Water 2.5 gal
    Lime juice 2 pints 1 qrt
    Vanilla 1oz
    Caramel 1.5oz or more to colour
    7X flavour (use 2oz of flavour to 5 gals syrup):
      Alcohol 8oz
      Orange oil 20 drops
      Lemon oil 30 drops
      Nutmeg oil 10 drops
      Coriander 5 drops
      Neroli 10 drops
      Cinnamon 10 drops

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

meekandmild's picture

This has been going on for years

Commercial truck drives have been doing this since at least the 1990s maybe earlier, As well as random drug tests.

158 years ago Coca Cola was delivered by horse carriage, boat...

Or by train.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

its an insurance rule

probably has some laws that require it too.