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

[willop]

That brings up a lot of unknowns.
Alcohol is legal but being drunk is still a no-no for most anything 'insured' - go read yout auto policy and I"m sure you'll see that you're not covered for 'illegal activities' - driving drunk is one of them.

So pot is legal - so is beer. Being drunk isn't legal in many places (public intoxication, work,etc) and there is a definition of 'drunk'.
What about pot? How high is 'wrong'?

I live 4 miles from 2 other states. Say one has legalized weed (not yet...) . I live there but work in a non-legalized state. Now what's the issues if I fail a drug test?

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.

 

[Ziltoid]

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.

**** this, California here I come

Although, I don't think I'll ever be asked for a drug test. It's really not that popular up here and I'm staying in academia for some time. My urine is probably clean at the moment anyways.

 

[michael_atw]

Yes, it is. Without employees a business could not operate. They wouldn't be able to turn a profit if someone wasn't working the line, making sales calls, contacting partner firms, making management decisions, etc...

I'm not sure how this proves your point. Businesses don't need you. You don't have a right to work for them. It's plain and simple. They will find someone else. Feel free to stand by your ideology in the bread line. That's often where ideologues end up. They either create the bread lines or feed their family with them.

Nope, no slippery slope. No magic proverbs. No logical fallacies. Just a business who is hiring people on their terms to work in their business using their materials and equipment to perform their work to export their product to customers. Your end of the agreement as an employee is to maintain the policies they choose to enact. There is no "right to a job". None of us are above the policies.

Just like if you were in a band; if you can't follow the rules, they'll find another bassist. You're not the only person with a bass - there is always someone who can do the job better and follow the contract.

As someone mentioned previously - marijuana is illegal in 95% of locales in this country. Whether you agree or not. I'm pro-legalization but I also recognize that weed is a waste of my time and that businesses have just as much a right to boot you for testing positive. I would be just as happy making alcohol illegal again (or even keeping dope illegal) but I know it's far from realistic. Which is fine for me; I get the opportunity for the jobs all the drug-failers lose.

 

[TheBass]

A question like that would bring any company in Germany (and in most other EU countries as well) into serious trouble as it's seen as insulting.

 

[6jase5]

It's a two-way street. If you want our skills then you have to meet us halfway on the terms of the agreement.

This is complete ignorance of business liability and legality. No corporation has to be ok with someone breaking the law "on their own time" whatsoever because it can and does have an effect on their business. Billions are paid out in lawsuits every year for this very reason and you can be sure that it's not the user footing the bill.

It's been brought up, but LIABILITY is the #1 reason for drug testing, not character. Do you really think that the head of HR really gives a hoot what you do on Saturday night? No, he or she is sick of being dragged in to lawsuits. It's called deep pockets, and the company has them and has to pay from them...not you. You don't like the rules, fine, start your own company and don't have a drug testing policy....see how well that does for your workers comp or how well you can defend yourself when someone falls at work. Yes, YOU as the business owner can be responsible for someone falling over their own laces if they are found to have drugs in their system that YOU did not test for. Sounds unbelievable right? Try taking a course on legal liability and it will open your eyes. Not to mention, by law if they find drugs during a random test of an active full-time employee beyond probation in most states they have to offer intervention and even pay for it. It's not "we found drugs in your system so you're fired" unless you are legally contracted employee with that clause in your contract (rare).

Someone said "no way if I'm sitting at a desk or being creative."

Real life example: Johnny has a desk job, but Johnny's boss (my good friend) asks him to run to Office Depot to pick some poster boards if he wouldn't mind on his way back from lunch. Johnny rear ends someone on the 710 freeway who got hurt as a result. That cost my good friend over $700,000 (settlement) because "johnny" had traces of alcohol and weed in his system when he was tested after the accident. Didn't cost Johnny squat and he was probably never drunk or high on the job, but my friend nearly lost his web design firm. My friend also had to downsize so thanks again Johnny, more people lost their job and my friend had to pay $15,000 for Johnny to go to rehab to add insult to injury.

What you do in your own time does have an effect. I'm no prude, but the above happens all the time. Lawyers go after deep pockets and they aren't yours, so companies have no choice but to cover their butts. It's not just pilots, doctors, heavy machinery operators, etc....LIABILITY suits come from all positions.

We live in a lawsuit happy society with rules that unfortunately cause the lines of privacy to be broken to financially thrive. I'm not defending it, but companies have to do what they can to protect themselves and their employees.

 

[two fingers]

In that case, you should be okay with letting your employer hang cameras all around your house, since you got nothing to hide.

Ridiculous "argument". In my house, I am legally taking a shower, taking a dump, or having sex with my wife. Those are things that I don't want you to see. So, there's no such thing as "nothing to hide" if you want to talk about what goes on in a house. The term "nothing to hide" quite obviously refers to LEGALLY nothing to hide. It does not, in any way, imply that there is no aspect of my life I don't want you to see. They are in no way at all similar to what you bring to work in your bloodstream.

 

[Lonesomedave]

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

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

well, i've got say, if that's your position, you and i have no differences at all, i excuse you from the designation "hypocrite"

did i understand you to say you were the boss of a company...make the hiring and firing decisions do you?

how soon will this "no alcohol, even off duty" policy be implemented?

 

[Mark Reccord]

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?

Well, pot is still illegal in most places, so there's that. Personally, I think it should be legalized even though I'm not a user.

EDIT: I should clarify that this is a reason used by a lot employers to justify discriminating against pot users, not that I agree with it.

I don't think testing for THC and making decisions based on trace amounts that could have been smoked 3 weeks ago is particularly sensible and as you mentioned earlier a better way to go might be a more effective way to test "are you high/drunk right now?" or at least have an accepted threshold that indicates whether there's enough in your bloodstream to impair you like there is for alcohol. There are accepted blood levels that indicate impairment and if you're over that, whether it's from the 6 beers you had in your car on the way to work (I know someone who did this on a regular basis) or from overindulging the night before, then action can be taken. Legalized pot would probably go a long way in pushing that sort of thing in drug tests as opposed to the knee jerk "you have a trace amount of THC in your bloodstream, you're fired!" attitudes I've seen at some employers.

 

[Lowactnsatsfctn]

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?

This is what we do for repeat alcohol users



Its all a form of damage control.

 

[two fingers]

This is complete ignorance of business liability and legality. No corporation has to be ok with someone breaking the law "on their own time" whatsoever because it can and does have an effect on their business. Billions are paid out in lawsuits every year for this very reason and you can be sure that it's not the user footing the bill.

It's been brought up, but LIABILITY is the #1 reason for drug testing, not character. Do you really think that the head of HR really gives a hoot what you do on Saturday night? No, he or she is sick of being dragged in to lawsuits. It's called deep pockets, and the company has them and has to pay from them...not you. You don't like the rules, fine, start your own company and don't have a drug testing policy....see how well that does for your workers comp or how well you can defend yourself when someone falls at work. Yes, YOU as the business owner can be responsible for someone falling over their own laces if they are found to have drugs in their system that YOU did not test for. Sounds unbelievable right? Try taking a course on legal liability and it will open your eyes. Not to mention, by law if they find drugs during a random test of an active full-time employee beyond probation in most states they have to offer intervention and even pay for it. It's not "we found drugs in your system so you're fired" unless you are legally contracted employee with that clause in your contract (rare).

Someone said "no way if I'm sitting at a desk or being creative."

Real life example: Johnny has a desk job, but Johnny's boss (my good friend) asks him to run to Office Depot to pick some poster boards if he wouldn't mind on his way back from lunch. Johnny rear ends someone on the 710 freeway who got hurt as a result. That cost my good friend over $700,000 (settlement) because "johnny" had traces of alcohol and weed in his system when he was tested after the accident. Didn't cost Johnny squat and he was probably never drunk or high on the job, but my friend nearly lost his web design firm. My friend also had to downsize so thanks again Johnny, more people lost their job and my friend had to pay $15,000 for Johnny to go to rehab to add insult to injury.

What you do in your own time does have an effect. I'm no prude, but the above happens all the time. Lawyers go after deep pockets and they aren't yours, so companies have no choice but to cover their butts. It's not just pilots, doctors, heavy machinery operators, etc....LIABILITY suits come from all positions.

We live in a lawsuit happy society with rules that unfortunately cause the lines of privacy to be broken to financially thrive. I'm not defending it, but companies have to do what they can to protect themselves and their employees.

Then read this TWELVE times. Then go start your own business.............. dipsticks.

 

[MatticusMania]

or last night...

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

That is definitely the crux of the matter.

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

I dont believe there is, though Im sure someone somewhere is working on it (and they might even be high!).
I think concentration levels may vary depending on certain variables, like the last time a person used, however those could be offset by other factors, like the frequency of use.

And Im not certain as far any of that goes.

 

[michael_atw]

did i understand you to say you were the boss of a company...make the hiring and firing decisions do you?

how soon will this "no alcohol, even off duty" policy be implemented?

I am a sole proprietor. I don't plan on hiring.

I would administer such a policy if it meant it benefited me. That's the point of the drug policies of companies. If people on this thread think companies are spending money to give you a drug test to steal some magical pee information from you, you're bat**** nuts. You're getting more info stolen from you by private companies on Talkbass than you are taking a drug test. You see those ads on the side? You think they're appearing as things you want by chance? You're being mined.

If the policy did not benefit me, I would not do it. That's the point of running a business - an owner/manager does the things that benefit them. If drug testing was not benefiting them, they would stop doing it. That's how business and economics work. I addressed this earlier - workers are capital, they are being purchased for a wage or salary. They can be replaced. You are the human form of a replaceable part. There will always be someone better than you to do the job. If someone here thinks they are better than others and that they will be missed if they stand up for something that is hardly an issue but merely one created for nothing, they are dead-wrong.

 

[spade2you]

Yes, But I kind of touched on that earlier.

My bad. Missed that.

This is what we do for repeat alcohol users
View attachment 318087


Its all a form of damage control.

I'm surprised it's not mandatory for all DUI offenders, at least in my area since there seems to be the occasional 8th time offender arrested.

 

[Unrepresented]

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.

Workers historically have been forced to compromise their desire to be paid fairly, work in safe conditions, etc because they had to put food on the table. There will always be a race to the bottom to undermine rights without having legislation preventing it. Excessive privacy violation is absolutely in keeping with a protection workers are entitled to.

 

[Munjibunga]

Bingo.

Bunko. A potential employer is not punishing a prospective employee by not hiring him. He's just not hiring him.

 

[michael_atw]

Workers historically have been forced to compromise their desire to be paid fairly, work in safe conditions, etc because they had to put food on the table. There will always be a race to the bottom to undermine rights without having legislation preventing it. Excessive privacy violation is absolutely in keeping with a protection workers are entitled to.

You're viewing it backwards. Workers have far more rights now than they even had 40 years ago - let alone 100 years ago.

I see this often in the state of people in this country - they believe all their rights are being stripped and their freedoms being taken away while the generations die with the historical knowledge to reveal that we got it pretty good. In fact, we have it as good as it has ever been. The aforementioned "entitled brat syndrome" in this country.

 

[BawanaRik]

Sine birth control is free form the government why , how, please explain what you said about testing for a gal on birth control.

The values I will not break are my rights under the constitution protecting me from unreasonable search. Oh and do you really think drugs is all they are looking for. Are you a woman on birth control? Are you a diabetic? Are you on any special (read expensive) medication? All of these things can be checked on a Pee test and can impact a firms bottom line and they may decide not to hire you. Besides since when does a corporations rights trump mine?

 

[vernhillbass]

Yes. My job pays for my bass obsession as well as providing for my family.

 

[BawanaRik]

Did anyone catch Flight with Denzel Washington? I think it's fits this thread.

 

[michael_atw]

Bunko. A potential employer is not punishing a prospective employee by not hiring him. He's just not hiring him.

Yep - more, "I have a right to a job" nonsense.

It keeps coming up despite the fact that thread posters are refusing to acknowledge they believe they somehow have some inane right for an employer to pay them money.