off hours hahahahahaha
I have a friend in a shit job in Florida who is getting grief because she’s not willing to answer work calls from Australia in her off hours.
You know how to solve that… Oh you called me at one fucking AM? That is one hour I claim on my timesheet minimum. In all my years as a sysadmin I never had a manager blink at me entering 1 hour or more simply because I had to deal with something during on call time that took 20 minutes of actual time.
1 Like
I did not enjoy my time in the state of my birth.
Pretty deserts though.
Lots and lots and lots of racism, homophobia, and regressivism.
There’s a reason I’m in NM now, and a good bit of it is that I’m a born desert rat but prefer living where less than half of the people are … well, much of any one category, but the plurality is not “white.” And the deserts are just as pretty (no saguaros, though. I’ll manage.)
I never said you did anything but make a decision. And you should make decisions. I appreciate that you’re compassionate about problems people have. I just think it’s important to note that dipstick tests are dangerous, both because they’re often wrong, and because they provide an illusion of certainty.
1 Like
There was such an opening here locally quite some time ago. They solved the problem by sending my mother back to school and paying her to get a MSW. Before tuition costs blew up, that was a logical plan to fill slots with existing employees.
See, you’re a sysadmin. She has a shit job. Shit job says, “You do it or hit the bricks.” She’s in a community with few other good job opportunities. It is what it is.
If you have a good opportunity, or the ability to make more money for answering the phone at 1 am, it’s not an issue. But my point is that many employers don’t understand the concept of “off hours”.
This problem will be solved in the near future when off hours are eliminated.
1 Like
Wow. Public mental health is paying slightly better now than it did in 1997 (my first year on the job). Master’s in Psych, $27K per year. Have the benefits improved? I got no dental, no personal life insurance (though if a client killed me, the county would have collected multiple six figures…) and a catastrophic health plan that didn’t cover anything related to boobs or uteruses.
The reason most of us tested clean had nothing to do with legality. We couldn’t afford to both eat and pay a dealer’s rent.
This is today’s reminder that the reason we have a social work/mental health crisis is because we care about it this much.
1 Like
Just be sure to leave your memoirs there.
Of course the reason that impairment tests aren’t in use is that they catch far more people who are not using drugs than those who do.
Health is part of it, and older people are much more likely to fail. There is a normal variation in people’s reaction time and impairment even for healthy people.
This is the reason that impairment tests have not been ‘found’ or ‘developed’. They have plenty of such valid tests, but they just can’t distinguish reliably between someone having a bad day and someone actively impairing themselves.
The only real solution is subjective evaluation, done in good faith by someone well trained. That unfortunately is much harder to find than any test.
1 Like
During the late 90s tech boom, I recall reading an article in which employers were noting that they had to hire (gasp) ex-cons.
1 Like
Same here in the states, at least according to the personnel manager at my last job. So the person who was erratically missing work for a year to the point where it was dragging everybody down and being a problem, management said they couldn’t do anything about, because alcoholism is a disability under the ADA. Pissed me off, and the concept still does. I don’t think of it so much as a management/worker issue, it’s more about having a basic level of respect for your coworkers. If one needs help, I think employers should have to respect request for a leave of absence for rehabilitation, but showing up to work impaired should absolutely be fireable, and is a dick move besides.
1 Like
“I ain’t gonna pee pee in no cup
'less Nancy Reagan’s gonna drink it up”
1 Like
So in other words, the test works as designed and finds the problem it was meant to find.
This is unacceptable to the anti-drug crowd because they don’t care about the problem of people being impaired, they care about punishing people for bullshit anti-drug ideology.
Got it.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
