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

[Munjibunga]

Besides since when does a corporations rights trump mine?

When? At the point when they're making the hire/no-hire decision, whether based on a drug test or not. Sometimes the decision may be based on bad grammar.

BTW, it would be, "When do a corporation's rights trump mine?"

 

[Unrepresented]

has nothing to do with freedom.

EVERYTHING is about freedom.

 

[Turock]

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.

Be prepared to be told that line of thinking is a fallacy; not why it is a fallacy, just that it is a fallacy, because someone claimed it.
Then you are to read a post ten times and another twelve times. This will enlighten you, and make it acceptable for your employer to have his way with you, after all, he's paying you, and that gives him the privilege of controlling your life, both on and off the job.

 

[spade2you]

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.

Put the foil helmet on. They're hearing your thoughts.

 

[spade2you]

When? At the point when they're making the hire/no-hire decision, whether based on a drug test or not. Sometimes the decision may be based on bad grammar.

BTW, it would be, "When do a corporation's rights trump mine?"

OMG, YOU'RE A CEO GRAMMAR NAZI!!!!

 

[Lowactnsatsfctn]

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.

I did. The indirect expense of hiring drug users IME is that I got upset client due to flaky and unfocused employees. The turn over from hiring drug users is much higher. See, I would fire someone when they don't show up because they violated probation or got arrested for simple possession. what about potential clients being weary of my business because of the cop cars out front, due to something drug related? The indirect expense comes out of my pocket.
The right person for this job, Is not a person that uses drugs.

Its not as much the drugs, as it is all the crap that comes with it.

If you want to do drugs and be successful, that's great and I wish you the best. However, just keep in mind that we can't all be Charlie Sheen

 

[Turock]

Put the foil helmet on. They're hearing your thoughts.

For the want of a nail...

 

[Munjibunga]

EVERYTHING is about freedom.

Like the freedom to not hire anyone who won't take or doesn't pass a drug test.

 

[two fingers]

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.

Dumb argument. I can't control the whole world. Nor is it my job/desire to do so. But I CAN AND WILL control my company. You come to work for me, and you are no longer a random person who is just "out there" who may cause me harm. You are someone with whom I am supposed to trust my property, safety, and knowledge. Again, nobody said you HAVE to work for me, or anyone else who drug tests. But I shouldn't HAVE to hire you if you refuse either. We both have rights. As a potential employer, I have just a little bit more muscle with which to flex them though. If you can sustain yourself without having to work for me, or anyone else, then you too have that muscle. But if you NEED someone ELSE'S MONEY to survive, you are in a less powerful position to declare what you will and will not do. And that, believe it or not, is fair.

 

[Munjibunga]

OMG, YOU'RE A CEO GRAMMAR NAZI!!!!

You didn't know? And I'm a former CEO. Now I'm just a bass player. (Please forgive my beginning a sentence with a conjunction.)

 

[Bert Slide]

EVERYTHING is about freedom.

Damn straight and it's a shame more people don't seem to understand what that means anymore. Jack knows though:





George: Oh no. What you represent to them is freedom.
Billy: What the hell's wrong with freedom, man? That's what it's all about.
George: Oh yeah, that's right, that's what it's all about, all right. But talkin' about it and bein' it - that's two different things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. 'Course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom, but they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.
Billy: Mmmm, well, that don't make 'em runnin' scared.
George: No, it makes 'em dangerous.

 

[Munjibunga]

Dumb argument. I can't control the whole world. Nor is it my job/desire to do so. But I CAN AND WILL control my company. You come to work for me, and you are no longer a random person who is just "out there" who may cause me harm. You are someone with whom I am supposed to trust my property, safety, and knowledge. Again, nobody said you HAVE to work for me, or anyone else who drug tests. But I shouldn't HAVE to hire you if you refuse either. We both have rights. As a potential employer, I have just a little bit more muscle with which to flex them though. If you can sustain yourself without having to work for me, or anyone else, then you too have that muscle. But if you NEED someone ELSE'S MONEY to survive, you are in a less powerful position to declare what you will and will not do. And that, believe it or not, is fair.

... like a BOSS!

 

[spade2you]

Like the freedom to not hire anyone who won't take or doesn't pass a drug test.

Link Removed

 

[Unrepresented]

Like the freedom to not hire anyone who won't take or doesn't pass a drug test.

It's a conflict of competing liberties. However, I view an employer's desire to have broader criteria they can use in the hiring/firing process to be less vital to society than defense of workers' right to privacy. My urine, social network passwords, credit score, etc shouldn't be information any prospective employer should feel entitled to.

 

[chadds]

My Oregon friends have this problem. They tell a prospective employer that they have a script for Medical Mari. and use. Get hired, drug tested and fired.

 

[MatticusMania]

This thread is moving too fast for me to keep up with.

SLOW DOWN!

Im at work, and on drugs!

 

[aborgman]

Sorry but until pot is legalized nationwide you most certainly can separate alcohol from pot.

Legally, as of now, you don't really need to... courts have found that it is perfectly acceptable for employers to fire employees for being smokers of perfectly legal cigarettes.

 

[DwaynieAD]

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'

It has been stated, ad nauseum, in this very thread. You just disagree so you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[bamabass]

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'

Yes, they are the same....the question isnt about drinking or smoking. The questions is, does what you do in your own time affect your work or expose the company to liability. I will add this, for pre-employment it doesn't matter. If it is there....Nope, no go. Either will keep me from hiring you.

I am not saying that testing is fair across the board, but what I am saying is that the testing we have is what we have. If a case can me made legally, or even implied that either marijuana or alcohol in your system could have caused the accident or incident, that lead to the testing being done....then your gone. Regardless of the drug. Even if you are not drunk, but have some alcohol in your system....your gone...just like any other drug, legal or not.

I have to be concerned about issues of legal liability, not just protecting someones right to do what they want because they want.

We make it clear that there is a ZERO tolerance policy for drug and alcohol abuse. What that means is a zero tolerance for having it in your system if you get tested. Everyone knows it. The test is the standard...Positive or Negative. If THC stays in your system longer than another drug, fair or unfair, not my problem. It is still illegal in the state I live and illegal at the federal level. If that changes, this policy still wont change, just like our zero tolerance for alcohol.

 

[aborgman]

Take off the tin foil hat. I promise you that CEOs just don't think that way.

We've got at least one company here in Michigan that is testing for tobacco use.

And the whole "corporations are evil" mentality is so intellectually lazy it's not even funny.

Corporations aren't evil.

Corporations are (by law) AMORAL.

Not moral, not immoral. AMORAL.

...and that is exactly why you have to keep an eye on them.