EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › drugtests for ski bums at alyeska?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

drugtests for ski bums at alyeska? - Page 2

post #31 of 57
can't you invoke "The Poppyseed Defence"?
post #32 of 57
Isn't that for opiates?
post #33 of 57
?why not just quit for the test?
- a chronic medical user will likely test postiive 4-6 weeks after his last toke. you can't just quit for the test.
post #34 of 57
We would probably agree that it is better just to fire employees for incompetence. But it isn't always that straightforward. An employer knows which employees are useless, but without the right kind of evidence he could end up in court. On the other hand, if someone doesn't piss clean, you can toss him out no questions asked. Yes, it casts a wide net, but the employer has come to the probably not unreasonable conclusion that there is a pretty strong correlation between stoners and bad employees.

But there is a broader issue. The fact is that while we may not like to admit it, life is full of compromises, sacrifices and decisions about what one values most. What is more important: your pot or your job washing dishes? Or better put, what is more important: your pot or being able to spend a season as a ski bum? Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it's life.
post #35 of 57
It takes 30 days! Can you pry yourself from the XBOX that long?
post #36 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowbirdDevotee View Post
?why not just quit for the test?
- a chronic medical user will likely test postiive 4-6 weeks after his last toke. you can't just quit for the test.

Wrong! 21-days with plenty of water is sufficient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ami in berlin View Post
We would probably agree that it is better just to fire employees for incompetence. But it isn't always that straightforward. An employer knows which employees are useless, but without the right kind of evidence he could end up in court. On the other hand, if someone doesn't piss clean, you can toss him out no questions asked.
Pretty much true!


Quote:
Originally Posted by ami in berlin View Post

Yes, it casts a wide net, but the employer has come to the probably not unreasonable conclusion that there is a pretty strong correlation between stoners and bad employees.
Absolute bull$hit. From my experience many people want and need recreational stress relief. They use pot or alcohol. A nearby ski area does pre-employment and random testing. Most employees do clean up for the season in terms of their illegal habits. And then most become raging alcoholics for the winter season. I would rather have an employee smoke a bit at night and show up normal, than one who gets plastered at night and shows up hungover the next day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ami in berlin View Post

But there is a broader issue. The fact is that while we may not like to admit it, life is full of compromises, sacrifices and decisions about what one values most. What is more important: your pot or your job washing dishes? Or better put, what is more important: your pot or being able to spend a season as a ski bum? Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it's life.
Life IS full of choices.
post #37 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunion View Post
Absolute bull$hit. From my experience many people want and need recreational stress relief. They use pot or alcohol. A nearby ski area does pre-employment and random testing. Most employees do clean up for the season in terms of their illegal habits. And then most become raging alcoholics for the winter season. I would rather have an employee smoke a bit at night and show up normal, than one who gets plastered at night and shows up hungover the next day.
Isn't skiing supposed to be that recreational stress relief? Don't get me wrong, I drink (very rarely to excess) and for me it's a social/seasonal thing. I haven't had a beer or other alcoholic drink in 5 months. As for drugs, my security clearance (not to mention my career) depends on me staying far, far away from anything illicit. If the financial security of my family is threatened by one of my habits, you're darn right I would quit it in a second. I agree, life is full of choices.

I've known enough functioning addicts and alcoholics to know that neither one makes the best employee. However, in certain sectors of employment they are almost a necessary evil. That Alyeska has decided to bar drug users from employment shows that they probably have weighed their options and found that pot smokers are not in the company's best interests. That's a little suprising to me, considering the recently closed loopholes for many foreign workers, but if they can find the workforce, more power to them. Having a lifty, patroller, or other employee reek of pot (or whatever they cover it up with) or alcohol does not inspire consumer confidence in a resort. Remember, the people who really keep these resorts afloat are the ultra-stuffy rich people who buy condos and season passes for the whole family (including their dope-smoking brats), not the poor slobs who check the cushions for change and sell Che t-shirts to buy a day pass. While both groups contribute, who would you rather cater to?
post #38 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunion View Post
Absolute bull$hit. From my experience many people want and need recreational stress relief. They use pot or alcohol. A nearby ski area does pre-employment and random testing. Most employees do clean up for the season in terms of their illegal habits. And then most become raging alcoholics for the winter season. I would rather have an employee smoke a bit at night and show up normal, than one who gets plastered at night and shows up hungover the next day.
That's a false argument. Whether alcohol or pot is 'worse' is inconsequential to Alyeska's hiring practices. It is simply a fact that the employer has decided that by weeding out (pun intended) the pot smokers he can avoid what he believes are bad employees. He cannot test and fire people simply for drinking; for pot, he can. It's logistics (and legality). Alaska Mike also mentioned that those with a DUI are getting culled, so it looks like management is going after what they would regard as 'problem drinkers', too, in the only easily legal way they can.

It's a simply equation that the ownership has made: people who use drugs and drive drunk are more likely to be poor employees than those who do not. Management therefore would prefer to hire people who do no use drugs and drive drunk.

You can argue with that, but it seems like a fairly simple pattern of logic.
post #39 of 57
[quote=bunion;777526]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ami in berlin View Post
We would probably agree that it is better just to fire employees for incompetence. But it isn't always that straightforward. An employer knows which employees are useless, but without the right kind of evidence he could end up in court. On the other hand, if someone doesn't piss clean, you can toss him out no questions asked. Yes, it casts a wide net, but the employer has come to the probably not unreasonable conclusion that there is a pretty strong correlation between stoners and bad employees....[/quote]

Pretty much true!
I just checked to be sure. Alaska is an employment at will state, you can be pretty much discharged 'cause your employer doesn't like the shape of your face - the only quoted exception statute for Alaska was unpaid overtime.
post #40 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ami in berlin View Post
He cannot test and fire people simply for drinking; for pot, he can.
This is pure BS. You could quite legally fire people who aren't sober in the morning at work. No one actually does this, of course.
Quote:
Management therefore would prefer to hire people who do no use drugs and drive drunk.
Yeah, except management isn't firing all the people who use drugs. They fire a certain subset because it is expedient. The hardcore addicts will pass the screening process anyways, because management is cheap and has cheap assays, and because no one wants to deal with actually watching the addict make the deposit. Even done by independent third parties, rarely does that actually happen.

Truth: if you want to fire drug addicts, take a freakin' look around. Much more effective than a piss test. Of course this requires management with some nut that isn't just some nepotist-ridden collection of sinecures...I guess I just disqualified most businesses there.
post #41 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ami in berlin View Post
Whether alcohol or pot is 'worse' is inconsequential to Alyeska's hiring practices. It is simply a fact that the employer has decided that by weeding out (pun intended) the pot smokers he can avoid what he believes are bad employees. He cannot test and fire people simply for drinking; for pot, he can. It's logistics (and legality). Alaska Mike also mentioned that those with a DUI are getting culled, so it looks like management is going after what they would regard as 'problem drinkers', too, in the only easily legal way they can.

I am not saying one is better or worse. In most cases like this, it has nothing to do with "weeding out" people and eveything to do with who the companies insurance carrier is.

My experiences in "at will" States is that seasonal employeees have very few rights to protect them from being fired for any reason.
post #42 of 57
So why head for AK? You're in CA, land of Humbolt County. Head for Lake Tahoe. There are many ski areas there that can compete with anything AK has to offer. Squaw and Kirkwood come to mind. I think they required there employees to fail drug tests, or so it seemed when I was there. Mammoth F-ing rocks. Why would you leave? I think the weed has gone to your head, thats why.
If you must cross a state line to consider yourself a ski bum, cross two and head for Mt. Baker. Its going to be a La Nina year. The epic snow dump of 98-99 where Baker got more snow than any other PLACE in snow depth recorded history was a La Nina year. It was like driving through a big snow cathedral to get up to the ski area. Wouldn't that be surreal after hitting the nitrous fired 3 and a half foot Graffix apperatous?
post #43 of 57
We have had drug testing for the past 2 years and I assume this year also..
This involves, under supervision, a mouth swab and a chain of custody record for ALL 3000 +/- employees in the winter staff every season....no big deal...
if your clean...
post #44 of 57
I don't know why I even try, but ...

I never said you can't fire someone for showing to work drunk. What I said is that you can't prescreen for alcohol use (other than using DUIs as an indicator).

And fine, I am no expert on Alaska employment law. But even if you can fire employees at will, there are still costs involved in hiring a bad employee, having him eff up your business, firing him, and looking for a replacement.

The management will have decided that they prefer to reduce the chances of hiring bad employees by using what they believe to be an indicator of unreliability: namely drug use. This is fact, and I'm not sure how people can argue otherwise.

You can argue that it is a poor calculation that the management has made, but that does not change the fact that they have made that calculation.

And I stand by my assertion that if you want something bad enough, you may have to sacrifice something else that is important to you. It's a simple equation.

If you really, really want the job, stop smoking pot.
If you kinda want the job, keep using pot and take evasive measures.
If you don't really care, take another bong hit.

It's pretty simple, really. Priorities.
post #45 of 57
Ami, you are certainly entitled to have an opinion. But, it is an oipinion and yours at that.

The TGR forum has the same thread and from people who work at Aleyska. Turns out testing positive for pot is not grounds for dismissal or denial of a place within the company.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=97584
post #46 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ami in berlin View Post
What I said is that you can't prescreen for alcohol use
No, you said you can't test for it. Either way you are wrong. Random testing can/does turn up drunks. So do screenings. Only if the employer decides to do the tests. Many don't in my experience.
post #47 of 57
Because a State is "at will" does not stop the suits from being filed. It simply assists in the defense of same. If an employer fired someone for "breathing" the person would likely be p/o 'd enough to file suit. But if you caught that same person doing something illegal....they would walk away...mad, but understanding.

Defending a suit (with merit or not) is costly....maybe more costly than than the year of wages for the dishwasher. Hence...there must be "cause" in at will States.
post #48 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by I:)Skiing View Post
Defending a suit (with merit or not) is costly....maybe more costly than than the year of wages for the dishwasher. Hence...there must be "cause" in at will States.
Right, because the dishwasher you decided to fire because they were a lazy stoner is going to hire an attorney and sue you. Or maybe because some attorney is going to take the case for the contingent fee because lost wages for a dishwasher are so darn enticing.:

Reality check: Firing a dishwasher isn't hard. You are probably some middle management type petrified of upsetting the apple cart if you think it is.
post #49 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowbirdDevotee View Post
?why not just quit for the test?
- a chronic medical user will likely test postiive 4-6 weeks after his last toke. you can't just quit for the test.
That just means you have to quit for 6 weeks. So, yes, you ( or anybody ) can quit for the test.
post #50 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by ami in berlin View Post
But there is a broader issue. The fact is that while we may not like to admit it, life is full of compromises, sacrifices and decisions about what one values most. What is more important: your pot or your job washing dishes? Or better put, what is more important: your pot or being able to spend a season as a ski bum? Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not. But it's life.
There is a broader issue. IT'S ILLEAGAL to smoke pot. It's an issue about living righteously and obeying the law of the land. There are consequences of every decision that we make, and on the opposing side, there are also blessings by making the right choice. People may think that they have the right to smoke pot because they're able to get a way with it for a while, but eventually the consequences of their decisions will come back to them.
post #51 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
Yes, alcoholism is a far bigger danger to society and quite literally kills far more people. This has been established.

This doesn't make being a pot-addicted burnout loser somehow OK.

Hey! If it wasn't for pot addicted bunout losers, you wouldn't have them to feel superior to, and subsequently, you wouldn't have walking in their shoes ahead of you. Sorry kid, but we write the story we end up living. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you.
post #52 of 57
Huh? I'm just pointing out that there are people who have a marijuana problem, just like there are people with an alcohol problem...and one being worse than the other for society doesn't make the "lesser evil" somehow desirable for the afflicted individual. If recognizing this dooms me to living in those shoes I guess I'm pretty much screwed.
Quote:
IT'S ILLEAGAL to smoke pot.
Its also "ILLEAGAL" to bring real beer into Utah. Depending on which Utahns you talk to, it might be pretty unrighteous to drink a flippin' Diet Coke. Here in my very unrighteous state I can buy my liquor at my gas station. Amazing how this "righteousness" concept and this "law" concept aren't the same outside of the Church of Utah.
post #53 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
If recognizing this dooms me to living in those shoes I guess I'm pretty much screwed.
Geeze, I really meant to put DOOM in that post to enhance the dramatic value, but I was stoned and forgot to.
post #54 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahPowderPig View Post
There is a broader issue. IT'S ILLEAGAL to smoke pot. It's an issue about living righteously and obeying the law of the land. There are consequences of every decision that we make, and on the opposing side, there are also blessings by making the right choice. People may think that they have the right to smoke pot because they're able to get a way with it for a while, but eventually the consequences of their decisions will come back to them.
This is so true......keep smoking pot and you are likely to end up as one of the most popular US Presidents of all time...oh ya right, he didnt inhale.....or hell you can even do cocaine and be a 2 termer...although he is likely the worst president in US history.....gotta love US hypocrisy.

I think it is intresting that a guy who has 6 wives would be giving a lecture on moral values.
post #55 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post
This is so true......keep smoking pot and you are likely to end up as one of the most popular US Presidents of all time...oh ya right, he didnt inhale.....or hell you can even do cocaine and be a 2 termer...although he is likely the worst president in US history.....gotta love US hypocrisy.

I think it is intresting that a guy who has 6 wives would be giving a lecture on moral values.
OMG,

It sounds like UPP has 6 wives
post #56 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post
This is an opportunity of a life time. You are going to Alaska, and you are thinking about drug testing. That alone suggests that a break is in order.
I agree with this completely. I find the testing thing annoying for completely separate and unrelated reasons.
post #57 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Jones View Post
OMG,

It sounds like UPP has 6 wives
If that were the case, he should probably need to smoke the illegal weed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahPowderPig View Post
There is a broader issue. IT'S ILLEGAL to smoke pot. It's an issue about living righteously and obeying the law of the land. There are consequences of every decision that we make, and on the opposing side, there are also blessings by making the right choice. People may think that they have the right to smoke pot because they're able to get a way with it for a while, but eventually the consequences of their decisions will come back to them.


W/O getting too far afield, think about what was written. Yes it is illegal to grow, traffic in or possess mary jane. It is also illegal to drive above the posted speed limit. For a long time it was legal to discriminate against a racial segement of our population. Just because there is a law regulating something, does not make that law right or just.

In this country back about 80 years ago, a decision was made to criminalize marijuana use and possession. This was based upon hysteria generated due to racisim and fear spread by politicians. It had little to due with anything else.

Personally I think inhaling the smoke from any burning substance into your lungs is not good for long term health and is not in your best interests. People under a certain age, say 21 to 18 should not drink alcohol, smoke (anything) or do any drug. Once you reach majority I feel it is no ones business if you choose to do so. Especially not the Governments (State or Federal).

Our government already sanctions tobacco use and alcohol use. Phama companies make billions from products like Lunesta and Ambien (sleep aids) Both make a helluva lot of money from this. Certain people want certain compunds to feel better, feel numb, reduce stress. Who's business is it to decide what is o.k. and what is not.

No one has the right to be drunk on the job. No one has a right to be stoned on the job. Being impaired at work should be grounds for treatment and potentially loss of job.

I am glad that this subject came up. I had no idea there were still that many people around who think they should be told how to live their lives by others or by the governments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › drugtests for ski bums at alyeska?