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

[DwaynieAD]

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.

Except no one is forcing you to take a job at a company that drug tests. Therefore it has nothing, at all, to do with freedom as you are still free to do what you wish, including not working for that company.

 

[chadds]

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.

On principle I agree it shouldn't be. Yet they may be paying health claims on some one they hired who partied a little to much regularly.

If you can't keep your finances together will you embezzle?

If there are pictures of you being inappropriate in public on Facebook won't you reflect badly on the companies image?

It may show some ways of thinking that don't jive with the healthy manifestation of the company's image.

Yes it's intrusive. It's Big Brotherish.

Again, they are quite clear about what they want. Your choice.

 

[BawanaRik]

Which is fair. A company has the interests of many to take care of.

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.

 

[eyeballkid]

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.

it's not that I have an "inane right" to be paid by someone, it's that it is a relational agreement between two parties. the "boss" is not someones "boss" in life outside of work, and the one sided dictation of expectations on the relationship is why workers rights have disappeared over recent decades. We have all too many times been conditioned to accept this one sidedness as we hear "you're lucky to have a job in this economy" crap. This has lowered the bar for everyone as we start to accept crap treatment for crap wages out of fear. I have just as much right to dictate the conditions upon which I will trade my time and expertise with someone as they have to dictate.the terms upon which they will trade the cash. If we don't see eye to eye it is obviously not a mutually beneficial arrangement. I've found many a place/employee whose expectations don't suit me, and I've found plenty that do.

 

[bassistjoe93]

I don't care if an employer forces me to take drug tests, I have nothing to hide. It will come back negative. As long as I get my check at the end of the week, I have no problems with giving them a cup of my pee.

 

[MatticusMania]

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


Its all a form of damage control.

We do it for first timers here in most parts of SoCal.

 

[two fingers]

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.

Again, it's not about "feeling entitled". You have every right to NOT hand over any of that information. And I won't think you are "being unfair". if you don't. But I also have the right to hire the guy in line behind you if he DOES give me the information a require to make an informed decision on hiring (and send you packing). If you go out and get high or drunk all the time, post pics of yourself with jello wrestlers wrapped around you ten times on your social media, and owe $10,000 to an on-line gambling web site, as my employee all of that stuff potentially reflects on ME AND MY BUSINESS. And the last part of that phrase makes it MY BUSINESS. (See what I did there?) You don't live in a bubble. Your actions DO NOT just affect YOU. What you do "privately" is not PRIVATE and possibly CAN AFFECT your employer. And I won't know if you are a dipstick if I don't do some research. Passwords? That's going a bit far I guess. But your credit score tells me a lot about you. If you owe a gagillion dollars to Stinky's Porn Emporium, you just might need to take something of mine to earn some extra dough. You're not getting hired by me. Sorry. Your privacy is NOT as important as the potential for MY BUSINESS to come crashing down because of YOUR STUPIDITY. (I don't mean you personally, but you collectively.) And if you want MY MONEY to pay YOUR BILLS, then YOUR PRIVACY takes a back seat to MY PROTECTION. Get how that works? If you have YOUR OWN money, then you do not have to subject yourself to such "atrocities". But when you stick your hand out for MY MONEY, it's about what makes ME feel better.

I'm glad I could clear that up for you. Right up until then you were kind of mixed up. But it's alright now. We got it all fixed.

 

[aborgman]

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.

Almost three years since I left my last job, and they're still looking - and paying a pile of cash to the guy who had the job before me to come in and work here and there as an independent contractor.

 

[two fingers]

Except no one is forcing you to take a job at a company that drug tests. Therefore it has nothing, at all, to do with freedom as you are still free to do what you wish, including not working for that company.

BEE EYE EHN GEE OH! You are free to leave and start your own company. You and YOUR employees can get high at lunch together.

 

[Gopherbassist]

I don't use drugs so there is no reason for me to refuse a test. The more people that are taken out of the running, the more likely I am to become or remain employed.

I don't care if an employer forces me to take drug tests, I have nothing to hide. It will come back negative. As long as I get my check at the end of the week, I have no problems with giving them a cup of my pee.

Also, this. They pay for the prevelage of saving me a few pennies on my water bill. I have no problem with that.

 

[Unrepresented]

On principle I agree it shouldn't be. Yet they may be paying health claims on some one they hired who partied a little to much regularly.

If you can't keep your finances together will you embezzle?

If there are pictures of you being inappropriate in public on Facebook won't you reflect badly on the companies image?

It may show some ways of thinking that don't jive with the healthy manifestation of the company's image.

Yes it's intrusive. It's Big Brother.

Those are certainly reasons to deny privacy. I disagree that they are good reasons.

 

[aborgman]

If drug testing was not benefiting them, they would stop doing it.

Questionable.

There is a good bit of evidence that the saving from drug testing are often exceeded by the costs of drug testing.

 

[aborgman]

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

No, they have exactly the same rights.

Government is just stepping up and protecting them now.

 

[two fingers]

and the one sided dictation of expectations on the relationship is why workers rights have disappeared over recent decades.

I have just as much right to dictate the conditions upon which I will trade my time and expertise with someone as they have to dictate.the terms upon which they will trade the cash.

It's one-sided because I have done all the investing in the company. You have nothing to lose but a job. So, yes, I will dictate what kind of people I have around me. I worked too hard to get where I am.

The problem with all of this is that many on "your side" of the argument see YOUR rights as "fair", but MY RIGHT to not hire you as "unfair". We all make choices, and that is EXECTLY what they are........ choices. I have them, and so do you. That's "fair" (Geez I hate that word.)

 

[bamabass]

oh yeah....we do credit checks too if you are going to be responsible for anything having to do with spending our money.

 

[two fingers]

No, they have exactly the same rights.

Government is just stepping up and protecting them now.

You obviously know ZERO about history. Read up on child labor, the history of minimum wage, etc. Child labor laws did not exist. Minimum wage did not exist. OSHA did not exist. Workers had virtually NO RIGHTS 100 years ago. To say that they did, but that they just weren't enforced, is completely ridiculous, and just incorrect.

 

[aborgman]

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

No, it should be "When do a corporations privileges trump my rights".

Corporations don't have rights - only individuals do. Corporations are government allowed entities which have privileges allowed them by society.

 

[eyeballkid]

I don't think your "right" is unfair, it's just an indication to me that I would have absolutely zero interest working for you. I have had employers that I SHOULD HAVE drug tested and checked their credit scores first as their bad behavior nearly cost me my livelihood and stability as well... but I didn't, as I find it rude. Just because someone is a business owner doesn't mean they won't be the weak link or dangerously unreliable.

 

[Munjibunga]

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.

As you might expect, we disagree on that (on the urine, anyway).

 

[Unrepresented]

You obviously know ZERO about history. Read up on child labor, the history of minimum wage, etc. Child labor laws did not exist. Minimum wage did not exist. OSHA did not exist. Workers had virtually NO RIGHTS 100 years ago. To say that they did, but that they just weren't enforced, is completely ridiculous, and just incorrect.

There's some nuance you're missing.