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

[Lonesomedave]

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.

DwaynieAD...really? ad nauseum? people have asked Bama what his companies' policies are?...i'm sorry, i must have missed it.

Bama...i am a little confused. first of all, are you saying use or abuse of either alcohol or drugs? or do you distinguish the two?

second, are you saying that you do or don't test for either pre-employment? and if the answer is "yes we do" does any amount of either in your system result in disqualification?

third are you saying that you only test after an incident, and that then, when you do test, any evidence of either in your system...even miniscule amounts, will get you fired?

thanks...

 

[David Jayne]

Here's an example that's a bit irritating. I'm a field tech who works on commercial printing equipment. One of my customers is a very large and well-known drug company. All contractors, such as myself are required to submit to urinalysis and breathalyzer testing before being allowed to set foot on the property (testing is done in a trailer by a third-party testing company just down the street).
None of the actual drug factory employees are ever required to submit, because the union won't allow it. Ironic?

 

[Ash Jazz]

It's not optional where I work.

No test, no job.

For me the job is worth it and I don't care. I realize the arguement goes beyond wether or not I'm likely to pass the test but I believe a company has a right to know their employees aren't users.

It's less likely to matter in a fast food position but in health care or police or fireman or anywhere peoples lives depend on you or on dangerous jobs I think it would be irresponsible for the employer not to check.

On another note...

I like to think I'm pretty libertarian in my thinking. As far as the seat belt thing goes I don't think the government should force you to wear a seatbelt. On the other hand I think tail gaters should be launched on a one way trip to the sun without so much as a wave good bye. The difference is a seat belt is about saving my life. Stopping tail gating is about protecting the lives of others.

 

[bamabass]

It sucks that we wont let you partake at work, or come to work affected. Sorry about that. You know what else sucks? Someone causing an accident at work that, even if it doesn't hurt or kill someone, causes enough damage that you have to shut down a production line for a week.....and now there are 5 guys per shift, for 2 shifts, who are home getting ZERO pay, because of one guys "rights". I bet those 10 guys not getting paid for that time off are pretty happy that you have your rights. I bet their families are happy too, and the customer who is now not going to receive the product we agreed to a firm delivery date on and will tie up a 15 million dollar order for him, where he has penalty clauses for being late...yeah, he is happy too. He is so happy that you have your rights, he exercised his right to NOT renew a 2 Million dollar contract the following year.....so we had to lay off some people on that same line because that customer was most of our business for that line.....and yeah....all of that really happened.

Those are some of the reasons we do are forced to do this, and lets not even get into the mess of injusry or death. This was just a broken machine. We didn't come up with it one night is a secret meeting wondering how to make things difficult and take joy away from people. Accidents and incidents related to drugs and alcohol happen and cost a lot of money. I would not want to work for a company that was so blasé about there business.

 

[chadds]

what I meant is that in no way would I intrude upon what they do in their free time as a condition of working with us. they could snort cocaine off a stripper's butt while in a sex swing as the "main attraction" and I wouldn't care as long as their work wasn't affected. I've worked with some REAL characters over the years and have found that most of the wild ones have brought that passion to their work as well.

I agree with you. It shouldn't matter. Trust me its not some Puritan it's not right for me so it's not right for you thing. There are real multi year costs to small companies for their employees' drug abuse. These costs affect new hires, raises, R&D, insurance, which raise consumer costs.

So the individual does affect the whole.

 

[MatticusMania]

I don't think that in general. I just want to choose who flies my plane or operates on me.
Just wait until your child needs an eye operation and then consider that the doctor was as high as you were last night.

If he were high last night Id have no problem.

 

[BawanaRik]

So you like Flight. I know many functioning drug users. One friend is a double digit ( 10 plus cans of beer ) a day man.

One beer affects me and I know it. We're both getting near 60 and he's starting to show. The drinking has cost him his career and maybe even his love life.

This is a smart guy.

Look, I think the real damage from drugs actually comes from the drug laws. But like it or not they are laws. Half the men in Federal prison are there for drugs. The consequences of drug laws are real.

A small business owner can loose everything simply because an employee smoked pot ever the weekend and drove the company car on Monday.

Someone brought up OHSA. Here's a bit of what OSHA says about the matter.

Invalid Link Removed

People have mentioned how Richard Nixon's signing of this law provided some of the protections worker enjoy in the US today.

Part of that protection is that the driver of the company shuttle isn't banging Belusi Bags on his break.

There are places that hire druggies. They generally pay less and you might be working next to a felon. Felon need jobs too. The lower end jobs pay less because the companies tend to be run worse(sic).

And I can't help thinking they aren't as safe. I used to work roofing when I was younger. It's not a matter of if you fall but when.

According to the OSHA website 40% of workplace fatalities are caused by drug abusers. The worst part of this discussion is that I'll bet the very people who are so against Drug Testing are the same ones who would first in line to sue if they were injured at worked. First in line to sue if a loved one was killed at work by a drug user.

I have nothing against people choosing to use drugs. But I feel these people should take responsibility for their choices. Like I feel about all other choices.

Your boss is stepping up to the plate and being responsible for your safety when he requires testing. Albeit he is also being responsible for the safety of those around you and the continued employment provided for these folks.

Another suggestion. Monday, when you go work, thank your boss for providing you with a job. A bit of gratitude goes a long way.

Y'all do realize that you are not weeding out most of the drug users with those tests, only the ones stupid enough to not be able to cheat and beat it. I guess that helps some but is no justification for putting everyone through such indignity.

You guys who think casual drug users can't be productive members of society, even tops in their field, are really misguided. I know top surgeons, lawyers, cops(even a small town police chief!), Wall St. wizards, software gurus, and several medal winning Olympic athletes who like to smoke a little weed now and again or maybe even gag a line or eat some psychedelics on occasion.

 

[Ziltoid]

If he were high last night Id have no problem.

Exactly.

It seems that the third of the comments in this thread assume that if you were high off-duty you're always high on-duty. What the hell is wrong with you people?

 

[Unrepresented]

Here's an example that's a bit irritating. I'm a field tech who works on commercial printing equipment. One of my customers is a very large and well-known drug company. All contractors, such as myself are required to submit to urinalysis and breathalyzer testing before being allowed to set foot on the property (testing is done in a trailer by a third-party testing company just down the street).
None of the actual drug factory employees are ever required to submit, because the union won't allow it. Ironic?

No. It's a sign that you should join a union.

 

[bamabass]

Bama...i am a little confused. first of all, are you saying use or abuse of either alcohol or drugs? or do you distinguish the two?

second, are you saying that you do or don't test for either pre-employment? and if the answer is "yes we do" does any amount of either in your system result in disqualification?

third are you saying that you only test after an incident, and that then, when you do test, any evidence of either in your system...even miniscule amounts, will get you fired?

thanks...

Dave, sorry if I was confusing.

Drugs and alcohol are lumped into the same pile. If it is in your system, you are not in our system. We will not hire you if either is present, no matter how small. ZERO tolerance policy. Everyone is told up front. Candidates and Employees. The testing we do comes back as either positive or negative. We do not get into the details of how much of what.

This applies to pre-employment or incidents. We do not do RANDOM testing. After pre-employment, the only time you would be tested would be for an accident or incident. Once you are stable or safe to go to a lab for testing, we take you, as soon as we can. If you are going to the ER for an injury, they will do it immediately upon arriving.

Hope that helps

 

[spade2you]

It's less likely to matter in a fast food position but in health care or police or fireman or anywhere peoples lives depend on you or on dangerous jobs I think it would be irresponsible for the employer not to check.

Keep in mind that fast food employees are handling money, your food, as well as working with knives and cooking equipment. Sure, minimal risk to us, but that's a lot of liability for the business owner if/when they get sued.

 

[BawanaRik]

I find it odd that there is a privacy amendment when it comes to some choices but not seat belts. If overpopulation wasn't such an issue it might be different but allowing me to kill myself by not wearing a seat belt is much different than not allowing me to kill some one else by banging a belusi bag before work.

It's not optional where I work.

No test, no job.

For me the job is worth it and I don't care. I realize the arguement goes beyond wether or not I'm likely to pass the test but I believe a company has a right to know their employees aren't users.

It's less likely to matter in a fast food position but in health care or police or fireman or anywhere peoples lives depend on you or on dangerous jobs I think it would be irresponsible for the employer not to check.

On another note...

I like to think I'm pretty libertarian in my thinking. As far as the seat belt thing goes I don't think the government should force you to wear a seatbelt. On the other hand I think tail gaters should be launched on a one way trip to the sun without so much as a wave good bye. The difference is a seat belt is about saving my life. Stopping tail gating is about protecting the lives of others.

 

[Bert Slide]

Here's an example that's a bit irritating. I'm a field tech who works on commercial printing equipment. One of my customers is a very large and well-known drug company. All contractors, such as myself are required to submit to urinalysis and breathalyzer testing before being allowed to set foot on the property (testing is done in a trailer by a third-party testing company just down the street).
None of the actual drug factory employees are ever required to submit, because the union won't allow it. Ironic?

What's really ironic is that the legal drugs are responsible for much more of the carnage to individuals, families and society associated with drug abuse than the illegal ones.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Dave, sorry if I was confusing.

Drugs and alcohol are lumped into the same pile. If it is in your system, you are not in our system. We will not hire you if either is present, no matter how small. ZERO tolerance policy. Everyone is told up front. Candidates and Employees. The testing we do comes back as either positive or negative. We do not get into the details of how much of what.

This applies to pre-employment or incidents. We do not do RANDOM testing. After pre-employment, the only time you would be tested would be for an accident or incident. Once you are stable or safe to go to a lab for testing, we take you, as soon as we can. If you are going to the ER for an injury, they will do it immediately upon arriving.

Hope that helps

thanks, buddy

 

[Ash Jazz]

I find it odd that there is a privacy amendment when it comes to some choices but not seat belts. If overpopulation wasn't such an issue it might be different but allowing me to kill myself by not wearing a seat belt is much different than not allowing me to kill some one else by banging a belusi bag before work.

The only real arguement I can think of for seat belt laws is that the driver might be more likely to lose control of the vehicle if they get knocked around. That wouldn't really apply to passengers.

 

[bassinplace]

I don't agree with drug testing as a condition of employment. It is in my opinion an infringment on my personal privacy. That said, if I needed or wanted a job badly enough, I would begrudgingly do it. I don't drink or do drugs so I have no fear of reprisal. It isn't fair or right in my opinion, but life isn't always fair or right. I just do my best to avoid any companies that have those kind of policies in place. So far, luckily, I've been successful at doing so.

 

[Bert Slide]

Dave, sorry if I was confusing.


This applies to pre-employment or incidents. We do not do RANDOM testing. After pre-employment, the only time you would be tested would be for an accident or incident. Once you are stable or safe to go to a lab for testing, we take you, as soon as we can. If you are going to the ER for an injury, they will do it immediately upon arriving.

Hope that helps

Helps you deny workmens' comp to that guy who was injured due to a workplace safety issue or some other reason no fault of his own but he smoked a few joints last weekend days before the incident and was sober as a church mouse when the incident occurred.

 

[spade2you]

Helps you deny workmens' comp to that guy who was injured due to a workplace safety issue or some other reason no fault of his own but he smoked a few joints last weekend days before the incident and was sober as a church mouse when the incident occurred.

Nobody wants to pay workmen's comp. If you read the fine print, there are many things in place to get it denied. Best to avoid those kinds of things.

 

[eyeballkid]

It sucks that we wont let you partake at work, or come to work affected. Sorry about that. You know what else sucks? Someone causing an accident at work that, even if it doesn't hurt or kill someone, causes enough damage that you have to shut down a production line for a week.....and now there are 5 guys per shift, for 2 shifts, who are home getting ZERO pay, because of one guys "rights". I bet those 10 guys not getting paid for that time off are pretty happy that you have your rights. I bet their families are happy too, and the customer who is now not going to receive the product we agreed to a firm delivery date on and will tie up a 15 million dollar order for him, where he has penalty clauses for being late...yeah, he is happy too. He is so happy that you have your rights, he exercised his right to NOT renew a 2 Million dollar contract the following year.....so we had to lay off some people on that same line because that customer was most of our business for that line.....and yeah....all of that really happened.

Those are some of the reasons we do are forced to do this, and lets not even get into the mess of injusry or death. This was just a broken machine. We didn't come up with it one night is a secret meeting wondering how to make things difficult and take joy away from people. Accidents and incidents related to drugs and alcohol happen and cost a lot of money. I would not want to work for a company that was so blasé about there business.

so it sounds like, from your example, that the problem was that someone came to work high or drunk and caused a problem.. if that's true it's very different from testing what people do over the weekend. I have no tolerance for people being impaired at work either, and my stakes aren't as "high". I have found that with even a small amount of attentiveness it's quite easy to spot if someone shows up impaired, even a little bit.
devils advocate question: what's your position on legally prescribed painkillers at work? I once had to be put on valiums. It took a few hours at work before I realized how bad of an idea being there was even though legal. how many guys on your line may at any time be on prescribed medications for injuries but still working? and have you ever had a similar incident caused by someone unimpaired?

 

[Lowactnsatsfctn]

Helps you deny workmens' comp to that guy who was injured due to a workplace safety issue or some other reason no fault of his own but he smoked a few joints last weekend days before the incident and was sober as a church mouse when the incident occurred.

They would have brought that upon them selves.
They should have read about workman's compensation laws instead of going and getting high.