END OF MESSAGE

What a shock that you seem to have not gotten it. Oh, and angel asked me to thank you for soliciting gifts to her baby registry down the page, but she'd really rather not out herself today.

OK, Gomer, what you asked about down the page was a baby registry.  But if she already has a baby registry you can be sure it's under her real name.  Otherwise, how would she get the gifts?  
As for gift pages on hookers' web sites, those simply list gifts that would be welcomed if brought to a session.  They don't include mailing information. Your thought process is terribly flawed and it's clear that you continue to post without thinking through the ramifications of what you write.

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

and wrong.

you got banned last time only for 39 days, they could have speared all of us and kept you banned for at least extra day....  
Ow, well guessing it will not last long this time again right?

That's what I thought too. Turns out he is right. Federal law allows for random testing, but some states have different laws that say in certain circumstances, it is not allowed. Seems pretty stupid to me.

As far as his other comment, I believe the employer's insurance company would have to pay for addiction treatment. I don't know if that is a "must" or not in all cases. I do know it at least holds water in some cases. I am fairly certain that in some careers it would be ok to fire based on a failed drug test as it can be a huge deal for the job at hand. I am sure (?) a Doctor could be fired for having a drug issue.

But you are finally right about something: I have never sent a lady a gift through her gift page.  Why anyone would do that amazes me.  I have brought little gifts but always to the session itself.  But the best gift I give her (besides an occasional pearl necklace) is a repeat visit.
And the post to which you responded had nothing to do with her gift site but the idea that angel would give out her baby registry here.  Because that would likely have real personal information on it.
So, yes, your idea is still idiotic.

Most (non-unionized) employees are considered "at will" and can be fired basically for any reason an employer chooses.  The mistake that many companies make is by trying to do paperwork cartwheels to document some sort of perceived "legal" reason... when this is not even needed.  Judges and juries see through such silly lies.

END OF MESSAGE

As a business owner that has employed hundreds of people in 3 states, I have had a lot of experience in this area.  Tidwell's blanket statement is at best misleading as most employers can request drug tests for cause and fire the employee if they refuse to take it.  The link is to a legal resource that has general guidelines for drug testing as well as state specific information.  

And, I think we have lost sight of the fact that Nicky was making a joke based on yesterday being 420 day.....  Get those bottles ready....LOL

That the employee must admitt to their addiction prior to submitting to the screen.

I've already heard it and seen the GIF.

And Tidwell, five pages of footnotes supporting this article, yeah, probably too much for you to read!

To quote from the linked article:

"The following is an overview of the current legal obligations for employers and employees:

An individual who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs is not an “individual with a disability” when the employer acts on the basis of such use.  

An employer may not discriminate against a person who has a history of drug addiction but who is not currently using drugs and who has been rehabilitated.  

An employer may prohibit the illegal use of drugs and the use of alcohol at the workplace.  

It is not a violation of the ADA for an employer to give tests for the illegal use of drugs.  

An employer may discharge or deny employment to persons who currently engage in the illegal use of drugs.  

Employees who use drugs or alcohol may be required to meet the same standards of performance and conduct that are set for other employees.  

Employees may be required to follow the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 and rules set by federal agencies pertaining to drug and alcohol use in the workplace."  
 -- Modified on 4/21/2015 11:09:11 AM

END OF MESSAGE

I'll listen to you but until then you're just the asshat you are. I'm almost embarrassed as to how wrong you are on this.

There are definitely some jobs where a failed test means you are GONE.  Others, maybe not.  Broad generalizations are almost always wrong.

That trumps all logic, common sense and actual facts every time.  It seems we have discovered yet another area where you claim knowledge yet have none.

Quote from the link to EEOC that Tidwell provided:

"Do Individuals Who Use Drugs Illegally Have Rights Under the ADA?
Anyone who is currently using drugs illegally is not protected by the ADA and may be denied employment or fired on the basis of such use. The ADA does not prevent employers from testing applicants or employees for current illegal drug use, or from making employment decisions based on verifiable results. A test for the illegal use of drugs is not considered a medical examination under the ADA; therefore, it is not a prohibited pre-employment medical examination and you will not have to show that the administration of the test is job related and consistent with business necessity. The ADA does not encourage, authorize or prohibit drug tests."

Now everyone on this board knows why YOU are referred to as Tidwit.
 

....which undermines his entire agrument on this subject. In plain english, Tidwit is wrong...again!
It's obvious he didn't even read the material he linked to.  His foolishness is breathtaking, but what else is new?  Yep, ole Tidwit is back and is as clueless as ever.

And a damned good one  

I'll bet he even pitches in to bus tables when it gets busy.

...my employer does conduct random drug screens and I was one of the lucky ones chosen. Good thing I don't partake in any recreational drugs. The only drug I need is the love of a good woman... Or is it a bad woman? Oh well, either will do.

He's been here for nearly two years, has been banned only perfectstorm knows how many times, has posted silly drivel and flat-out incorrect information, has annoyed and tried to manipulate members using PMs, lied, broken virtually every rule and refused to change.  Why would he do so now?
And it's clear that his most recent incarnation is as clueless as ever.

..."this" not "his" was a joke.

It was a simple typo but I have apologized to Conan nonetheless.  In thanks, here is a picture of your alter ego

And for those who may wonder about what happens to one's employment status if they fail a drug test, ask a nurse who's failed one.

-- Modified on 4/21/2015 8:55:54 PM

..I am impressed. Truly. As you can tell I like the Conan thing.

..or did you get Joe Christmas some other way.

END OF MESSAGE

Wow, yes absolutely.  I've even made the pilgrimage to Oxford, MS. Sat and had a beer at the spot I'm told he used to like getting drunk out on courthouse square.   I figured someone would be on to me at some point!

END OF MESSAGE

Many years ago when I was young, my manager told me to report for a drug test.
   I reckon  he could smell some  skunk on me, I could see it in his eyes, his nose, clenched jaw, and dandruff on his jacket, he was a Coke head.
   I told him sure I will, and I'm telling Boss Hog I know you are on Hard drugs.   You will also be  taking a drug test .
   Never heard another word about drug test from that fool.  
 
         I like your taste in women Senator.  
    She's not beautiful in the pure sense, but she's got the undeniable ready to be good look.  

END OF MESSAGE

All structures are razed after that.

I have not.  Thank you ---  now I'm hungry; this is great stuff!

END OF MESSAGE

And it has never stopped him from giving lots of advice as well.

You know what I mean, right? Remember?