3 ms·

I personally think stability and having some bureaucrat monitoring hours is good. I don't want my air traffic controllers popping pills and pulling double shift

I personally think stability and having some bureaucrat monitoring hours is good. I don't want my air traffic controllers popping pills and pulling double shifts, or showing up to work drunk because they're worried about getting fired for calling in sick. People with dangerous jobs need to be kept safe from themselves

bilekas 4y ago
> showing up to work drunk because they're worried about getting fired for calling in sick Much like air hosts and pilots, air traffic controllers (at least in the EU) are tested frequently for substance issues including alcohol. A friends father who was an air traffic controller was tested daily for the very reason you mention. Nobody WANTS an accident. > People with dangerous jobs need to be kept safe from themselves Absolutely agree, they're professionals though and well trained. I believe they can be responsible adults. That's why it's so rare to see unfortunate mistakes like this seems to be.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  >>tested daily for the very reason you mention Which also limits the hiring pool as many people, myself included, would refuse to be tested daily on principle. Hell I object to pre-employment screenings. And I have not drunk a drop of Alcohol in over 25 years, nor done any drugs, dont smoke, nothing. That said I am not taking your little test to prove that to you unless you have a reasonable articulable reason to suspect I may be under said influence.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    Then you shouldn't be involved in safety-critical areas. That's just entirely the wrong outlook. You should never skip an important verification step because someone promises things are fine.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      yes, Freedom, Personal autonomy, Privacy, and Innocence until proven guilty are all the "entirely the wrong outlook " and people holding that "wrong outlook" clearly can not be anywhere near "safety-critical areas" that is just absurd, Safety Theater is basically what you are advocating for Let me ask you this, do you think forcing me to remove my shoes is a "critical safety" process before boarding a plan, and that allowing someone to pay $100 to bypass that means it is secure?
      - thfuran 4y ago
        So, you're advocating for permitting ATCs to just decide to start transmitting in cockney rhymes as an expression of their personal freedom and autonomy and for people to be able to walk around town pointing loaded guns at other peoples' faces with their fingers on the trigger?
        phpisthebest 4y ago
        You believe your absurd statement is in any an analog to refusing drug screening? You think the response to security theater, no security it all? You think that is we do not do a daily drug screen on an employee that has no indication they are on any type of drug or alcohol is the same as "transmitting in cockney rhymes " That is just absurd
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        thfuran 4y ago
        So you believe in absolute personal freedom except when you don't like its consequences and in curtailing personal freedom except when doing so might inconvenience you personally?
        phpisthebest 4y ago
        Where did I say anything about "absolute personal freedom" I clearly outlined that my freedom (in this case my privacy and body autonomy) should be respected unless there is a reasonable and articulable individualized justification to preform a search (i.e drug screen) on the basis I am a danger to others Your position is we assume everyone is on drugs and they have to prove they are not My position is we use logic and reason to look at a situation, and if the reasonable suspicion someone may be under the influence then we make the accusation and attempt to collect evidence to prove that. My position is one of rationality and respects freedom as much as possible while still keeping people safe your position is authoritarian with no rationality to it at all
  - albrewer 4y ago
    I disagree with this take when it comes to safety-critical applications, especially when you are directly responsible for the safety of thousands of lives at any given moment in the day. At the end of the day, I don't see potentially sacrificing the lives of multiple planeloads of people as a worthy tradeoff for foregoing verification that the controller is not under the influence of mind-altering substances when performing their job because it invades their privacy. Performing the job must inherently be approached with a collectivist attitude. For other jobs where the magnitude of the mistake doesn't involve bodily harm or significant resources, I agree 100%.
suddenclarity 4y ago
> or showing up to work drunk because they're worried about getting fired for calling in sick I feel like there are a plethora of issues there.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
CDL drivers have all of this without a union.

bilekas 4y ago

> showing up to work drunk because they're worried about getting fired for calling in sick Much like air hosts and pilots, air traffic controllers (at least in the EU) are tested frequently for substance issues including alcohol. A friends father who was an air traffic controller was tested daily for the very reason you mention. Nobody WANTS an accident. > People with dangerous jobs need to be kept safe from themselves Absolutely agree, they're professionals though and well trained. I believe they can be responsible adults. That's why it's so rare to see unfortunate mistakes like this seems to be.

phpisthebest 4y ago
>>tested daily for the very reason you mention Which also limits the hiring pool as many people, myself included, would refuse to be tested daily on principle. Hell I object to pre-employment screenings. And I have not drunk a drop of Alcohol in over 25 years, nor done any drugs, dont smoke, nothing. That said I am not taking your little test to prove that to you unless you have a reasonable articulable reason to suspect I may be under said influence.
- thfuran 4y ago
  Then you shouldn't be involved in safety-critical areas. That's just entirely the wrong outlook. You should never skip an important verification step because someone promises things are fine.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    yes, Freedom, Personal autonomy, Privacy, and Innocence until proven guilty are all the "entirely the wrong outlook " and people holding that "wrong outlook" clearly can not be anywhere near "safety-critical areas" that is just absurd, Safety Theater is basically what you are advocating for Let me ask you this, do you think forcing me to remove my shoes is a "critical safety" process before boarding a plan, and that allowing someone to pay $100 to bypass that means it is secure?
    - thfuran 4y ago
      So, you're advocating for permitting ATCs to just decide to start transmitting in cockney rhymes as an expression of their personal freedom and autonomy and for people to be able to walk around town pointing loaded guns at other peoples' faces with their fingers on the trigger?
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        You believe your absurd statement is in any an analog to refusing drug screening? You think the response to security theater, no security it all? You think that is we do not do a daily drug screen on an employee that has no indication they are on any type of drug or alcohol is the same as "transmitting in cockney rhymes " That is just absurd
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        thfuran 4y ago
        So you believe in absolute personal freedom except when you don't like its consequences and in curtailing personal freedom except when doing so might inconvenience you personally?
        phpisthebest 4y ago
        Where did I say anything about "absolute personal freedom" I clearly outlined that my freedom (in this case my privacy and body autonomy) should be respected unless there is a reasonable and articulable individualized justification to preform a search (i.e drug screen) on the basis I am a danger to others Your position is we assume everyone is on drugs and they have to prove they are not My position is we use logic and reason to look at a situation, and if the reasonable suspicion someone may be under the influence then we make the accusation and attempt to collect evidence to prove that. My position is one of rationality and respects freedom as much as possible while still keeping people safe your position is authoritarian with no rationality to it at all
- albrewer 4y ago
  I disagree with this take when it comes to safety-critical applications, especially when you are directly responsible for the safety of thousands of lives at any given moment in the day. At the end of the day, I don't see potentially sacrificing the lives of multiple planeloads of people as a worthy tradeoff for foregoing verification that the controller is not under the influence of mind-altering substances when performing their job because it invades their privacy. Performing the job must inherently be approached with a collectivist attitude. For other jobs where the magnitude of the mistake doesn't involve bodily harm or significant resources, I agree 100%.

suddenclarity 4y ago

> or showing up to work drunk because they're worried about getting fired for calling in sick I feel like there are a plethora of issues there.

dsfyu404ed 4y ago

CDL drivers have all of this without a union.