From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #603 Dead-Flames Digest #603, Volume #48 Tue, 18 Oct 05 07:00:02 PDT Contents: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (Stu Schwartz) Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (the wharf rat) Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) ("chosney") Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (bigamps) so...who owns a "hippy store" here? ("Nick's Picks") so...who owns a "hippy store" here? ("Nick's Picks") Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) ("Dylanstubs") Re: so...who owns a "hippy store" here? ("Bzl.") Re: Tahoe reccomendations? (Joe) Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (Ken Fortenberry) Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (Joe) Re: Conservative slams Bush: Miers pick reflects Bush's flaky nature (NDC) (Joe) Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (Ben) Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (Ben) Re: Amazing Band for your wedding or party! ("Schmoe") Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (Ben) Re: RMGD Word n' Numbers Taboo (Joe) Re: Bob Dylan sued over "Dignity" (Joe) Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) ("Richard Morris") Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) ("imsjry") Re: First show/last show (DB) Re: First show/last show (DB) Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (Ben) Clapton/Trucks Tour? ("Schmoe") Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) (Ben) Re: First show/last show ("Richard Morris") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:44:45 -0400 From: Stu Schwartz Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Ben wrote: > just wondering others experiences. > > I just interviewed for a job today that has a drug test. I might even > be able to pass at this point, but am still planning on using some > product that I bought - dehydrated piss that's guaranteed clean. > > How does this usually work with big companies? > > Since they flew me up to their HQ for the interview, I was prepared to > use the dehydrated solution, but they didn't mention it and so I'm > left pondering the possibilities: > > 1: They tell me to go to a testing facility where I live when they > make an offer and tell me it's contingent on that > > 2: They test me when I report to work - sounds crazy, but this is how > another company I went to work for did it - I passed that one - was > clean for a good 6 weeks and drank some tea just for good measure. > > That was a much smaller company - this one's BIG. > > 3: It's a bluff to weed out applicants - probably a pipe dream on my > part > > > There was a part on the application saying I agreed to submit to piss > or blood tests whenever they requested it, but the job description > didn't say anything about random tests - I imagine it's just a > pre-employment and a for-cause thing. > > I wouldn't be doing anything like driving a forklift although some > positions in the company do that sort of thing. > > I figure a blood test is only if they suspect you're drunk or under > the influence at the time - can that even detect drug use beyond that? > > I know piss tests for pot can detect up to a month and maybe more. > That's what really bothers me. > > I've been clean for a month except for few resin hits a couple weeks > ago which really didn't do much anyway. > > I don't have an offer yet, but it seems weird that they would spend > somewhere between $500-$1000 to interview me in person but not include > the drug test then. A drug test surely wouldn't cost more than > $50-100, would it? > > So why wait until they extend an offer or until I show up for my first > day of work to actually require a piss test? Generally it is a privacy issue. If you take the test without an offer what happens to the test? Who owns it? What about the results...can they be used against you some other time, somewhere else? I hope never to have to make the decision to get a job that requires a test. I think they are an invasion of privacy unless you can directly connect it to the job as a potential problem. --peace-- stu ------------------------------ From: wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:56:05 +0000 (UTC) In article <3rjtm5Fjfaj8U1@individual.net>, band beyond description <123@456.com> wrote: >they're fascist motherfuckers. > They may be required to do that stuff by their own customers. For instance, I work for a government contractor and we're required to do random tests. ------------------------------ From: "chosney" Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: 18 Oct 2005 05:09:32 -0700 Ben wrote: > just wondering others experiences. > > I just interviewed for a job today that has a drug test. I might even > be able to pass at this point, but am still planning on using some > product that I bought - dehydrated piss that's guaranteed clean. > > How does this usually work with big companies? > > Since they flew me up to their HQ for the interview, I was prepared to > use the dehydrated solution, but they didn't mention it and so I'm > left pondering the possibilities: > > 1: They tell me to go to a testing facility where I live when they > make an offer and tell me it's contingent on that In most cases this will be the case (#1), it will say in your offer letter. If its a big company they will have someone that coordinates this test and you can ask them the method (urine, blood, hair) and they'll tell you. That agency won't contact the company. You'll probably be able to take the test prior to accepting your offer as they'll want you to take it within a few days. ------------------------------ From: bigamps Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:12:36 GMT Ben wrote: > just wondering others experiences. > > I just interviewed for a job today that has a drug test. .... > Since they flew me up to their HQ for the interview, I was prepared to > use the dehydrated solution, but they didn't mention it and so I'm > left pondering the possibilities: .... > > So why wait until they extend an offer or until I show up for my first > day of work to actually require a piss test? They're giving you a chance to clean out so you'll have a negative test and they get a 'clean' new employee. I worked as a contract temp and was outright told I'd have six weeks before my test and to 'be ready'. They're caught between the reality and idealism of 'A Drug Free Workplace' just like you and me. ------------------------------ From: "Nick's Picks" Subject: so...who owns a "hippy store" here? Date: 18 Oct 2005 05:35:34 -0700 i'm looking to pick up a wholesale account for my tie-dyes. any takers? they are good...plenty of references here in RMGD to attest to this claim. pictures available on request. great prices for the workmanship. ------------------------------ From: "Nick's Picks" Subject: so...who owns a "hippy store" here? Date: 18 Oct 2005 05:35:53 -0700 i'm looking to pick up a wholesale account for my tie-dyes. any takers? they are good...plenty of references here in RMGD to attest to this claim. pictures available on request. great prices for the work involved. ------------------------------ From: "Dylanstubs" Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: 18 Oct 2005 05:47:36 -0700 Pre-employment drug screening is pretty common. If you're actively job hunting, it might be a good time to clean out for awhile, and it'll probably save you a few dollars. Random drug testing for existing employees is a different animal, and usually found where job safety or critical tolerances are a major concern. If drug use is a part of your life, you should think twice before hiring into that kind of environment. Even though drug testing does suck, I think I'm on the side of the employer in this case. They have every right to have clean employees. Lingering effects of drug use can impact job performance, and overall employee reliability. If you don't like it, work somewhere else. ------------------------------ From: "Bzl." Subject: Re: so...who owns a "hippy store" here? Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:55:53 -0400 "Nick's Picks" wrote in message news:1129638934.721747.206590@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > i'm looking to pick up a wholesale account for my tie-dyes. > any takers? > they are good...plenty of references here in RMGD to attest to this > claim. > > pictures available on request. > great prices for the workmanship. > I'll vouch! I love the two that I bought; thanks Nick. ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: Tahoe reccomendations? Date: 18 Oct 2005 12:59:27 GMT Well, not to sound like a complete troll, but... During ski season, I'd love to be able to claim some floor space at your place. And, if you partake in the flower of the gods, the flower that leads to enlightenment, then my man, we both win. (cough, cough) Joe ------------------------------ From: Ken Fortenberry Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:02:13 GMT Dylanstubs wrote: > > Even though drug testing does suck, I think I'm on the side of the > employer in this case. They have every right to have clean employees. > Lingering effects of drug use can impact job performance, and overall > employee reliability. If you don't like it, work somewhere else. Employers have every right to have non-impaired employees and to conduct impairment tests but drug tests should be considered illegal searches. If an employee is impaired the employer shouldn't care if it's because of pot, booze, prescription drugs or a colicky baby. Impaired is impaired and that's all they need to know. -- Ken Fortenberry ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: 18 Oct 2005 13:11:22 GMT Isn't it ironic that booze is toxic, will impair your mental and physical functions, sometimes leads to violence, and is completely legal, while the most benign plant on the planet can get you tossed into prison? Ain't America great? Joe ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: Conservative slams Bush: Miers pick reflects Bush's flaky nature (NDC) Date: 18 Oct 2005 13:14:35 GMT Seth Jackson wrote: > Why does he hate America so much? Bush has found the real terrorists, and they are the American people. What a sick, disgusting. pathetic, dishonest, war-like society America has become. In just 5 short years. Joe ------------------------------ From: Ben Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 06:15:29 -0700 On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:02:13 GMT, Ken Fortenberry wrote: >Dylanstubs wrote: >> >> Even though drug testing does suck, I think I'm on the side of the >> employer in this case. They have every right to have clean employees. >> Lingering effects of drug use can impact job performance, and overall >> employee reliability. If you don't like it, work somewhere else. > >Employers have every right to have non-impaired employees >and to conduct impairment tests but drug tests should be >considered illegal searches. > >If an employee is impaired the employer shouldn't care if >it's because of pot, booze, prescription drugs or a colicky >baby. Impaired is impaired and that's all they need to know. I have no problem with that - fire me if I'm not performing, but don't screw me because I got high on vacation last month ------------------------------ From: Ben Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 06:17:06 -0700 On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:56:05 +0000 (UTC), wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) wrote: >In article <3rjtm5Fjfaj8U1@individual.net>, >band beyond description <123@456.com> wrote: >>they're fascist motherfuckers. >> > > They may be required to do that stuff by their own customers. >For instance, I work for a government contractor and we're required to >do random tests. > I suspect it's more for insurance purposes - even though I wouldn't be handling heavy machinery, that is part of their business. ------------------------------ Reply-To: "Schmoe" From: "Schmoe" Subject: Re: Amazing Band for your wedding or party! Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:17:00 -0400 ramzi.budayr@gmail.com wrote: > Hello couples and party planners, Hello and fuck off spammer. > I represent a truly incredible band called Strawberry Lane No, they suck. Like spammers. >They do everything from > current hits to the classics to jazz to hip-hop and have written > about 5 original songs. Can they do Hava Nagila? > They started recording their demo at a major > recording studio in New York City last year and are putting the > finishing touches before they send their music out to the major > record labels. I heard they're are tour plans with Grapefruit Ed. >>These guys are going to hit it big, No, no they aren't. You're spamming on usenet. That should tell you something about their future. ------------------------------ From: Ben Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 06:18:05 -0700 On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:32:29 +0900, "band beyond description" <123@456.com> wrote: >> I don't have an offer yet, but it seems weird that they would spend >> somewhere between $500-$1000 to interview me in person but not include >> the drug test then. > >Nice to be considered for a job, but (especially as this issue is of concern >to you) they're fascist motherfuckers. > Yeah, but they pay well, have great benefits, are in a great location, etc... >HTH. ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: RMGD Word n' Numbers Taboo Date: 18 Oct 2005 13:19:08 GMT pbleers@hotmail.com wrote: > G-13 That, I'll have you know, is Geraldine's mother. Or, depending on how you look at it, her father. Or, so they say... Joe ------------------------------ From: Joe Subject: Re: Bob Dylan sued over "Dignity" Date: 18 Oct 2005 13:23:19 GMT Say, is this James Damiano related to Grapefruit Ted? ------------------------------ From: "Richard Morris" Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 06:25:03 -0700 "Ben" wrote in message news:1ft9l1t087c0tkf5o6kr84gjl1mnekdop8@4ax.com... > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:32:29 +0900, "band beyond description" > <123@456.com> wrote: > >>> I don't have an offer yet, but it seems weird that they would spend >>> somewhere between $500-$1000 to interview me in person but not include >>> the drug test then. >> >>Nice to be considered for a job, but (especially as this issue is of >>concern >>to you) they're fascist motherfuckers. >> > > Yeah, but they pay well, have great benefits, are in a great location, Yeah ... and if you get caught up in a random test and get terminated, you have an unexplainable gap in your work history. That can dog you for a number of years. R. ------------------------------ From: "imsjry" Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: 18 Oct 2005 06:30:29 -0700 I didn't know there were any jobs these days where they DIDN'T drug test. I think it is just a reality. The "go work somewhere else" advice is just naive. ------------------------------ From: DB Subject: Re: First show/last show Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:34:22 -0400 Seth Jackson wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:22:31 -0600, Edwin Hurwitz > wrote: > > >>PS I was also at 5/7/77. The Gahden sold me a seat in the second balcony >>that had a notch cut out for it to accommodate the huge concrete pillar >>that supported the ceiling. When I straddled the pillar and tried to sit >>in that seat, my face was literally pressed against the concrete. I >>can't believe it was a ticket that they actually sold! When I complained >>about the "obstructed view", the Garden staff calmly pointed out that >>tickets were still available and I was free to buy another. Instead, I >>found a free seat on the balcony rail and had a splendid view, although >>the sound was a little weird, as I could hear it fly past me down the >>hall and strike the rear wall and bounce back. I'll never forget the >>sight of the lights going down and the cloud of smoke rising from the >>floor as everyone lit up simultaneously! > > > Did you happen to notice how, on the way out of Boston Garden that > evening, everyone seemed to be leaving the show in something of a > stunned silence? All I recall was stumbling on the big coach school bus that my high school rented to take about 30 of us to and from the show. I sure recall that I was stunned by what I saw. Ahh, to be 16 again with years of GD shows ahead of me.... DB ------------------------------ From: DB Subject: Re: First show/last show Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:36:23 -0400 DG wrote: > RickNBarbInSD wrote: > >> >>DB wrote: >> >> >> >>>That '78 Giants Stadium show is my pick for Scarlet>Fire for the ages. >> >> >>>DB >> >> >>You jus' said a mouthful, Bruthah!!! :D >> >>Y'know I tracked that show down jus' recently thanks to RMGD and >>www.archive.org/ and burned myself a copy. I hadn't knowingly heard >>any of it since the day I heard it live. It was/is very cool to hear >>it, and confirm that it was every bit as good as I remember. My wife >>commented that many of my all-time favorites are on that setlist, and >>she wondered if it was because they were implanted by that show! ;D >>Dunno but it was a good one and listening back Scarlet>Fire is >>definitely one of the highest highlights!! > > > > Dick wanted this to be the DP13 hidden Scarlet > Fire... Too bad they > didn't have a crisp board. > > There is a pretty decent SBD of the at least the Scarlet>Fire in circulation. I don't think that I have seen it in the digital realm, but I know I have a pretty good sounding cassette of it somewhere. I wonder if the master was "liberated" from the Dead's vault years ago? DB ------------------------------ From: Ben Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 06:42:01 -0700 On 18 Oct 2005 13:11:22 GMT, Joe wrote: >Isn't it ironic that booze is toxic, will impair your mental and physical >functions, sometimes leads to violence, and is completely legal, while the >most benign plant on the planet can get you tossed into prison? > >Ain't America great? > Yeah, ain't it? If I were them, I'd be much more concerned about my drinking habits - That certainly has a much bigger effect on my mornings than pot. Ironically, I could end up living where there's a ballot proposition where " the use and possession of less then one ounce of marijuana" would be "non-punishable" "for adults 21 and over". http://www.saferchoice.org/ >Joe ------------------------------ Reply-To: "Schmoe" From: "Schmoe" Subject: Clapton/Trucks Tour? Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:44:22 -0400 Rumour mill has Derek Trucks likely to tour with Clapton next year in a Derek & The Dominos show. Derek cut 9 tracks with Clapton earlier this year for EC's upcoming album. If this happens and the tour cuts into the normal ABB schedule, does Dickey get invited back? Stay tuned...same bat time...same bat channel... Discuss. ------------------------------ From: Ben Subject: Re: drug tests for jobs (NDC) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 06:48:52 -0700 On 18 Oct 2005 06:30:29 -0700, "imsjry" wrote: > >I didn't know there were any jobs these days where they DIDN'T drug >test. I think it is just a reality. The "go work somewhere else" advice >is just naive. My employer even has a sign saying that they drug-test, so if you use drugs don't bother applying. They probably didn't give me one because they're cheap bastards and express their fascism in other ways. (and I'm not driving forklifts or anything like that). There may be some leeway in the law WRT safety related positions, but they're supposed to make sure the tests do not unfairly target certain workers. Maybe they can get away with only testing union workers or something like that - or it wouldn't really surprise me if they were in violation of some law. ------------------------------ From: "Richard Morris" Subject: Re: First show/last show Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 06:57:40 -0700 "DB" wrote in message news:dj2tlf$qd6$1@eri0.s8.isp.nyc.eggn.net... snip > All I recall was stumbling on the big coach school bus that my high school > rented to take about 30 of us to and from the show. I sure recall that I > was stunned by what I saw. Ahh, to be 16 again with years of GD shows > ahead of me.... Wow! Your high school did some great field trips! Was this a public or private school? I would be interested to hear more about how this came about. R. ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .