It already is. No one is forced to work anywhere that drug tests...yet. If you don't want to give up that element of your privacy, don't enter into an employment contract with such a place. There are other employment options out there. Tomorrow, maybe not so much. Personal privacy is going to be looked at as an obsolete primate-brain thing some day. I hope I'm taking a dirt nap by then.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
My Son is embarrassed
- Thread starter MEKer
- Start date
It already is. No one is forced to work anywhere that drug tests...yet. If you don't want to give up that element of your privacy, don't enter into an employment contract with such a place. There are other employment options out there. Tomorrow, maybe not so much. Personal privacy is going to be looked at as an obsolete primate-brain thing some day. I hope I'm taking a dirt nap by then.
Tru dat.
It reminds me of the pre-employment ethics tests that ask questions like, "If you feel that you're not being paid a fair wage, do you think it's alright to take money from the cash register?" Psychometricians would say that the test has a construct validity problem. They're not measuring ethics. They're measuring stupidity levels.
BTW, Mker, congrats on your son getting the gig. At least nobody will have to go through the same urinal deuce mystery like they did in that one episode of South Park.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
I hope you're wrong and that laws can be enacted that prevent the further diluting of our privacy. There's no reason that worker privacy can't be protected in the same way that minimum wages are.
I remember the last drug test I had to do for a job interview I had some issues. It's kind of embarrassing but because of bladder issues I have, I'm unable to urinate standing most of the time. Sure enough they wanted me to give my sample into what I can only describe as a funnel suspended over a cup so sitting was out. I told them I had a problem with that and they gave me a hard time about it and said finally "Ok, we'll have a doctor observe you". I said hell no. So even though they didn't want to, they had to tamper proof the bathroom: Put saran wrap on the faucet and squirt toilet cleaner into the bowl so I couldn't use the water to contaminate my sample I guess. I'm really hoping I don't have to go through that hassle again.
So fair working hours and unfair dismissal laws are all baloney in your opinion too? If you don't like an 80 hour working week you could always go get another job I guess?
And when nearly all the jobs require you work 80 hours a week? Well, you can always choose not to work, hey? Just get another job, or start your own business.
Not entirely on my own, well, not for more than a month at least. My folks have been self employed all their lives and I do run their current business in partnership with them, as well as being involved in their previous businesses to a fair extent.
I'd never drug screen an employee. We never did when running a large furniture manufacturing business, and I'd be willing to be that at the very least 50% of our work force wouldn't have passed one if we did.
Didn't stop them from being good employees. The ones that weren't competent we didn't keep, recreational drug use had nothing to do with the selection process, I find that things like work ethic, capability and punctuality are more important qualities to look for when select your employees. Maybe we've just been doing it wrong though?
With the advent of the internet, GPS, mobile communication etc. society could swing radically one way or the other. More likely we'll stay sitting pretty much where we are now, however.
Although I think society is getting to the turning point now to some extent. People are starting to realise that they don't want to be over-protected and give up their lives in the name of "security" and "protection", they're starting to get fed-up, I just hope we can all do something about it before it's too late.
HA! That's awesome! That guy has a great story to tell for the rest of his life now...I went to an interview, they asked for a urine sample, I dropped a duece, I got the job!
Glad he got the job. Employers like healthy workers, so perhaps they were impressed with the amount of fibre in his diet?
Lighten up, MMMM-kay? A sense of humor is a terrible thing to waste... Do you have stock in Quest Labs or something?
i work in the mining industry and they constantly drug test ya i find the old nurses like to watch ya while your doing a whizz, and the younger nurses dont have much interest in checking an old guys junk 
i have several friends in / going into NYPD. when you do, you have no choice but to login to your facebook and let them poke around. if you refuse you dont get in.. they take drug tests many times, and are subject to random ones throughout their career.
only way around the facebook thing is to delete it, but if you dont think ahead, or dont know youll have to, then you have to decide.
i agree that this is over the line, but i think drug tests are understandable.. your private messages on facebook are a matter of your own privacy. weather or not you do drugs.. i suppose it is, but to such a small extent. employers need to know if you smoke crack or not. they dont need to read your messages with your girlfriend or whatever else..
and back to the OP- that is so hilarious.
When you frame it like this it sounds so reasonable.
But I'd argue that poking around your FB "privates" and sampling your bodily fluids are exactly the same - and it's all in how you choose to spin each concept that creates the appearance that one is a more egregious invasion than the other.
Suppose, for example, you are a total straight ace - no drink, no drugs... but your FB "private space" (that your example cites as your 'true privacy') is filled with anti-(insert race, creed, lifestyle, other-ism here) rants. I certainly don't want armed law enforcement officers to be high on duty - but I also don't want some extremist radical with an axe to grind walking a beat around my house or responding to my emergency.
Any invasion of privacy, when there are not publicly available records to check, can be spun to sound 'necessary'. I don't think any can be proven as effective, however.
Why? Does your employer need to know you went to a party on the weekend? Do they need to know you go surfing before work? Do they need to know you stay up and watch bestiality pornography late at night?
How is your employer poking into any facet of your private life a "Small extent". If your crack smoking is inhibiting your ability to show up to work on time, or effecting your performance, then the employer will see that in the work place and take action, regardless of what the cause is. If it's not, then I don't believe it is any of their business.
In the case of police officers I actually agree with drug testing, not because their bosses should be able to pry into their private lives any more than the rest of us, but because if you are a police officer you need to be held to a higher standard, and if you are required to make judgments and asses situations based on the black and white nature of the law, you need to be able to live by it. A police officer who breaks the law in his down-time has no business being a police officer in my opinion, no more than a judge does.
Yes, they're still human, but they are supposed to be "better" than the rest of us when it comes to the legal realm. A police officer who does drugs isn't somebody doing what they want with their life in my opinion, they're a huge hypocrite, and if they're willing to compromise on a law here or there for their own personal gain, what more are they willing to give on?
