Drug Testing in the Work Place

[methdeez]

i like to pretend that my urine is immune to drug tests.  i have passed them before when i most definitely should not have.  i think sometimes it's just a scam to see of you have any problems with it, then they don't even bother spending money to get it tested if you have no problems with peeing in the cup.

The more drugs you test for, the more expensive the test is.
Many companies just test for the 'hard' drugs, but of course tehy don't tell you exactly what they are testing for, so that you stay off of everything.

[Rome]

I could just imagine a client of mine asking me to take a "voluntary" drug test to get their business.

Hahaha!

Even though I don't do drugs anymore I would still tell them to pound sand because their request is anything but voluntary.   They have no right to ask me to submit to a drug test because my right to privacy doesn't end when I agree to work for them.

I know companies are increasingly requiring even subcontractors to acquiesce to these sorts of demands, but personally, I wouldn't.  I just wouldn't, rjs.

[Cerevant]

i know for my company, when there is an injury that requires medical attention, you get drug tested and alcohol tested, so both are looked at

This makes sense - ensuring that there weren't mitigating factors in the accident, but they should only be allowed to act if you were under the influence at the time of the injury.  Not an invasion of privacy.

This is a term of your employment with your company.  Just as they can choose to fire you for doing drugs, you can choose to work somewhere that doesn't test.  You're the one who wants to be paid like a superstar.  Sometimes, you have to make personal sacrifices to make bank.

This is bullshtein.  If this were true, women could get fired for getting pregnant if they even got hired in the first place.  If this were true, they could make you work with whatever nasty chemicals they want and not tell you.  The government does have the responsibility to protect the rights of workers.

This is a tough question - it is very easy to understand the point of view of the company, but why is it so acceptable to give up your right to privacy?  Here are my semi-random thoughts on the issue:

• I don't think an employer has any right to know what I do when I'm not working, as long as I'm getting my job done.
• I do think criminal background checks are valid, because once you break the law you lose some of your rights as a citizen
• The only reason I consider drug testing to be "on the table" is because the drugs being tested for are illegal
• Where does the invasion into your personal life stop?  Can your employer search your home?  Hire a PI to monitor your activities?

I think my feeling is that they absolutely should not be allowed to preemptively test for legal drugs / alcohol.  If it is legal and it doesn't affect your work, it is none of their business.  As for illegal drugs, I'm trying to figure out why employers get to take up the mantle of law enforcement.[/list]

[NGM]

Its funny that this thread comes up now.  My buddy and I just got an apartment together because he received a new job offer with a significant upgrade in pay at Armstrong.  Well he took his piss test last week and it came back negative for any drugs, but it was diluted.  Now my buddy hasn't even looked at drugs in the past two years, but that didn't matter.  Corporate policy at Armstrong states that no matter what the results are of the drug test, diluted urine is an automatic withdraw of the job offer.  So, despite the fact that my buddy doesn't do drugs he got burned because there was too much water or some shtein in his urine. 

Anyway, my buddy called the testing place and went ballistic.  Their response was don't drink a bunch of coffee before a piss test because it can sometimes so up as a diuretic.  That's some bullshtein. 

[Rome]

Hire a farging lawyer and sue their balls off.

[Phanatic]

Yeah that's why they take hair samples now where I work. Piss tests are too unreliable.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

This is bullshtein.  If this were true, women could get fired for getting pregnant if they even got hired in the first place.  If this were true, they could make you work with whatever nasty chemicals they want and not tell you.  The government does have the responsibility to protect the rights of workers.

I think my feeling is that they absolutely should not be allowed to preemptively test for legal drugs / alcohol.  If it is legal and it doesn't affect your work, it is none of their business.  As for illegal drugs, I'm trying to figure out why employers get to take up the mantle of law enforcement.

As usual, your conclusion is that more government intervention is what's needed.  Typical.

[Cerevant]

This is bullshtein.  If this were true, women could get fired for getting pregnant if they even got hired in the first place.  If this were true, they could make you work with whatever nasty chemicals they want and not tell you.  The government does have the responsibility to protect the rights of workers.

I think my feeling is that they absolutely should not be allowed to preemptively test for legal drugs / alcohol.  If it is legal and it doesn't affect your work, it is none of their business.  As for illegal drugs, I'm trying to figure out why employers get to take up the mantle of law enforcement.

As usual, your conclusion is that more government intervention is what's needed.  Typical.

As usual, your conclusion is that corporations should have the right to do whatever they want as long as they keep making you money.

[NGM]

It just blows my mind that they offered him a job, we based our ability to pay rent on that offer, and then they yank the offer the table even though they conceded that they didn't think he had done any drugs.  They hid behind "corporate policy."

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

As usual, your conclusion is that more government intervention is what's needed.  Typical.

As usual, your conclusion is that corporations should have the right to do whatever they want as long as they keep making you money.

If the government is going to be tasked with real problems with corporate regulations versus the free market, making a big deal about the companies not allowing their employees to do something against the law is downright unimportant.  Furthermore, your solution includes more government in unnecessary places: better enforcing of recreational illegal drugs and more policing of corporations to ensure they don't do it themselves.

Yeah, that's an effecient use of tax dollars.  Good call.

[Cerevant]

What tax dollars does it take to make a law saying, "keep your nose the farg out of people's personal lives"?  If corporations weren't allowed to drug test, they wouldn't.  If they did, those affected could sue.  Self enforcing.

From the corporate view: why should I, a business owner, have to pick up the slack for law enforcement?  If these people are breaking the law, why aren't they being prosecuted?

[rjs246]

This idea that companies are picking up the slack for law enforcement is interesting. To take it a step further, it could be considered to go against one of the founding principles of the country, innocent until proven guilty. Randomly (or not so randomly) screening for drugs assumes that people are guilty of something and that the corporation has some sort of right to act as a deterrent above and beyond the law.

I'm not sure I'm sold on it, but it's an interesting argument.

[SunMo]

the government is involved somewhat...the other way

if you can prove that a worker was involved with alcohol or drugs at the time of an injury, workman's comp will deny a claim.  that's why all injuries that require medical attention require an immediate drug and alcohol test. 

[Wingspan]

What tax dollars does it take to make a law saying, "keep your nose the farg out of people's personal lives"?  If corporations weren't allowed to drug test, they wouldn't.  If they did, those affected could sue.  Self enforcing.

With all the lobbying, and time it takes to get a law enacted, I would say that it takes a lot of tax dollars to make a law. Don't you remember this guy

From the corporate view: why should I, a business owner, have to pick up the slack for law enforcement?  If these people are breaking the law, why aren't they being prosecuted?

As a business owner, it's not about picking up the slack, its about protecting your own investment.

No company wants a bunch of addicts that could use company time, and money on getting high because their addiction is so strong.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

What tax dollars does it take to make a law saying, "keep your nose the farg out of people's personal lives"?  If corporations weren't allowed to drug test, they wouldn't.  If they did, those affected could sue.  Self enforcing.

From the corporate view: why should I, a business owner, have to pick up the slack for law enforcement?  If these people are breaking the law, why aren't they being prosecuted?

Well, if you put a new law on the books, that takes a lot of government time (and money) on its own.  Then, if you actually expect to enforce the law, you need a new agency or expansion of another.  By the way, people suing adds to the government coffers and scope as well.

Corporations aren't "tasked" with picking up slack.  They choose to check to see if their employees are breaking the law in ways they find possibly harmful to their company's bottom line or reputation.  Hell, the government runs more background checks and gives more drug tests than anyone.