793
SpaceX executives worried Elon Musk was on drugs during 'cringeworthy' all-hands meeting, WSJ reports
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
793 points (97.1% liked)
News
23267 readers
3206 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Companies perform drug checks for a reason. People who lead large organizations while regularly getting off on drugs are usually the biggest psychopaths around.
The higher up you go, the less likely it is that you'd be tested for drugs. We could empty board rooms if we insisted on drug testing at that level.
Yes, but I'm not really arguing against that claim. The higher up you go, the more psychopaths you have as well. They can have all the drugs they want, the real work usually doesn't depend on them, and psychopathy helps them make money if not contribute to society.
And that reason is to keep insurance premiums down.
So why do insurance premiums go up if people use drugs? Imaginary reasons?
10 downvotes on this comment, because they either mis clicked, they're guilty of the same thing and the truth hurts, or they're bootlicking scab motherfuckers.
Probably because routine mandatory tests are bad, and the comment you replied to is an endorsement to it. It's a gross violation of your constitutional rights under the 4th amendment. Also, why do you care to make assumptions on why people downvoted if you're not even making an effort to broaden your views?
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/mandatory-drug-testing-public-sector-employees-constitutional
No argument there, I'm not an advocate for drug testing against any intrinsic right as spelled out in the constitution, but there are many situations where companies need some type of enforcement against people who get high and go to work. Industries from utility, security, heavy manufacturing, or construction are just a few off the top of my head that the public trust demands those employees be "fit for duty" regardless of the public/private sector distinction due to the potential for fatal harm and/or destruction of property.
The comment highlights the "rules for thee and not for me" mentality that C-suites have, to which I emphasize that while my viewpoint may seem narrow and extreme, it's not due to a lack of broad views. I read that abstract and it's a collection of concepts that does nothing to address some well understood concepts like "do you want a crane operator to be allowed to get high as a kite, jeopardizing lives?" as just one of many potential examples. If mandatory drug testing becomes ruled as illegal under the constitution, then we had damn well better amend it and figure this shit out......to which my and their point stands. I might even add that there are some ignorant assholes who apparently think it would just be great if we can all just be allowed to get high and kill people by accident. "It wasn't a big deal, they just got some bad weed and the pilot killed himself and 200 people, what's the big fucking deal?"
My source discussed your concerns, I think you did not read it.
"Most courts have ruled that mandatory urinalysis, at least in the absence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion, is invalid as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. While some courts have concluded that government workers may have a diminished expectation of privacy in comparison with the public at large, other courts have required some quantum of individualized suspicion before drug testing can be conducted. States have attempted to uphold mandatory drug testing by arguing that government employees voluntarily consent to drug testing and voluntary consent does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Courts have not accepted this argument, however, finding that consent obtained under the threat of disciplinary action is coercive and thus unconstitutional. The real issue in mandatory drug testing involves balancing individual versus government interests. Most courts hold that, absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, individual constitutional rights are not outweighed by governmental interests"
I did, actually, so let's break it down:
This is my issue right off the top, hence I bring up fit for duty requirements as a measure of preventing the loss of life and/or property. All reasonable suspicion and disciplinary issues arise after a major loss of life happens, and random UA testing has been viewed as a tool that functions preventatively in encouraging people not to show up under the influence of a substance, ie fit for duty.
Had you displayed a modicum of understanding, you could see that point rather clearly, but it seems you like to use a stupid fucking red herring to detract from the point altogether. If it's unconstitutional, then it ought to be amended, and while we're at it, keep people accountable especially scumbag C-suite execs who are often making decisions that demonstrably lead to death and/or loss of property in various ways.
Your reading comprehension is horrible, to say the least. Let me highlight the keywords for you so it's easier.
Most courts have ruled that mandatory urinalysis, at least in the absence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion, is invalid as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
In most cases I agree, with the exception of security clearances. That's a give and take.
It's only a violation of the 4th amendment for government employees, because only the government is bound by the 4th amendment. It's still bad, but not because of the Constitution.
Huh??? "Bound by the fourth amendment?" Have you ever read the Constitution? The fourth amendment protects you against unlawful search and seizure. As in, a protection afforded to all Americans. Please read a little.
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments
Yes, I have. Have you?
The Bill of Rights is all about limiting what the government is allowed to do. The text of that particular amendment is more vague about who it applies to, but let's say for the sake of argument it is the law that prevents private employers from drug testing you without your consent. What it absolutely does not do is prevent your employer from firing you if you don't consent to a search they want to do.
Thankfully, smarter people than you and I decide what the law "applies to." That's what the courts have ruled, there can be no "consent" if it's a condition for employment. There must be articulated suspicion.
Drug tests are just to keep their boots on the faces of the workers. It's disgusting and invasive.
Because there are no instances in history where forcing drug use had been weaponized at the international level. Man, sometimes it's so easy to see how lemmy is close to the same dark web that spams drug adverts on matrix.
You're seriously suggesting that drug tests are designed to protect employees from employers forcing them to do drugs? That's ridiculous.