Ferry crews warned against smoking pot

[Reuters]

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - Transportation investigators warned on Wednesday that marijuana use by ferry crews on Canada's West Coast was a clear risk to public safety, but the head of BC Ferries Corp said the government should require mandatory drug testing.

Reuters

 

[Kreskin]

This is turning into a heated debate in BC.

 

[flutterby]

if a worker tests positive for pot, it doesn't mean they smoked it on the job, or even that day.

 

[gerryh]

if a worker tests positive for pot, it doesn't mean they smoked it on the job, or even that day.

Considering "pot" is illegal....it doesn't matter.

 

[s243a]

Considering "pot" is illegal....it doesn't matter.

I hate how companies try to control peoples off the job actives. When it harms no one what people do off the job is not the employers business. It is pretty much government sanctioned discrimination.

 

[gerryh]

I hate how companies try to control peoples off the job actives. When it harms no one what people do off the job is not the employers business. It is pretty much government sanctioned discrimination.

Really? Why should an employer keep employed someone that engages in an illegal activity on OR off the job?

 

[flutterby]

if it affects their job performance, then i agree with the testing. but to randomly check if employees are doing something illegal on their off time isn't right. should they also check for other illegal activities?

 

[gerryh]

if it affects their job performance, then i agree with the testing. but to randomly check if employees are doing something illegal on their off time isn't right. should they also check for other illegal activities?

So....when they sink another Ferry.....then they test for drugs? A little late by then..wouldn't you say?

 

[gerryh]

Besides...if they don't like the idea of random drug tests...they can always work somewhere else.

 

[flutterby]

So....when they sink another Ferry.....then they test for drugs? A little late by then..wouldn't you say?

i thought the ferry sank because there was only one person on the bridge.

 

[Kreskin]

The other had the munchies; went to the cafeteria.

 

[flutterby]

first it was sex. now drugs. i guess we'll hear next that the music was too loud.

 

[lone wolf]

In the land of BC Bud you'd ask BC employees to refrain from a BC cultural icon? Besides, it's not illegal to smoke it.

Wolf

 

[gerryh]

regardless of why this one sank......there is now a report that crew members are smoking pot on the job...only one way to find out.

 

[Kreskin]

Good point Wolf. If someone uses medical marijuana should an employer refuse to hire them based on it? I'd have to check the Charter but there's probably something in there to claim it discriminatory.

 

[s243a]

Really? Why should an employer keep employed someone that engages in an illegal activity on OR off the job?

I strongly believe that there is a strong inequality in the enforcement of law between people who are successfully and people who are not. Professionals for instance are not allowed to have a criminal recored. The years of schooling and money they have invested to get ahead holds them hostage to the state.

In my opinion it is a form of tyranny. The people who work hard to get ahead are held hostage to the dictates of the system. Civil disobedience is not option. The employers are acting as part of the police system and they have not been given that role by the people. We as a society accept more and more forms of control and these forms of control create great misery for people that don't follow them. Consider how many more things you need a credit card to do what you didn't in the past. Consider the importance of identification. How many people are suffering today on the street because they lack the documentation to show that they are a good puppet of the system.

 

[gerryh]

This is sounding more and more like the idiot kid I ended up firing many years ago because he couldn't keep from having a beer at Lunch. Whine and bitch about it being HIS time cause he wasn't paid for Lunch hours.

 

[lone wolf]

Hope you had a good reason for firing him

 

[s243a]

This is sounding more and more like the idiot kid I ended up firing many years ago because he couldn't keep from having a beer at Lunch. Whine and bitch about it being HIS time cause he wasn't paid for Lunch hours.

I have mixed feeling about that one. Alcohol is more of an impairment but how much is one beer going to do.

 

[s243a]

This is sounding more and more like the idiot kid I ended up firing many years ago because he couldn't keep from having a beer at Lunch. Whine and bitch about it being HIS time cause he wasn't paid for Lunch hours.

I'm curious to. What was his job and how did his lunch beverage effect his performance? Anyway, just because you employ someone it doesn't mean you own them.