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

[Lonesomedave]

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

true...true...and normally i would be in favor of an employer's right to hire and fire for any reason...or even no reason at all...hell, if push came to shove, i probably would be here too, even in spite of my loathing of the hypocrisy of hiring people who drink off duty while not hiring people who smoke off duty....

BUT, there are some hiring/firing decisions that cannot legally be made...i point out race and gender for two...and back when those were legally reasons would you not say that the potential employer was punishing people in those categories?

just sayin'

 

[zachoff]

As far as hiring, that IS my policy of you are interviewing for a position that requires driving my vehicle. You don't get hired with a ticket. As far as getting one on the job, it all depends. Are you an amazing employee otherwise? Is it a really bad ticket? How much will it cost my business to keep you on the insurance? The answers to these questions tell me whether or not you stay.

I should have worded it differently...

My point was less about the gas card and more about everyone breaking laws. The argument that regularly smoking weed (a misdemeanor in most states, legal in some) somehow shows a much greater lack of character than regularly speeding or rolling through stop signs (a misdemeanor in all states, legal in none) is pretty silly.

 

[MJ_Sotti]

I've been subject to random drug and alcohol tests for years. I was a fireman, and so do the coppers. I understand.

But you know who should have to drop? Those who make those random laws. So every elected official should have to be subject to random, to set an example for all of us. Do you know how many drunks are running around congress? How many are on prescription drugs? And that's of both parties. Every day xth member through the door should have to blow. and drop for drugs. Caught hot? Right into the program, lose your voting privileges for 6 months and your party CAN'T replace your vote...they got do deal with one less. And for the remainder of your term or terms in congress or in the white house you will submit to random testing. Caught again? You are kicked out. Period. And you can never run for elected office again.

That will have a impact. That and term limits.

How many deals with trillions of dollars are made while these guys are drunk?

Every one of them...of both parties are phonies.

 

[Lowactnsatsfctn]

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.

I wish it was mandatory after the first offense. Its all I can really do to keep them off the streets though. The problem with it is when a court orders the installation, it takes for ever to get paid and its expensive to the end user. They usually end up driving other peoples cars or buying another vehicle.

 

[BawanaRik]

Having it good might not last. The story about the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs comes to mind.

When I was a kid we lived with my grandmother. We have coal heat that had to loaded by shovel and a pump out back to pump water.

I am living so much better than that now It's a miracle. A Miracle I appreciate.

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.

 

[Unrepresented]

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.

Some things have improved, some haven't, and some still have room for improvement. Privacy today is an entirely different issue now than it was 40 years ago. Times and technology change and protections should reflect that.

 

[zachoff]

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 ?

I am clean & have been since my kids were born 15+ years ago. It's not about that. It's about what I do (or don't do) in the privacy of my own home somehow being the company's business... And it's not.

 

[Mark Reccord]

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

I haven't seen it but I know what it's about. I remember doing a corporate event for an airline. They flew us to the gig. I was a bit nervous when I got on the return flight at 9:30AM to see two guys that we had been partying with until 5AM in the cockpit. These pilots were very drunk the night before, I'm sure if they'd been tested that morning they would have had higher blood alcohol than the legal limit. Apparently it's not uncommon.

 

[zachoff]

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

At my company (a really big ski company)... There are no drug tests for consideration of employment but if there is an accident involving an employee, that employee is tested for insurance reasons only. If we're not sober at work or if we're caught skiing/snowboarding under the influence of anything (whether or not we're on the clock) then we get fired. This was the policy before Prop 64 (legalization of weed) and it will be the policy afterward as well.

 

[two fingers]

I am clean & have been since my kids were born 15+ years ago. It's not about that. It's about what I do (or don't do) in the privacy of my own home somehow being the company's business... And it's not.

Meh. As stated before, you have the right to decline the test. And I have the right to decline you if you do. Both are fair stances. The problem is that many view "standing up for your rights" as "fair" if you are the employee, but not if you are the employER. My sending you home for refusing to take the test is every bit as "fair" as your declining to take it. It DOES swing both ways.

 

[Lowactnsatsfctn]

I am clean & have been since my kids were born 15+ years ago. It's not about that. It's about what I do (or don't do) in the privacy of my own home somehow being the company's business... And it's not.

You're right, its not the company's business what you do on the weekend. The company's business is to profit and protect its image. How do they go about doing so? By minimizing loses. Liability, Law suits and higher insurance premiums are expenses.

 

[spade2you]

I wish it was mandatory after the first offense. Its all I can really do to keep them off the streets though. The problem with it is when a court orders the installation, it takes for ever to get paid and its expensive to the end user. They usually end up driving other peoples cars or buying another vehicle.

Very true. You'd think they could impound the car until the job was done.

I tend to avoid being out late and/or out during the major drinking holidays any more. People drive awful enough sober.

 

[Turock]

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

That's a well known fallacy.

 

[Bert Slide]

This whole thread stinks of the "if you don't have anything to hide...." mindset. I can think of few greater invasions of privacy than having to pee in a cup for employment. If an employer can not judge my quailifications by previous work record, good recommendations and personal interview I am not interested in working for them. We got along fine for centuries without drug-screening job applicants. Y'all just keep going along to get along in this way and what's left of our freedom and dignity will continue to be eroded.

 

[zachoff]

You're right, its not the company's business what you do on the weekend. The company's business is to profit and protect its image. How do they go about doing so? By minimizing loses. Liability, Law suits and higher insurance premiums are expenses.

You should also think about the indirect expenses of not always hiring the best person for the job and greater employee turnover because of such policies.

 

[spade2you]

We got along fine for centuries without drug-screening job applicants. .

We didn't have lab testing machinery or computers back then, either.

 

[DwaynieAD]

This whole thread stinks of the "if you don't have anything to hide...." mindset. I can think of few greater invasions of privacy than having to pee in a cup for employment. If an employer can not judge my quailifications by previous work record, good recommendations and personal interview I am not interested in working for them. We got along fine for centuries without drug-screening job applicants. Y'all just keep going along to get along in this way and what's left of our freedom and dignity will continue to be eroded.

has nothing to do with freedom.

 

[bamabass]

It really isn't that complicated, at least for me. I believe in your right to smoke weed, drink, do meth, smoke crack, kick puppies, punch babies, etc....legal or illegal....go for it. Just understand there are consequences for your actions. The questions isn't do you have a right...of course you do. The question is are you willing to pay the consequence for your right.

Depending on your position and responsibility, you may choose to possibly give up some rights, for income. At our company, those rights you choose to give up are non negotiable and you CHOOSE to give them up. You are not forced, but depending on your action....there will be a consequence. We do not hide the consequences either. An informed employee has the ability to make wise decisions.

 

[Bert Slide]

We didn't have lab testing machinery or computers back then, either.

So maybe we should just regularly test everyone in society then? Afterall, we have the technology and "if it saves one life...." it's worth living in a police state.

 

[Lonesomedave]

It really isn't that complicated, at least for me. I believe in your right to smoke weed, drink, do meth, smoke crack, kick puppies, punch babies, etc....legal or illegal....go for it. Just understand there are consequences for your actions. The questions isn't do you have a right...of course you do. The question is are you willing to pay the consequence for your right.

Depending on your position and responsibility, you may choose to possibly give up some rights, for income. At our company, those rights you choose to give up are non negotiable and you CHOOSE to give them up. You are not forced, but depending on your action....there will be a consequence. We do not hide the consequences either. An informed employee has the ability to make wise decisions.

again...good post.

but i ask you...

are the consequences for drinking off duty the same as the consequences for smoking pot off duty?

if not, why not.

just askin'