Drug Testing in the Work Place

[rjs246]

But again, Wing, you're talking about hiring and then firing addicts based on something not related to work. Many would argue that I have a small problem with alcohol, but I just had my annual review and it reads like a goddamned blowjob. If you replace beer with weed what changes? Nothing. It's arbitrary and it crosses a boundary between their right to make money and my right to live a life that doesn't include corporate sponsored enforcement of irrelevant and inconsequential laws.

[ice grillin you]

if a company is employing "a bunch of addicts" they are gonna find out without drug testing...sometimes common sense and trust and the responsibility of other employees has to take over instead of every citizen in the country getting drug tested...not to mention even with drug testing people can still be on the job doing drugs...

the bottom line is you shouldnt have or want to make sweeping across the board assumptions in the form of things like drug tests just because one or two people at some point might do drugs at work

and what about alcohol?...should we do a breathalyzer at the front door of the building everyday before work and after lunch?

i say mental health testing for all as well...no one wants a bunch of loonies being crazy on company time cause they cant help their problem

[Rome]

Bud Selig suggested that players in the future could be suspended based on evidence that they took HGH that did not require a reliable drug test.

Nope - no physical evidence is required - just innuendo and circumstantial "evidence" (meaning someone ratted the player out and they took his or her word for it).

If that's where we're headed in this country where the fourth amendment is nothing more than a speed bump, I want no parts of this place anymore.  AT ALL.

[Wingspan]

But again, Wing, you're talking about hiring and then firing addicts based on something not related to work. Many would argue that I have a small problem with alcohol, but I just had my annual review and it reads like a goddamned blowjob. If you replace beer with weed what changes? Nothing. It's arbitrary and it crosses a boundary between their right to make money and my right to live a life that doesn't include corporate sponsored enforcement of irrelevant and inconsequential laws.

It is related to work. And it is not irrelevant, or inconsequential...it's there are laws against that. Statistically, drug users are more inclined to commit other crimes.

Drug problems lead to health problems, which cost the company money, whether it's higher health insurance premiums, or just losing productivity. When they can hire someone to do the same job, but is clean from drugs, then what choice would they make?

If you have ever been hung over at work and just didnt work at the same pace as you normally have, then it is related to work as well.

Its about a company minimizing its risk, while protecting its investment.

[rjs246]

But why is that somehow acceptable? Why does it give them any right whatsoever to peer into my private life? Especially when I am an exemplary employee?

I don't believe that the almighty dollar and protecting an investment supersedes people's right to privacy. And what you're saying is that it does.

Where does the line get drawn? 

[ice grillin you]

theres certain jobs that require drug testing (airline pilots would be one)

the rest of the companies need to establish better hiring practices...better background checks...on the job education regarding matter such as drugs and practice due diligance in monitoring their employees at work...after that you take your chances and make sure your insurance is up to date

you dont need to be taking bodily fluids from people and running who knows what kinds of tests

[phattymatty]

even as a drug user, i don't see how drug testing is an invasion of privacy.  no one is forcing any of us to work in our current jobs. 

secondly, drug tests only weed out the lazy hardcore drug users who you would not want working for you anyway, and not the intelligent occasional user who takes the time to either figure out how to pass, or who has the self control to lay off for a few days/weeks.

[rjs246]

Some of the smartest and most successful people I know are occasional drug users. Actually, all of the smartest and most successful people I know are occasional drug users. Why should they fear for their livelihood over the whims of corporate america?

Clearly there's no way any of you will convince me that this isn't a problem.

[Wingspan]

But why is that somehow acceptable? Why does it give them any right whatsoever to peer into my private life? Especially when I am an exemplary employee?

I don't believe that the almighty dollar and protecting an investment supersedes people's right to privacy. And what you're saying is that it does.

Where does the line get drawn? 

A corporate drug test does not supersede your right to privacy. It only supersedes the company's right to hire you. I don't believe the results of that test can be used for anything other than working for them.

The employer is not telling you what to do in your private life, it is however making "drug-free" a job requirement.

[Wingspan]

Some of the smartest and most successful people I know are occasional drug users. Actually, all of the smartest and most successful people I know are occasional drug users. Why should they fear for their livelihood over the whims of corporate america?

Clearly there's no way any of you will convince me that this isn't a problem.

And why should an employer fear for their livelihood over the whims of their employees?

[Rome]

Fat people are risky to hire because of decreased productivity and increased health care costs.

Same goes for smokers.

None of them should be employed either.  In fact, kill them all.

[Wingspan]

I've never seen an enormously fat person working in a position of prominence....probably because of productivity issues. And fat issues.

[ice grillin you]

even as a drug user, i don't see how drug testing is an invasion of privacy.  no one is forcing any of us to work in our current jobs. 

this is america...every one should have the right to work they want to without having to give up bodily fluids...some things dont need to be taken to totalitarian lengths...like i said above 99% of the time the things i mentioned weed out the drug users

otherwise why dont they test for any and all conditions that could cause someone not to work to 100% of their capacity each and everyday...whats the test for laziness?...you know what it is its called a referral and a "last job you worked at" and a "why did you leave your last job"...you hire the best people you can and after that you take your chances...theres a much bigger chance you hire an on the job thief than an on the job druggie

if on the rare occasion someone is found out to be doing drugs at work then fire them...the workplace has been functioning just fine forever without drug tests...there no need for it now...

[rjs246]

You see, Wing, I don't believe for a second that occasional drug use will bring about the fall of a company. Alcohol is perfectly legal and you don't see companies collapsing under the waterfall of alcoholism. shtein, the entire financial industry basically runs on coke.

It's easy to scream that 'drug users' are a liability but as long as alcohol is legal and people who drink alcohol are allowed to be employed by the same companies who require drug tests the argument holds absolutely no water.

[Wingspan]

You see, Wing, I don't believe for a second that occasional drug use will bring about the fall of a company. Alcohol is perfectly legal and you don't see companies collapsing under the waterfall of alcoholism. shtein, the entire financial industry basically runs on coke.

Most likely not. But the coke addicted CFO, who is embezzling...or the retirement plan manage who is impairing himself have a pretty good chance of bringing a company down. Or at least they have a better chance of doing so than if they were not using drugs.

It's easy to scream that 'drug users' are a liability but as long as alcohol is legal and people who drink alcohol are allowed to be employed by the same companies who require drug tests the argument holds absolutely no water.

Alcohol is legal. Drugs are not.