Well that made me go check and where I thought the commitment letter was a four year each way kind of deal it is in fact only a year by year thing for schools to give out those scholarships but a four year commitment from the "student".
Man, fuck the NCAA.
This is why oversigning is such a massive problem, and why it's rare to see a college coach make it in the pros.
It seems like such a horrible idea to keep somebody around against their will in something where effort is so essential.
Does she have a real chance to go pro? Because the only thing keeping her trying would be her future prospects (or an unwillingness to be as large of an asshole as the school is.)
Also add in the possibility that she can only afford to go to school because of her athletic scholarship.
She outright states that she needs the scholarship in the article. Thanks to NCAA rules prohibiting scholarships to be given to non-waived transfers, KSU has her over a barrel.
Question, because I honestly don't know: If she just refuses to play, and KSU dismisses her from the team and cancels her scholarship, can they still block her transfer once they do?
They can't block her transfer, but she will be ineligible to play. So, no more athletic scholarships.
Why would she be ineligible? I know football players get dismissed from the team and go elsewhere to play all the time. Usually they wouldn't actually prefer to leave the school in that case though, so blocking a transfer would be less of a "punishment" in that case.
It seems like such a horrible idea to keep somebody around against their will in something where effort is so essential.
Does she have a real chance to go pro? Because the only thing keeping her trying would be her future prospects (or an unwillingness to be as large of an asshole as the school is.)
Also add in the possibility that she can only afford to go to school because of her athletic scholarship.
She outright states that she needs the scholarship in the article. Thanks to NCAA rules prohibiting scholarships to be given to non-waived transfers, KSU has her over a barrel.
Question, because I honestly don't know: If she just refuses to play, and KSU dismisses her from the team and cancels her scholarship, can they still block her transfer once they do?
They can't block her transfer, but she will be ineligible to play. So, no more athletic scholarships.
Why would she be ineligible? I know football players get dismissed from the team and go elsewhere to play all the time. Usually they wouldn't actually prefer to leave the school in that case though, so blocking a transfer would be less of a "punishment" in that case.
It seems like such a horrible idea to keep somebody around against their will in something where effort is so essential.
Does she have a real chance to go pro? Because the only thing keeping her trying would be her future prospects (or an unwillingness to be as large of an asshole as the school is.)
Also add in the possibility that she can only afford to go to school because of her athletic scholarship.
She outright states that she needs the scholarship in the article. Thanks to NCAA rules prohibiting scholarships to be given to non-waived transfers, KSU has her over a barrel.
Question, because I honestly don't know: If she just refuses to play, and KSU dismisses her from the team and cancels her scholarship, can they still block her transfer once they do?
They can't block her transfer, but she will be ineligible to play. So, no more athletic scholarships.
Why would she be ineligible? I know football players get dismissed from the team and go elsewhere to play all the time. Usually they wouldn't actually prefer to leave the school in that case though, so blocking a transfer would be less of a "punishment" in that case.
Because the NCAA treats Meyer booting a kid off the team so he can sign a hot new recruit differently than a player who wants to transfer of their own volition.
Well that made me go check and where I thought the commitment letter was a four year each way kind of deal it is in fact only a year by year thing for schools to give out those scholarships but a four year commitment from the "student".
Man, fuck the NCAA.
The Big Ten started offering four year commitments both ways recently. At least in football, I think other sports as well. I mean, it's mostly to try to gain a competitive advantage over the SEC, but it ends up being a good effect.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Well that made me go check and where I thought the commitment letter was a four year each way kind of deal it is in fact only a year by year thing for schools to give out those scholarships but a four year commitment from the "student".
Man, fuck the NCAA.
The Big Ten started offering four year commitments both ways recently. At least in football, I think other sports as well. I mean, it's mostly to try to gain a competitive advantage over the SEC, but it ends up being a good effect.
Which is still bullshit. The NCAA, if it really was about education, would have ended the one year scholarships years ago.
Well that made me go check and where I thought the commitment letter was a four year each way kind of deal it is in fact only a year by year thing for schools to give out those scholarships but a four year commitment from the "student".
Man, fuck the NCAA.
The Big Ten started offering four year commitments both ways recently. At least in football, I think other sports as well. I mean, it's mostly to try to gain a competitive advantage over the SEC, but it ends up being a good effect.
Which is still bullshit. The NCAA, if it really was about education, would have ended the one year scholarships years ago.
Oh absolutely.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm admittedly not all that familiar with US labor law, but some of this shit has to be just flat out illegal, right? Intimidation tactics and what not.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm admittedly not all that familiar with US labor law, but some of this shit has to be just flat out illegal, right? Intimidation tactics and what not.
Perfectly normal. Even if it is illegal, the most that will ever happen is that the union will get a chance to hold another vote.
There's a reason that unionism cratered in the U.S. after the 1970s. Decades of anti-union laws and anti-union propaganda hit a lot harder when the federal government refuses to intervene even in cases of clear illegality.
You know how Pat Fitzgerald, NU Head Coach, has been trying to convince his players to vote against joining a union? Saying things like they're 'voting against him'? He's in a coaches union.
Members of the AFCA are represented by a strong national leadership organization which protects the football coaching profession’s best interests — your best interests — and strives for the highest possible professional standards, as outlined in its Constitution, Bylaws and Code of Ethics.
“This is not what we wanted — how can we get back to being students and not employees?” read one question that was apparently submitted by an anonymous player.
This needs to read "allegedly submitted by a player"
“This is not what we wanted — how can we get back to being students and not employees?” read one question that was apparently submitted by an anonymous player.
This needs to read "allegedly submitted by a player"
It IS Northwestern. They attract a slightly different breed of athlete, which is why this happened to begin with.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
You know how Pat Fitzgerald, NU Head Coach, has been trying to convince his players to vote against joining a union? Saying things like they're 'voting against him'? He's in a coaches union.
Members of the AFCA are represented by a strong national leadership organization which protects the football coaching profession’s best interests — your best interests — and strives for the highest possible professional standards, as outlined in its Constitution, Bylaws and Code of Ethics.
Apparently the fucking NCAA can administer drug tests and suspends kids for a year for pot and will ban them for life for a second failed test.
Not that I'm annoyed this forced Mitch McGary to the NBA or anything.
EDIT: Note that the penalty for marijuana possession in Ann Arbor is a $25 fine.
Honestly, this doesn't really bother me. I'm one of those people who thinks that athletes are employees (their pay is their scholorship) and companies have drug policies. My company's drug policy is first failed test is a two week suspension; second failed test is termination of employment. While 1 Year/Termination is a heavy policy, I just sort of shrug my shoulders.
Apparently the fucking NCAA can administer drug tests and suspends kids for a year for pot and will ban them for life for a second failed test.
Not that I'm annoyed this forced Mitch McGary to the NBA or anything.
EDIT: Note that the penalty for marijuana possession in Ann Arbor is a $25 fine.
Honestly, this doesn't really bother me. I'm one of those people who thinks that athletes are employees (their pay is their scholorship) and companies have drug policies. My company's drug policy is first failed test is a two week suspension; second failed test is termination of employment. While 1 Year/Termination is a heavy policy, I just sort of shrug my shoulders.
Then the question is is the athlete an employee of the NCAA or the college? And are we going to ban every student for pot?
Apparently the fucking NCAA can administer drug tests and suspends kids for a year for pot and will ban them for life for a second failed test.
Not that I'm annoyed this forced Mitch McGary to the NBA or anything.
EDIT: Note that the penalty for marijuana possession in Ann Arbor is a $25 fine.
Honestly, this doesn't really bother me. I'm one of those people who thinks that athletes are employees (their pay is their scholorship) and companies have drug policies. My company's drug policy is first failed test is a two week suspension; second failed test is termination of employment. While 1 Year/Termination is a heavy policy, I just sort of shrug my shoulders.
Then the question is is the athlete an employee of the NCAA or the college? And are we going to ban every student for pot?
The answer to that is both. They are an employee of the college who is a member of a larger company called the NCAA. Its sort of like if someone works for a contractor company who gets them an assignment with a second company. You have to obey the rules of both companies.
Apparently the fucking NCAA can administer drug tests and suspends kids for a year for pot and will ban them for life for a second failed test.
Not that I'm annoyed this forced Mitch McGary to the NBA or anything.
EDIT: Note that the penalty for marijuana possession in Ann Arbor is a $25 fine.
Honestly, this doesn't really bother me. I'm one of those people who thinks that athletes are employees (their pay is their scholorship) and companies have drug policies. My company's drug policy is first failed test is a two week suspension; second failed test is termination of employment. While 1 Year/Termination is a heavy policy, I just sort of shrug my shoulders.
Then the question is is the athlete an employee of the NCAA or the college? And are we going to ban every student for pot?
The answer to that is both. They are an employee of the college who is a member of a larger company called the NCAA. Its sort of like if someone works for a contractor company who gets them an assignment with a second company. You have to obey the rules of both companies.
The NCAA is probably more like a trade organization, though. At worst they could boot your college from the cool kids club.
Apparently the fucking NCAA can administer drug tests and suspends kids for a year for pot and will ban them for life for a second failed test.
Not that I'm annoyed this forced Mitch McGary to the NBA or anything.
EDIT: Note that the penalty for marijuana possession in Ann Arbor is a $25 fine.
Honestly, this doesn't really bother me. I'm one of those people who thinks that athletes are employees (their pay is their scholorship) and companies have drug policies. My company's drug policy is first failed test is a two week suspension; second failed test is termination of employment. While 1 Year/Termination is a heavy policy, I just sort of shrug my shoulders.
Companies with stupid and arbitrary penalties for things which will be legal (and are functionally legal where he plays) within the next 20 years are also stupid.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+6
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
the school gets to exhaust its challenges to the unionization process before the results of the actual vote will become known. So who knows how long it'll take
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Apparently the fucking NCAA can administer drug tests and suspends kids for a year for pot and will ban them for life for a second failed test.
Not that I'm annoyed this forced Mitch McGary to the NBA or anything.
EDIT: Note that the penalty for marijuana possession in Ann Arbor is a $25 fine.
Honestly, this doesn't really bother me. I'm one of those people who thinks that athletes are employees (their pay is their scholorship) and companies have drug policies. My company's drug policy is first failed test is a two week suspension; second failed test is termination of employment. While 1 Year/Termination is a heavy policy, I just sort of shrug my shoulders.
Companies with stupid and arbitrary penalties for things which will be legal (and are functionally legal where he plays) within the next 20 years are also stupid.
Except that its not arbitrary and legality has nothing to do with it. We have the same policy for alcohol if someone comes to work drunk. Doing so puts the person in an impaired state where their judgement is affected, and when you are at work you are representing the company, not yourself. Any actions you take while impaired are still liable to the company and could have ramifications that adversely affect it. A company has a right to protect itself from such issues so long as they have a clearly stated policy that all employees know.
Every player has to sign off on the NCAA's drug policy. The kid was an idiot. Had he waited two more weeks before getting high, the tournament would have been over and there would have been no random drug testing. He only has himself to blame for this.
PSN|AspectVoid
+3
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Apparently the fucking NCAA can administer drug tests and suspends kids for a year for pot and will ban them for life for a second failed test.
Not that I'm annoyed this forced Mitch McGary to the NBA or anything.
EDIT: Note that the penalty for marijuana possession in Ann Arbor is a $25 fine.
Honestly, this doesn't really bother me. I'm one of those people who thinks that athletes are employees (their pay is their scholorship) and companies have drug policies. My company's drug policy is first failed test is a two week suspension; second failed test is termination of employment. While 1 Year/Termination is a heavy policy, I just sort of shrug my shoulders.
Companies with stupid and arbitrary penalties for things which will be legal (and are functionally legal where he plays) within the next 20 years are also stupid.
Except that its not arbitrary and legality has nothing to do with it. We have the same policy for alcohol if someone comes to work drunk. Doing so puts the person in an impaired state where their judgement is affected, and when you are at work you are representing the company, not yourself. Any actions you take while impaired are still liable to the company and could have ramifications that adversely affect it. A company has a right to protect itself from such issues so long as they have a clearly stated policy that all employees know.
Every player has to sign off on the NCAA's drug policy. The kid was an idiot. Had he waited two more weeks before getting high, the tournament would have been over and there would have been no random drug testing. He only has himself to blame for this.
University of Michigan center Mitch McGary only played eight games last season before a back injury sent him to the bench. During the March Madness championship tournament—when the sidelined McGary could only cheer on his teammates—the NCAA chose him for a random drug test. McGary told Yahoo Sports he had passed five previous drug tests that season, but had smoked marijuana on one occasion with friends on campus before the tournament started. The punishment for his first offense? A year-long suspension from the NCAA.
Under ordinary circumstances, the University of Michigan penalty for a first failed drug test is a three-game suspension. But this test was conducted during the NCAA tournament, and in such cases, the NCAA metes out the punishment, hence the one-year suspension. (Under NCAA rules, a second failed test would lead to a lifetime ban that would mean the athlete can never play NCAA sports again.) That first-time penalty might seem harsh to many—and the NCAA agrees. It altered its rules to reduce the first-time penalty for a positive "street drug" test to a half-season suspension instead. But it made this change days after it had denied McGary's appeal, and the new rule doesn't take effect until August 1. So McGary is still subject to the older penalty the NCAA has conceded is unreasonable.
McGary, who was already on the fence about returning to school for his junior season, has now decided to leave Michigan for the NBA. As football players at Northwesten University prepare to vote on unionization—as part of a growing movement in college sports—the McGary case is a stark reminder of why some college athletes are demanding a seat at the bargaining table.
So let me get this right. Guy gets side lined for over a year, passes five previous drug tests, gets "randomly" drug tested again after smoking pot once, and then gets banned for a year by the NCAA where upon they go "yeah we were assholes" change their punishment but basically just leave someone who got injured making the NCAA money hanging out in the cold.
So this is like drug testing you when you're home sick basically.
This type of crap was actually behind a lot of late 19th century/early 20th century unionization efforts - specifically teatotalling bosses firing workers for drinking alcohol on their own time. One things unions are very good at is shutting down bosses who feel they have the right to fire over whatever they deem "immoral" in their workforce.
+3
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Except that its not arbitrary and legality has nothing to do with it. We have the same policy for alcohol if someone comes to work drunk.
But smoking pot in your own time and being drunk on the job are two entirely different things.
Not anymore.
They should be.
Did you know that in Canada it is a violation of privacy law for an employer to require a drug test, even for applicants? There are exceptions (Heavy machinery operators and drivers, things like that), but it's very rare. I've never once been drug tested for any job.
Except that its not arbitrary and legality has nothing to do with it. We have the same policy for alcohol if someone comes to work drunk.
But smoking pot in your own time and being drunk on the job are two entirely different things.
Not anymore.
They should be.
Did you know that in Canada it is a violation of privacy law for an employer to require a drug test, even for applicants? There are exceptions (Heavy machinery operators and drivers, things like that), but it's very rare. I've never once been drug tested for any job.
Land of the free indeed.
Two things to remember about drug testing.
One - It's an incredibly crappy industry. Anti-drug hysteria means that thousands of businesses routinely test even minimum wage applicants. For this to be economical, the testing must be dirt cheap. This means that the businesses doing the testing rely on high volume and low wages. Sloppy procedures, crappy facilities, false positives and just downright fraud (don't run all the tests, don't rerun contaminated samples) are endemic.
Two - The tests work great for determining whether your employee has smoked pot in the last month. They are incredibly crappy for cocaine, heroin, opiates and many other drugs that simply do not remain in detectible levels for the same length of time. Essentially, it's only effective for making sure that you don't employ the users of the mildest form of illegal drugs.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Except that its not arbitrary and legality has nothing to do with it. We have the same policy for alcohol if someone comes to work drunk.
But smoking pot in your own time and being drunk on the job are two entirely different things.
Not anymore.
They should be.
Did you know that in Canada it is a violation of privacy law for an employer to require a drug test, even for applicants? There are exceptions (Heavy machinery operators and drivers, things like that), but it's very rare. I've never once been drug tested for any job.
Land of the free indeed.
Two things to remember about drug testing.
One - It's an incredibly crappy industry. Anti-drug hysteria means that thousands of businesses routinely test even minimum wage applicants. For this to be economical, the testing must be dirt cheap. This means that the businesses doing the testing rely on high volume and low wages. Sloppy procedures, crappy facilities, false positives and just downright fraud (don't run all the tests, don't rerun contaminated samples) are endemic.
Two - The tests work great for determining whether your employee has smoked pot in the last month. They are incredibly crappy for cocaine, heroin, opiates and many other drugs that simply do not remain in detectible levels for the same length of time. Essentially, it's only effective for making sure that you don't employ the users of the mildest form of illegal drugs.
Case in point, I used to drive a forklift at a UPS warehouse back when I was still a senior in highschool and had a serious cocaine problem.
They weren't random drug tests so much that your boss would let you know like two weeks ahead of time that you were going to have to take a drug test soon. So basically I quit smoking pot and snorted more coke.
I could literally blow an eightball of coke up my nose 24 hours before the drug test and pass.
Meanwhile if you're a regular user (every other day lets say you smoke a gram and a half of weed) and you've smoked for a year or two you could actually quit smoking weed but for a month or two months if you're a big boy you'd be pissing dirty while being completely 100% sober.
Except that its not arbitrary and legality has nothing to do with it. We have the same policy for alcohol if someone comes to work drunk.
But smoking pot in your own time and being drunk on the job are two entirely different things.
Not anymore.
They should be.
Did you know that in Canada it is a violation of privacy law for an employer to require a drug test, even for applicants? There are exceptions (Heavy machinery operators and drivers, things like that), but it's very rare. I've never once been drug tested for any job.
Land of the free indeed.
Two things to remember about drug testing.
One - It's an incredibly crappy industry. Anti-drug hysteria means that thousands of businesses routinely test even minimum wage applicants. For this to be economical, the testing must be dirt cheap. This means that the businesses doing the testing rely on high volume and low wages. Sloppy procedures, crappy facilities, false positives and just downright fraud (don't run all the tests, don't rerun contaminated samples) are endemic.
Two - The tests work great for determining whether your employee has smoked pot in the last month. They are incredibly crappy for cocaine, heroin, opiates and many other drugs that simply do not remain in detectible levels for the same length of time. Essentially, it's only effective for making sure that you don't employ the users of the mildest form of illegal drugs.
Case in point, I used to drive a forklift at a UPS warehouse back when I was still a senior in highschool and had a serious cocaine problem.
They weren't random drug tests so much that your boss would let you know like two weeks ahead of time that you were going to have to take a drug test soon. So basically I quit smoking pot and snorted more coke.
I could literally blow an eightball of coke up my nose 24 hours before the drug test and pass.
Meanwhile if you're a regular user (every other day lets say you smoke a gram and a half of weed) and you've smoked for a year or two you could actually quit smoking weed but for a month or two months if you're a big boy you'd be pissing dirty while being completely 100% sober.
There's a reason Florida Guv. Rick Scott's wife owns a drug testing company. It's another conservative racket - fleecing business owners out of millions while stirring up a moral panic among the voters. Hell, he even managed to get his wife's company the contract when he convinced the Fla. legislature to start testing everyone applying for public assistance.
In another few decades, when the conservatives have moved onto freaking out about robot sex, we can have an honest discussion of the costs of drug testing. By then, the NCAA will have moved on to fining players for having illegal cybernetic enhancements, and universities will be talking about how robot bball players enhance campus diversity.
So Michigan's compliance office has a twitter account and posts random NCAA rules. I think mostly it exists for Brian Cook to make fun of it at this point.
This is more Fuck Jim Delany, but whatever. Let's hold the Big Ten basketball tournament in DC and New York! Because that's a place most fans can totally get to without dropping a couple hundred bucks on a plane ticket, plus hotels for (ideally as a fan) two or three nights, plus tickets.
But we've got to grow the fucking foot print now that we've made two pointless, shitty additions.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
This is why oversigning is such a massive problem, and why it's rare to see a college coach make it in the pros.
Why would she be ineligible? I know football players get dismissed from the team and go elsewhere to play all the time. Usually they wouldn't actually prefer to leave the school in that case though, so blocking a transfer would be less of a "punishment" in that case.
Here are the rules.
Because the NCAA treats Meyer booting a kid off the team so he can sign a hot new recruit differently than a player who wants to transfer of their own volition.
The Big Ten started offering four year commitments both ways recently. At least in football, I think other sports as well. I mean, it's mostly to try to gain a competitive advantage over the SEC, but it ends up being a good effect.
Which is still bullshit. The NCAA, if it really was about education, would have ended the one year scholarships years ago.
Oh absolutely.
Perfectly normal. Even if it is illegal, the most that will ever happen is that the union will get a chance to hold another vote.
There's a reason that unionism cratered in the U.S. after the 1970s. Decades of anti-union laws and anti-union propaganda hit a lot harder when the federal government refuses to intervene even in cases of clear illegality.
Because they're fucked.
Not that I'm annoyed this forced Mitch McGary to the NBA or anything.
EDIT: Note that the penalty for marijuana possession in Ann Arbor is a $25 fine.
yeah cause pot is totally performance enhancing
if there's like a mars bars at the end of the run
You know how Pat Fitzgerald, NU Head Coach, has been trying to convince his players to vote against joining a union? Saying things like they're 'voting against him'? He's in a coaches union.
What sort of benefits does he receive? (Besides, of course, $1.8 million per year.) Well, among other things:
Asshole.
This needs to read "allegedly submitted by a player"
It IS Northwestern. They attract a slightly different breed of athlete, which is why this happened to begin with.
The only moral union is my union
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
Honestly, this doesn't really bother me. I'm one of those people who thinks that athletes are employees (their pay is their scholorship) and companies have drug policies. My company's drug policy is first failed test is a two week suspension; second failed test is termination of employment. While 1 Year/Termination is a heavy policy, I just sort of shrug my shoulders.
Then the question is is the athlete an employee of the NCAA or the college? And are we going to ban every student for pot?
The answer to that is both. They are an employee of the college who is a member of a larger company called the NCAA. Its sort of like if someone works for a contractor company who gets them an assignment with a second company. You have to obey the rules of both companies.
The NCAA is probably more like a trade organization, though. At worst they could boot your college from the cool kids club.
Companies with stupid and arbitrary penalties for things which will be legal (and are functionally legal where he plays) within the next 20 years are also stupid.
the school gets to exhaust its challenges to the unionization process before the results of the actual vote will become known. So who knows how long it'll take
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Except that its not arbitrary and legality has nothing to do with it. We have the same policy for alcohol if someone comes to work drunk. Doing so puts the person in an impaired state where their judgement is affected, and when you are at work you are representing the company, not yourself. Any actions you take while impaired are still liable to the company and could have ramifications that adversely affect it. A company has a right to protect itself from such issues so long as they have a clearly stated policy that all employees know.
Every player has to sign off on the NCAA's drug policy. The kid was an idiot. Had he waited two more weeks before getting high, the tournament would have been over and there would have been no random drug testing. He only has himself to blame for this.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/04/ncaa-mitch-mcgary-michigan-drug-test
So let me get this right. Guy gets side lined for over a year, passes five previous drug tests, gets "randomly" drug tested again after smoking pot once, and then gets banned for a year by the NCAA where upon they go "yeah we were assholes" change their punishment but basically just leave someone who got injured making the NCAA money hanging out in the cold.
So this is like drug testing you when you're home sick basically.
Antibiotics are just a gateway, man.
But smoking pot in your own time and being drunk on the job are two entirely different things.
They should be.
Did you know that in Canada it is a violation of privacy law for an employer to require a drug test, even for applicants? There are exceptions (Heavy machinery operators and drivers, things like that), but it's very rare. I've never once been drug tested for any job.
Land of the free indeed.
Two things to remember about drug testing.
One - It's an incredibly crappy industry. Anti-drug hysteria means that thousands of businesses routinely test even minimum wage applicants. For this to be economical, the testing must be dirt cheap. This means that the businesses doing the testing rely on high volume and low wages. Sloppy procedures, crappy facilities, false positives and just downright fraud (don't run all the tests, don't rerun contaminated samples) are endemic.
Two - The tests work great for determining whether your employee has smoked pot in the last month. They are incredibly crappy for cocaine, heroin, opiates and many other drugs that simply do not remain in detectible levels for the same length of time. Essentially, it's only effective for making sure that you don't employ the users of the mildest form of illegal drugs.
Case in point, I used to drive a forklift at a UPS warehouse back when I was still a senior in highschool and had a serious cocaine problem.
They weren't random drug tests so much that your boss would let you know like two weeks ahead of time that you were going to have to take a drug test soon. So basically I quit smoking pot and snorted more coke.
I could literally blow an eightball of coke up my nose 24 hours before the drug test and pass.
Meanwhile if you're a regular user (every other day lets say you smoke a gram and a half of weed) and you've smoked for a year or two you could actually quit smoking weed but for a month or two months if you're a big boy you'd be pissing dirty while being completely 100% sober.
There's a reason Florida Guv. Rick Scott's wife owns a drug testing company. It's another conservative racket - fleecing business owners out of millions while stirring up a moral panic among the voters. Hell, he even managed to get his wife's company the contract when he convinced the Fla. legislature to start testing everyone applying for public assistance.
In another few decades, when the conservatives have moved onto freaking out about robot sex, we can have an honest discussion of the costs of drug testing. By then, the NCAA will have moved on to fining players for having illegal cybernetic enhancements, and universities will be talking about how robot bball players enhance campus diversity.
Wonder if the EFF will sign on as an amicus to the publicity right appeal. Would be stupid, but coherent with their response to the original ruling.
So, whose turn is it to pop the popcorn?
But we've got to grow the fucking foot print now that we've made two pointless, shitty additions.