Would you/do you submit to drug tests at work?

[4dog]

See twofingers is correct on so many levels, my business my rules , you dont HAVE to work for me but, unfortunately the day is coming when i might HAVE to hire you and all your issues.

 

[Lowactnsatsfctn]

Also to protect their investments.

Yes, But I kind of touched on that earlier.

Thats true. Though, youre talking about on the job company vehicle use.
zachoffs point was in regards to off the job personal vehicle use.

Or misuse after hours.
You can get a monthly report from certain monitoring companies, and they can categorize your report into two sections, Business hours and Off hours. If you own a 40,000 dollar work truck that isn't supposed to move after 6PM and its 85 miles away at midnight, It could be costing you a lot of money.

 

[Unrepresented]

The strawman has returned. Once again, no one's argument is that people should be allowed to do drugs while on the job.

I am not even advocating for drug use off the job. I am simply an advocate for workers' rights, of which intrusive testing is a violation.

 

[willop]

The strawman has returned. Once again, no one's argument is that people should be allowed to do drugs while on the job.

I responded to what I read as 'office workers can be stoned'.
Acct's work in an office...

It's not a safety issue (falls off his chair, staples his hand to the desk?) like a crane operator would be.

 

[BawanaRik]

Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? Or spoken to someone from an Eastern block or former communist nation?

Imagine not being able to get food, water toilet paper, or the medicine you need to live.

That is the day you see coming.

See twofingers is correct on so many levels, my business my rules , you dont HAVE to work for me but, unfortunately the day is coming when i might HAVE to hire you and all your issues.

 

[Mark Reccord]

oh no....you aint gettin' off that easy....

we are not talking about anything ON THE JOB here....

we are talking about off the job, on your own time...cheat on taxes, drive over the speed limit, gamble, look at internet porn....the list goes on and on....

all as relevant to job performance as smoking a doobie OFF WORK....

and yet, you folks have singled out the doobie smoker while letting the illegal gambler completely off the hook?

hypocrites, i call

The other things don't have potential physical aftereffects that can affect job performance and/or safety. Alcohol and drug use do. Have you ever heard of someone having a porn hangover?

Not that I'm advocating drug testing, but there's clearly a big difference between looking at porn, gambling or cheating on your taxes and drug use (including alcohol).

I think there are jobs where drug testing makes sense and jobs where it doesn't. If you have a job where a screw-up jeopardizes the safety of your coworkers or the public then I think drug testing is reasonable. Your personal rights don't trump the rights of the rest of us.

 

[Lowactnsatsfctn]

oh no....you aint gettin' off that easy....

we are not talking about anything ON THE JOB here....

Neither Was I.
Plenty of people take company work trucks home. If you swing by home depot on the way home a few times, it can be over looked. But If your using a company truck to tow your boat to the river on a 3day weekend. That will be a red flag with a good monitoring service. And rightfully so.

 

[two fingers]

Speaking as the president of a company, this is an interesting read. We require pre-employment drug screens, and a drug test whenever there is an accident or incident. Our company is large and we have everything from manufacturing facilities with machining and fabrication to sales people traveling around the world.

I do not mind an employee who RESPONSIBLY does whatever he does on his own time, and leaves it at home when he gets into work, but unfortunately not everyone who partakes (and I am not just talking about marijuana) is as responsible as everyone on talkbass claim, who are always in control. Also understand that for a lot of employers, it is not our decision to do to do this testing, it is required of us by those that are insuring and underwriting all of our business. While I respect your decision to say no, please respect my position that providing jobs and income for 350 people is more important to me. To be able to provide those jobs, I have to adhere to the requirements of those that make it possible. You have the right to say no, and I support it, but I also have the right to terminate. Please know that these rules apply to me also. I am not immune.

If you have a stupid moment at home, that is on you but when it happens at work I have to deal with potential workmans comp, lawsuits, potential injury to other people, damage to property, damage to product, delivery issues, etc. Even a lack of judgement regarding intellectual property can get your company in a very bad spot.

I have sales people who are on the road for weeks at a time in company vehicles we insure, or renting cars the company is responsible for when they are rented, and staying in hotels than connect back to our company, and transporting customers, clients and others that are kind of important to the company. Anytime an accident or incident happens, lawyers are ALWAYS involved. We have to protect ourselves and our employees. If you can't stay clean long enough to pass a drug test you should know is coming for a new job, why should I trust you to stay clean for weeks on end when you are representing the company ? If you have an accident or incident and there are drugs in your system even alcohol, realize it will cost you your job. Alcohol related incidents are among the most common we see.

Just my $0.02

Read this ten times please. Then read it one more time.

 

[MatticusMania]

move to tennessee and let me know how it works out for ya...

Yeah, thanks but no thanks.
Nothing against Tennessee, mind you.

 

[willop]

I worked for a place that only tested if there was an on the job accident. Seems like a reasonable middle ground for many jobs.

As for 'do whatever you want on your own time' I generally agree with that, but a habitual user is more likely to get in trouble (DUI, fights, etc) than one that doesn't use.

Getting busted for most anything will affect your job - time off for court appearances, etc. And many places now run background checks and if you fail that (for some pot bust in college even) it can cost you your job.
I do run BG checks on my employees- there are times they work around kids and it's a selling benefit I use to get jobs that my employees have clean BGs.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Speaking as the president of a company, this is an interesting read. We require pre-employment drug screens, and a drug test whenever there is an accident or incident. Our company is large and we have everything from manufacturing facilities with machining and fabrication to sales people traveling around the world.

I do not mind an employee who RESPONSIBLY does whatever he does on his own time, and leaves it at home when he gets into work, but unfortunately not everyone who partakes (and I am not just talking about marijuana) is as responsible as everyone on talkbass claim, who are always in control. Also understand that for a lot of employers, it is not our decision to do to do this testing, it is required of us by those that are insuring and underwriting all of our business. While I respect your decision to say no, please respect my position that providing jobs and income for 350 people is more important to me. To be able to provide those jobs, I have to adhere to the requirements of those that make it possible. You have the right to say no, and I support it, but I also have the right to terminate. Please know that these rules apply to me also. I am not immune.

If you have a stupid moment at home, that is on you but when it happens at work I have to deal with potential workmans comp, lawsuits, potential injury to other people, damage to property, damage to product, delivery issues, etc. Even a lack of judgement regarding intellectual property can get your company in a very bad spot.

I have sales people who are on the road for weeks at a time in company vehicles we insure, or renting cars the company is responsible for when they are rented, and staying in hotels than connect back to our company, and transporting customers, clients and others that are kind of important to the company. Anytime an accident or incident happens, lawyers are ALWAYS involved. We have to protect ourselves and our employees. If you can't stay clean long enough to pass a drug test you should know is coming for a new job, why should I trust you to stay clean for weeks on end when you are representing the company ? If you have an accident or incident and there are drugs in your system even alcohol, realize it will cost you your job. Alcohol related incidents are among the most common we see.

Just my $0.02

a d**n resonable post, and that brings up another question

what about states that legalize pot...there are only a few now, but there are going to be more...

in those states, are employers still allowed to make hiring/firing decision based on off work pot use? and what about insurers requiring these tests, as bama sayid

that is why i think it is very important to have a test, not for general pot use, but for specifically "are you high right now" type of pot use, similar to the one we have for alcohol.

if you think you are involved in lawsuits now, just wait until your state legalizes it, you have a drug test, and then fire somebody for general pot use, not knowing if they were high right now or not.

 

[chadds]

If it's a condition of employment then it's their choice to administer and yours whether you wish to or not.

Want to work for UPS? You think you are going to wear your own clothes?
Remember it's your choice and their rules. Don't work there.

Remember too, every exaggerated rule comes because some yahoo before you made it necessary.
Guy cuts himself because he's still affected by last night's doings and then files workman's comp and possibly tries to sue the company.
You wouldn't have a punch card if people were honest.

And...... You want your new micro 500 watt head assembled by that "was just high" yahoo?

No, this is not anti drug rant!
Some of you are just asking what you do that you call private to be present in the public sphere. Swings both ways, see?

 

[willop]

I am not even advocating for drug use off the job. I am simply an advocate for workers' rights, of which intrusive testing is a violation.

You want money? THen you do what you have to do get that money. Could be a drug test, could be playing a stupid song at a gig.

It's free country - you can always refuse. BUt few do.

My neighbor got all freaky that they're putting in smart elec meters that can talk back to the utility on your power usage. Some vid on the net made it sound like the power company will know when she turns on her vibrator.

SOrry, not scary at all. Scary? Your car and cell phone. Most all now have gps/location info in them. The feds can easily get a warrant to watch where you go. Or watch 'Bob' and then they see you, your car, in the same place as 'bob' every friday night....bob is a suspected terrorist and now you're being watched...

We bought a new sierra last month and had to sign a page that we'd not 'hack, reverse engineer' etc the software in the truck. I guess we could have refused to sign it - but then we'd be walking now.

YOu want to work/live in an altered state I know a few professions hwere you can do that.

 

[MatticusMania]

I worked for a place that only tested if there was an on the job accident. Seems like a reasonable middle ground for many jobs.

Yeah, I dont see an issue with testing someone in the event of a job accident, so long as someone who smoked pot 3 weeks ago doesnt get disqualified for workmans comp on ground of being under the influence at work.

 

[michael_atw]

Research on ancient esoteric text is easy?
Maybe drawing your own conclusions from it, sure.

Ancient? Try 14th century.

Besides, it's very clear the context of that specific proverb.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Neither Was I.
Plenty of people take company work trucks home. If you swing by home depot on the way home a few times, it can be over looked. But If your using a company truck to tow your boat to the river on a 3day weekend. That will be a red flag with a good monitoring service. And rightfully so.

The other things don't have potential physical aftereffects that can affect job performance and/or safety. Alcohol and drug use do. Have you ever heard of someone having a porn hangover?

Not that I'm advocating drug testing, but there's clearly a big difference between looking at porn, gambling or cheating on your taxes and drug use (including alcohol).

I think there are jobs where drug testing makes sense and jobs where it doesn't. If you have a job where a screw-up jeopardizes the safety of your coworkers or the public then I think drug testing is reasonable. Your personal rights don't trump the rights of the rest of us.

both fair points...but if you're gonna test and discriminate against pot smokers, why don't you test and apply the same reasoning to alcohol users?

 

[michael_atw]

You mean that you researched and found my beliefs on the "want of a nail"? Our freedoms have eroded much more than I had thought.
Have a good day, and be sure to bend over and grab your ankles while you let your employer examine your personal email, facebook page, have your passwords, credit report, pee in a cup, dictate your lifestyle, and other assorted camel nose fallacies (or should that be phallic-ies).
Some people will do anything for money.

Must be you have nothing else to respond to me with. Sucks when your point is used against you.

 

[michael_atw]

It's totally mutually beneficial. If you have no employees you have no product (unless you do everything).

If you choose to drug test your employees, so be it... That's your choice and I will choose not to work for you. It's a bummer for you because I'm really good at my job and the drug free person you end up hiring might not be. By drug testing, you're probably missing out on employees that could really make you money.

You keep thinking that somehow they are going to miss you. I'm getting the impression why many of you in this thread think the way you do.

They won't miss you. They'll find someone else.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Yeah, I dont see an issue with testing someone in the event of a job accident, so long as someone who smoked pot 3 weeks ago doesnt get disqualified for workmans comp on ground of being under the influence at work.

or last night...

that, as i understand it (please correct me) is the crux of the problem...

is there a way to test for "high right now" as opposed to the guy who has smoked in the past?

 

[michael_atw]

both fair points...but if you're gonna test and discriminate against pot smokers, why don't you test and apply the same reasoning to alcohol users?

I'm fine with that. Alcohol is a scourge.

I'd pass with flying colors. And I'd get paid more.