Marijuana legalization clashes with drug testing in the workplace

[Pogo]

Well **** that. I don't work for parents; I work for equals.

If we were equal ... The employee wouldn't be looking for a job.

I'm a Liberal; that means I don't believe in castes. The employer is absolutely not some higher life form.
It's a barter. He needs my services, I need his wages. We trade. It's what equals do.

You miss the point ... If you were equal you would be the employer.
It is not a caste ... Not intelligence ... Not superiority ... You just don't own the business.
If you did own your own business ... Then you would be equal and not looking for a job.

You make that separation in opportunities and responsibilities ... And then try to tell me they are the same.

If you were equal you would be the employer. ---- does not follow.

When I work for you, we're a team. That means I'm one of your players --- not the actual football. It still comes down to a simple barter: my services for your wages. If I deliver the services, you owe the wages. That's all there is to it.

I go to the supermarket deli and make the same kind of exchange ---- my money for their goods. Doesn't make the deli counter person some superior caste.

As a worker, you are a spoke in the wheel.
The employer is the hub.
You are important, but the employer is more important.

ah, nnnnnnnnnnnnno. We are all equal. Castes and those who consider themselves superior life forms therein can bite me.

 

[Pogo]

The point is not, and never was, whether it's "legal" or being done. We all know it is. The question is, is there a justification for it? This is the one you haven't come up with an answer for. Addressing that question separates those of us who just roll over when Authority barks, and those of us who stand up and say, "hold up, this is wrong".

(Edit: see distinction between "drugs" and cannabis, next post. Nothing here has been about actual drugs, addictions or "problems")

Interestingly, it's the same question that can't be addressed about the illegalization of weed in the first place. We languish under a law based on complete bullshit, by now we all know it's bullshit, and yet some o' y'all continue bleating "yes master, may I have another". I find such obsequiousness disgusting.

Legalize pot, I don't care. I have long been on record of legalizing it, in fact I'm for legalizing lots of drugs and tax the hell out of it. They can help fund the rehab facilities.

You want to smoke, shoot up, snort, go right ahead.

I am for, an employer not hiring you because you can't pass a skills test, can't lift one pound, you make stupid posts, whatever the hell his reason is. If a business wants to drug test you, fine by me, and if I don't want to work for an ass that drug tests others fine.

I'm not justifying it, it is an employers right. I don't care if it is justified or not. A business has a right to protect itself from liability and unnecessary risks. The potential of loss is there, the links prove drug abuse causes loss of money. That is justification enough.

Now if a business doesn't want to drug test, more power to them. I don't care.

So, I won't justify it because that is blatantly stupid.

Work for whoever you want, hire who you want.

Sure you can do all of the above, and sure it's all within the law. What you can't do, as you've admitted here again, is justify it.

Now if you can waltz through life supporting stuff you can't justify, then you're a far better dancer than I. And I'm sitting this one out, thank you very much.

Drug abuse is a huge cost to business, a business is justified in trying to prevent a loss, since drug abusers have a higher crime rate, higher theft rate, higher health risks than the general population, it is justified, except in your little mind.

Sigh.
Once again... number one, drug abuse is a cost (huge or not) to the user, not the business, but ultimately it's the user's money to spend as he or she wishes, is it not? Drug abuse has no effect on the business whatsoever. The behavior associated with it might, but the presence of such behavior or performance is not a given. Secondly, your unlinked ipse dixit mass generalizations have all the impact of a whiffle ball.

And third, you cannot determine "abuse" by a chemical analysis. All that shows is the presence of a chemical. It does not interpret what the presence of that chemical means or how it manifests, or if it even manifests at all. So let's face it --- it has nothing to do with what one does on the job, and everything to do with what one does OFF the job. When the worker isn't being paid.

Now if that employer wants to pay full wages for 24 hour days seven days a week to buy that time, THEN they have a case to dictate what happens outside the workplace, all 168 hours of the week. Until then -- not so much.

"Drug abuse has no effect on the business whatsoever." ?!!!!!

Did he just say that ?

Did you just edit my post out of context?

Why yes, you did.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Legalize pot, I don't care. I have long been on record of legalizing it, in fact I'm for legalizing lots of drugs and tax the hell out of it. They can help fund the rehab facilities.

You want to smoke, shoot up, snort, go right ahead.

I am for, an employer not hiring you because you can't pass a skills test, can't lift one pound, you make stupid posts, whatever the hell his reason is. If a business wants to drug test you, fine by me, and if I don't want to work for an ass that drug tests others fine.

I'm not justifying it, it is an employers right. I don't care if it is justified or not. A business has a right to protect itself from liability and unnecessary risks. The potential of loss is there, the links prove drug abuse causes loss of money. That is justification enough.

Now if a business doesn't want to drug test, more power to them. I don't care.

So, I won't justify it because that is blatantly stupid.

Work for whoever you want, hire who you want.

Sure you can do all of the above, and sure it's all within the law. What you can't do, as you've admitted here again, is justify it.

Now if you can waltz through life supporting stuff you can't justify, then you're a far better dancer than I. And I'm sitting this one out, thank you very much.

Drug abuse is a huge cost to business, a business is justified in trying to prevent a loss, since drug abusers have a higher crime rate, higher theft rate, higher health risks than the general population, it is justified, except in your little mind.

Sigh.
Once again... number one, drug abuse is a cost (huge or not) to the user, not the business, but ultimately it's the user's money to spend as he or she wishes, is it not? Drug abuse has no effect on the business whatsoever. The behavior associated with it might, but the presence of such behavior or performance is not a given. Secondly, your unlinked ipse dixit mass generalizations have all the impact of a whiffle ball.

And third, you cannot determine "abuse" by a chemical analysis. All that shows is the presence of a chemical. It does not interpret what the presence of that chemical means or how it manifests, or if it even manifests at all. So let's face it --- it has nothing to do with what one does on the job, and everything to do with what one does OFF the job. When the worker isn't being paid.

Now if that employer wants to pay full wages for 24 hour days seven days a week to buy that time, THEN they have a case to dictate what happens outside the workplace, all 168 hours of the week. Until then -- not so much.

"Drug abuse has no effect on the business whatsoever." ?!!!!!

Did he just say that ?

Did you just edit my post out of context?

Why yes, you did.

You're so dumb. You're definitely a communist.

 

[Moonglow]

 

[DigitalDrifter]

If we were equal ... The employee wouldn't be looking for a job.

I'm a Liberal; that means I don't believe in castes. The employer is absolutely not some higher life form.
It's a barter. He needs my services, I need his wages. We trade. It's what equals do.

You miss the point ... If you were equal you would be the employer.
It is not a caste ... Not intelligence ... Not superiority ... You just don't own the business.
If you did own your own business ... Then you would be equal and not looking for a job.

You make that separation in opportunities and responsibilities ... And then try to tell me they are the same.

If you were equal you would be the employer. ---- does not follow.

When I work for you, we're a team. That means I'm one of your players --- not the actual football. It still comes down to a simple barter: my services for your wages. If I deliver the services, you owe the wages. That's all there is to it.

I go to the supermarket deli and make the same kind of exchange ---- my money for their goods. Doesn't make the deli counter person some superior caste.

As a worker, you are a spoke in the wheel.
The employer is the hub.
You are important, but the employer is more important.

ah, nnnnnnnnnnnnno. We are all equal. Castes and those who consider themselves superior life forms therein can bite me.

Ummmmm, yesssssssss.
If you add all of the employees up, then you might have an argument, but one worker is not as important as the entire employer.

 

[Papageorgio]

Already gave you links however I don't need to justify anything to you. You believe differently than I do when it comes to the cost of drug abuse in the work place. My life experience tells me something different than your life experience.

Hundreds of millions are lost every year due to drugs in the workplace.

Dood, there are only 120 million workers total. See what I mean about pulling stats out of your ass?

I think drug testing gives us a snapshot of 48 hours, if you can't stay off the drugs knowing you are going to get tested...you got bigger problems than needing a new job.

Again, I don't know if you caught this but I'm addressing cannabis, not "drugs" -- but insofar as that goes, no it's a lot more than "48 hours" (and again, if you're not paying for those preceding 48 hours, it's none of your bidness) -- the actual latency period is a lot longer:

No one can really say how long you will test positive for marijuana, since the rate of THC metabolism varies per individual. The amount of marijuana consumed can also alter the window of time that your body retains traces of THC.

Even still, studies provide some insight into how long the average individual will test positive for marijuana.
​

... Studies suggest someone who smokes often can expect to test positive for around a week following last use. According to the NDCI, after 10 days, most frequent users should pass a urine test at the 50 ng/mL threshold.
....
However, there’s no guarantee that a heavy cannabis smoker will be free of THC metabolites after 10 days. Studies show it’s possible for some users to test positive for up to a month after last use. -- LeafScience
​

Remember Valentine's Day? Sixty-seven days is just before that. Real exact science, huh?

Oh by the way that stuff in red is called a "link".

Dollars, not people. LOL! I figured you were smart, my mistake.

Still --- unlinked ipse dixit. Again -- statistics showing something is one thing; typing the words "statistics show" on an internet message board, with nary a link, is quite something else.

I gave links a few pages ago. Again, businesses use the potential for loss as a justification, whether you agree with the justification or not is up to you.

You know what's even more cowardly than spewing a bunch of crap with no links?

-- Posting "I gave links a few pages ago" when you did no such thing.

I just checked, thinking I must have missed something. But I didn't -- you haven't linked anything, about any point at all, to me or anyone else in this entire thread. Not a single one. Zero. Bupkis. Squatsola.

You are a dishonest hack and dismissed.

Post 146 there are two links, now **** off *****!

I'm out!

 

[EverCurious]

http://www.datia.org/advocacy/IBH_workplacetesting.pdf (Section IV)

"In 2002 the estimated national cost of lost worker productivity including absenteeism and poor job performance due to illicit drug use was $129 billion. This cost directly impacts employers, fellow employees, and families and indirectly, the nation’s economy. Employees who use drugs are more likely to ask for early dismissal or time off, to be absent, to be late for work, to be involved in workplace accidents, and to file workers’ compensation claims. Additionally, past month illicit drug users are more likely than their non-using peers to report having worked for three or more employers in the past year. Results from a blind longitudinal study of job applicants show that individuals who test positive on pre-employment tests are 77 percent more likely to be terminated within the first three years of employment and be absent from work 6 percent more frequently.

Among adults age 18 and older, 9.1 percent of full time employees used an illicit drug in the past month in 2013, compared to 13.7 percent part-time employees and 18.2 percent of those who are unemployed. Although drug use is more prevalent among those not employed, 68.9 percent of all illicit drug users aged 18 and older (15.4 million) were employed full or part-time. For decades marijuana has been and remains the most widely used illicit drug among those who are employed. A national study of worker substance use showed that for years 2002-2004, 6.4 percent (7.3 million) of full-time workers aged 18 to 64 used marijuana in the past month.** This represented the large majority (77.6 percent) of those who used an illicit drug during this time.

The serious threats to health and safety created by the use of marijuana were recently reviewed in two leading medical journals. Marijuana is a drug of abuse that can produce addiction and symptoms of withdrawal. About 9 percent of all marijuana users develop addiction to the drug. This figure increases dramatically to 17 percent if marijuana use is initiated during adolescence and increases to between 25-50 percent among daily marijuana users. The early and heavy use of marijuana increases the risk of addiction to marijuana and it also increases risk of use and addiction to other drugs. Over 61 percent of Americans age 12 and older with a substance use disorder for drugs other than alcohol are dependent on or abuse marijuana, making it by far the most prevalent illicit drug of abuse in the country. More Americans obtain treatment for marijuana than for any other illegal drug.

In addition to the link between early and heavy marijuana use and addiction, there is a strong association between marijuana use and diminished lifetime achievement; motor vehicle crashes; and symptoms of chronic bronchitis. There is also a relationship between marijuana use and abnormal brain development, progression to use of other drugs, schizophrenia, depression and anxiety.

Short-term effects of marijuana use include impaired short-term memory, impaired motor coordination, altered judgment and, in high doses, paranoia and psychosis. Among the conclusions reached by Colorado’s Retail Marijuana Public Health Advisory Committee charged with monitoring health effects of marijuana and released by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, “We found substantial evidence for associations between marijuana use and memory impairments lasting at least seven days after last use, as well as the potential for acute psychotic symptoms immediately after use” Given the short- and long-term impacts of marijuana use, the drug poses a serious threat to workplace safety and productivity. The legal status of marijuana does not remove this threat."

**included within the above section of the linked PDF are some 15 or so links to various studies backing up the above arguments for drug free workplaces. However, I will pivot on the findings of only one of the linked studies http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/work2k7/toc.cfm in my following argument:

If 77.6% of full-time worker's used marijuana, then one can imply that 77.6% of the negative findings regarding drug use in the work place are due to marijuana. Yes? Therefore see the first paragraph regarding the problems and lost profit related to drug using employee's, and understand that if an employer believes these studies, they have more than ample reason to demand drug-free employees and require drug testing. Thus they have personal, fiscal, and in some cases federally mandated, reasons to drug test their employees and every right to do so.

As an pot using employee, all you have to do is find a job where the boss doesn't care if you smoke pot (or hell do any drugs half the time.) Trust me there's a lot out there that I have personally had to deal with; they will not ONLY allow you to use drugs off the clock (or hell on the clock some of them), but shrug off all the bad things the above studies relate directly to drug use; showing up late, taking days off (often without calling,) AND requesting worker's compensation for the surprising number of accidents they get into; likely due to reduced mental facilities. (So, I once managed a strip club for a friend of the family; all I am going to say is holy shit, those dancers...)

NONE of that changes the fact that an employer has the right to dictate the terms of employment. You as an employee have an obligation to abide by the terms of that employment, regardless of if you personally agree with the studies advising drug testing or not. Life isn't fair, get over it.

 

[EverCurious]

No. An employer's got no right to dictate what their employee does off the clock. Again, if they want to buy my time in full, 168 hours a week, every week, they can make me an offer and it's gonna be a ton of O/T but that's the only way you get to determine what I do on my own time -- by buying it. If I even sell it under those conditions, which I wouldn't.

Then you have no argument with drug testing jobs, because you put your off the clock freedom's over the requirements of the job, yes? Thus, again, find a job where your boss doesn't care if you do drugs and problem solved for everyone.

 

[Pogo]

No. An employer's got no right to dictate what their employee does off the clock. Again, if they want to buy my time in full, 168 hours a week, every week, they can make me an offer and it's gonna be a ton of O/T but that's the only way you get to determine what I do on my own time -- by buying it. If I even sell it under those conditions, which I wouldn't.

Then you have no argument with drug testing jobs, because you put your off the clock freedom's over the requirements of the job, yes? Thus, again, find a job where your boss doesn't care if you do drugs and problem solved for everyone.

That doesn't make sense.

Bottom line, again, is that if you hire me to work 8 to 5 then my time is yours from 8 to 5. At 5:01 it's MY time, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

 

[Papageorgio]

No. An employer's got no right to dictate what their employee does off the clock. Again, if they want to buy my time in full, 168 hours a week, every week, they can make me an offer and it's gonna be a ton of O/T but that's the only way you get to determine what I do on my own time -- by buying it. If I even sell it under those conditions, which I wouldn't.

Then you have no argument with drug testing jobs, because you put your off the clock freedom's over the requirements of the job, yes? Thus, again, find a job where your boss doesn't care if you do drugs and problem solved for everyone.

That doesn't make sense.

Bottom line, again, is that if you hire me to work 8 to 5 then my time is yours from 8 to 5. At 5:01 it's MY time, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

You are right and if you come in, in the morning and they ask to drug test you and you refuse or test positive, you will be fired and there is not a damned thing you can do about that. It works both ways.

 

[Pogo]

No. An employer's got no right to dictate what their employee does off the clock. Again, if they want to buy my time in full, 168 hours a week, every week, they can make me an offer and it's gonna be a ton of O/T but that's the only way you get to determine what I do on my own time -- by buying it. If I even sell it under those conditions, which I wouldn't.

Then you have no argument with drug testing jobs, because you put your off the clock freedom's over the requirements of the job, yes? Thus, again, find a job where your boss doesn't care if you do drugs and problem solved for everyone.

That doesn't make sense.

Bottom line, again, is that if you hire me to work 8 to 5 then my time is yours from 8 to 5. At 5:01 it's MY time, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

You are right and if you come in, in the morning and they ask to drug test you and you refuse or test positive, you will be fired and there is not a damned thing you can do about that.

And you will have had the same justification for that as you had the first, second, third and fourth times I posed the question -- none. Which is exactly the same justification behind the cannabis laws themselves, because none exists, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

 

[Papageorgio]

No. An employer's got no right to dictate what their employee does off the clock. Again, if they want to buy my time in full, 168 hours a week, every week, they can make me an offer and it's gonna be a ton of O/T but that's the only way you get to determine what I do on my own time -- by buying it. If I even sell it under those conditions, which I wouldn't.

Then you have no argument with drug testing jobs, because you put your off the clock freedom's over the requirements of the job, yes? Thus, again, find a job where your boss doesn't care if you do drugs and problem solved for everyone.

That doesn't make sense.

Bottom line, again, is that if you hire me to work 8 to 5 then my time is yours from 8 to 5. At 5:01 it's MY time, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

You are right and if you come in, in the morning and they ask to drug test you and you refuse or test positive, you will be fired and there is not a damned thing you can do about that.

And you will have had the same justification for that as you had the first, second, third and fourth times I posed the question -- none. Which is exactly the same justification behind the cannabis laws themselves, because none exists, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

I gave you my justification, just because you don't like my answer means nothing to me. You have no evidence that companies are in the wrong. The issue is potential loss by the company. The links I provided, the links others have provided show potential loss and a pattern of loss. That you don't like it doesn't mean a thing.

If you are driving and you get a DUI, you will be cancelled or your rates will go up, why because the risk is there and their is a cost to the behavior.

 

[Pogo]

No. An employer's got no right to dictate what their employee does off the clock. Again, if they want to buy my time in full, 168 hours a week, every week, they can make me an offer and it's gonna be a ton of O/T but that's the only way you get to determine what I do on my own time -- by buying it. If I even sell it under those conditions, which I wouldn't.

Then you have no argument with drug testing jobs, because you put your off the clock freedom's over the requirements of the job, yes? Thus, again, find a job where your boss doesn't care if you do drugs and problem solved for everyone.

That doesn't make sense.

Bottom line, again, is that if you hire me to work 8 to 5 then my time is yours from 8 to 5. At 5:01 it's MY time, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

You are right and if you come in, in the morning and they ask to drug test you and you refuse or test positive, you will be fired and there is not a damned thing you can do about that.

And you will have had the same justification for that as you had the first, second, third and fourth times I posed the question -- none. Which is exactly the same justification behind the cannabis laws themselves, because none exists, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

I gave you my justification, just because you don't like my answer means nothing to me. You have no evidence that companies are in the wrong. The issue is potential loss by the company. The links I provided, the links others have provided show potential loss and a pattern of loss. That you don't like it doesn't mean a thing.

If you are driving and you get a DUI, you will be cancelled or your rates will go up, why because the risk is there and their is a cost to the behavior.

128 hours a week that a 40-hour worker is not on the clock is plenty of evidence. And again all it gives you is "X chemical content". It gives you no stats whatsoever on safety or productivity (or anything else). That part is completely Ass - umed. And the comparison to alcohol is a complete red herring; alcohol has measurable efffects on motor skills and judgment. Cannabis does not.

Ergo, no justification. Like it or lump it.

 

[Papageorgio]

Then you have no argument with drug testing jobs, because you put your off the clock freedom's over the requirements of the job, yes? Thus, again, find a job where your boss doesn't care if you do drugs and problem solved for everyone.

That doesn't make sense.

Bottom line, again, is that if you hire me to work 8 to 5 then my time is yours from 8 to 5. At 5:01 it's MY time, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

You are right and if you come in, in the morning and they ask to drug test you and you refuse or test positive, you will be fired and there is not a damned thing you can do about that.

And you will have had the same justification for that as you had the first, second, third and fourth times I posed the question -- none. Which is exactly the same justification behind the cannabis laws themselves, because none exists, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

I gave you my justification, just because you don't like my answer means nothing to me. You have no evidence that companies are in the wrong. The issue is potential loss by the company. The links I provided, the links others have provided show potential loss and a pattern of loss. That you don't like it doesn't mean a thing.

If you are driving and you get a DUI, you will be cancelled or your rates will go up, why because the risk is there and their is a cost to the behavior.

128 hours a week that a 40-hour worker is not on the clock is plenty of evidence. And again all it gives you is "X chemical content". It gives you no stats whatsoever on safety or productivity (or anything else). That part is completely Ass - umed.

Ergo, no justification. Like it or lump it.

Like I said, just because you don't like the answers, means nothing. It's justified, and it is legal and it is done more and more. Like it or lump it.

 

[Pogo]

That doesn't make sense.

Bottom line, again, is that if you hire me to work 8 to 5 then my time is yours from 8 to 5. At 5:01 it's MY time, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

You are right and if you come in, in the morning and they ask to drug test you and you refuse or test positive, you will be fired and there is not a damned thing you can do about that.

And you will have had the same justification for that as you had the first, second, third and fourth times I posed the question -- none. Which is exactly the same justification behind the cannabis laws themselves, because none exists, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

I gave you my justification, just because you don't like my answer means nothing to me. You have no evidence that companies are in the wrong. The issue is potential loss by the company. The links I provided, the links others have provided show potential loss and a pattern of loss. That you don't like it doesn't mean a thing.

If you are driving and you get a DUI, you will be cancelled or your rates will go up, why because the risk is there and their is a cost to the behavior.

128 hours a week that a 40-hour worker is not on the clock is plenty of evidence. And again all it gives you is "X chemical content". It gives you no stats whatsoever on safety or productivity (or anything else). That part is completely Ass - umed.

Ergo, no justification. Like it or lump it.

Like I said, just because you don't like the answers, means nothing. It's justified, and it is legal and it is done more and more. Like it or lump it.

How original.
You seem to be obsessed with getting the last word even if it means saying the same lame shit over and over and over.
Kinda like an addiction.

Again, typing out the words "it's justified" on the iternet doesn't make it justified when you can't make the case. And "Legal" is irrelevant. There are already laws against a piece of Nature -- so much for the integrity of "legal".

 

[Papageorgio]

You are right and if you come in, in the morning and they ask to drug test you and you refuse or test positive, you will be fired and there is not a damned thing you can do about that.

And you will have had the same justification for that as you had the first, second, third and fourth times I posed the question -- none. Which is exactly the same justification behind the cannabis laws themselves, because none exists, and there ain't a damn thing you can do about that.

I gave you my justification, just because you don't like my answer means nothing to me. You have no evidence that companies are in the wrong. The issue is potential loss by the company. The links I provided, the links others have provided show potential loss and a pattern of loss. That you don't like it doesn't mean a thing.

If you are driving and you get a DUI, you will be cancelled or your rates will go up, why because the risk is there and their is a cost to the behavior.

128 hours a week that a 40-hour worker is not on the clock is plenty of evidence. And again all it gives you is "X chemical content". It gives you no stats whatsoever on safety or productivity (or anything else). That part is completely Ass - umed.

Ergo, no justification. Like it or lump it.

Like I said, just because you don't like the answers, means nothing. It's justified, and it is legal and it is done more and more. Like it or lump it.

How original.
You seem to be obsessed with getting the last word even if it means saying the same lame shit over and over and over.
Kinda like an addiction.

Again, typing out the words "it's justified" on the iternet doesn't make it justified when you can't make the case. And "Legal" is irrelevant. There are already laws against a piece of Nature -- so much for the integrity of "legal".

Everyone on this thread can see the justification of a business protecting itself by conducting drug test. Just because you are stuck in stupid doesn't change a thing.

Stay stuck on stupid, because you offer nothing new and at least rational people can see the reasonableness in drug testing.

If a business doesn't want to drug test, good for,them, it is their business. If a business wants to do a drug test, good for them, it's their business.

Night.

 

[Pogo]

Whatever it takes to stand with the oppressors against the people.

Sycophants... SMH

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Whatever it takes to stand with the oppressors against the people.

Sycophants... SMH

Fur shur dude !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BlackSand]

Whatever it takes to stand with the oppressors against the people.

Sycophants... SMH

Yeah ... I am going to oppress some folks into getting paid today.

The funny part is that a business owner has to be a decent manager if they ever want to be successful.
Being a good manager means we can get our employees to do the required work to the required standards.

I would tell them they are Gods if it meant they would do better work.

If you actually oppress your employees, their work sucks and it makes you work harder in the longrun.
I am just thankful that someone can be stoned and handle agricultural waste or clean boats properly.

.

 

[Papageorgio]

Whatever it takes to stand with the oppressors against the people.

Sycophants... SMH

Lol! You do love drama.