Last week while the Personnel Subcommittee was trying to hammer out an employee drug testing policy, there was much debate on when the appropriate timing was to use the more restictive hair follicle test verus a urine test. Both tests screened for the same 5 drugs. The hair follicle test would go back for about six months and the urine test would only cover the last week.
Attorney Mihos told the committee that if the committee chose to us the more restrictive hair follicle test on substitutes it might limit the pool of potential candidates too much. Really. Maybe it's because I am not a lawyer like attorney Mihos but I was under the impression it was always wrong to commit a crime just not when it was inconvenient. I got to get more schooling.
So following that line of reasoning it's okay to leave our children under the care and upervision of a possible drug addict because it is only temporary.
All of the back and forth debate resulted in the new drug testing policy being tabled and nothing was enacted, SO IT REMAINS THAT LPS HAS NO DRUG TESTING FOR ANY EMPLOYEE.
You do realize that recreational, personal use of marijuana once within the six months preceding a follicle test could a) result in a positive, b) by no means prove one an "addict," and c) not even qualify as a criminal violation under MA law, yes? Good. Then by all means, back to the petulant, off-putting rant.
ReplyDeleteWow, you have a good vocabulary! You've got to respect someone who can slam you so eloquently. It's not a crime to get hammered with alcohol either, do you want alcoholics teaching kindergarten?
ReplyDeleteDo I want persons whom are presently intoxicated teaching children of any age? No. Do I believe highly qualified, effective and devoted school teachers may imbibe (even overindulge) at other times during the pursuit of their private, personal lives and for which our children are none the worse? Yes. This, along with your persistent insistence that proof of any use is equivalent to addiction, is the distinction you don't seem to grasp.
ReplyDeleteNone of which is really my point because, let's face it, public employees audacious enough to expect the privacy to lead personal lives outside of work rarely remain public employees for long. And, frankly the Citizens for Teachers' Freedom to Shoot-Up Afterhours table is not a big draw.
ReplyDeleteWhat actually concerns me is the bilious tone of your quote-unquote reporting. Its evident that you care deeply for your children and want the best for them, but I can't imagine what you think you're helping in attacking everyone and everything. In the few short months I've been checking in, I've learned that: Candidates who invite you, gratis, to their events are bad; Candidates who invite you to their events, expecting you to pay your own way, are worse; Elected officials are not honest, well-meaning people but nefarious conspirators; and, above all, lawyers suck.
Bottom-line these are all opinions that you are absolutely entitled to hold, I only hope that you don't confuse broadcasting them for your personal catharsis with the slow, piecemeal process of building consensus through diplomacy to cause positive change in a democratic society.
Gee, you write really well. Such a vocabulary. Really you should get your own blog. You've just got to shre all of that wisdom.
ReplyDelete