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

[bamabass]

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?

Yup, showed up drunk. Crashed a big machine....stuff went BOOM! It is written in our policy that if you are on any type of prescription medication that may affect job performance or safety....STAY HOME! We have never had an incident like that happen, thank God.

To me, a lot of this is similar to PED testing in the NFL. You get a list of what is not allowed by league rules....NOT BY THE LAW, but by the company paying your paycheck. You agree to abide by it....you are responsible for what you put in your body.

To be honest, I have never thought about how we would handle an incident with legally prescribed meds that were taken in accordance with the prescription. Without much thought, I guess it would really have to do with the employee and the incident, but I cannot say fully.

 

[chadds]

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.

A little point considering our bigger discussion. In a multi car accident you not being in a proper driving position after the first collision contributes to more risk of injury and death because you can't control your car. If you damage your brain your family will be taking care of you the rest of your life. You choosing to give that 24hr responsibility to your wife or kids and raise our health costs too?
You really choose to hit your body against an immovable object suddenly at 60 mph rather than buckle up. You have a right but are you wise?

 

[6jase5]

I noticed that not one of the anti-testing guys had a single comment on this, so I'm asking for one........

My friend, CEO and founder of his corporation, had to settle for $751,000 because one of his office clerk employees running an errand rear ended another car on his way back from Office Depot and then tested positive.

My friend's company had to pay because according to the judge "His corporation showed negligence by not having a routine drug testing policy." THE CORPORATION...then had to pay for the guys drub rehab as well.

So, it cost THE CORPORATION money because they didn't drug test....and you all hate Corporations for infringing on your freedom?

BLAME THE LAWS.....which the Corporation didn't create!!! How hard is it to figure out that businesses don't really care what you do on Saturday, they have to cover their assets!!!

 

[bamabass]

We have very few incidents that involve drugs and alcohol. The few we have had have been so ludicrous, that they would have been fired even if drugs or alcohol weren't involved. From my experience.....you don't directly get hurt or hurt others because you are affected by a drug or alcohol....what you do is show poor judgement by ignoring policies and procedures typically relating to safety or machine care. It is the direct insubordination to policy and procedure that gets you or others hurt. Even if you weren't drunk, if you crash a million dollar machine because you ignored the rules, policies and procedures we have in place.....you will probably lose your job.....drunk or high or not.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

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?

+1

I also want to know why people feel perfectly content losing their personal privacy just for the sake of business liability. It's laughable. Believe me guys, I get the liability thing. I've been in school for 5 years learning all about it, and I've been working longer than that in all sorts of different jobs. I've also been around the block enough to know there are more than a few people who can drink or smoke on their own free time and then come to work and be as productive (if not more so) than the straight-edge person next to them. These sorts of tests are nothing but invasive. To think otherwise is... well... I'm not going to say because I like TB too much.

 

[BawanaRik]

There's been a lot of back and forth here. My question, and this is serious, has anyone with all this discussion changed their mind from the opinion they held at the beginning?

 

[Simo98]

Do you know why they require shoes in Grocery stores?

Why do you abide by the rule?

I don't. I take a risk the second I leave my house without shoes, and I'll be leaving them off whether I'm in your store or not. I'm a good customer, but if you don't want me then that's their prerogative.

I've yet to be refused entrance to any store due to lack of footware, only restaurants and bars where it is required by law.


My employer is happy for me to work barefoot too. I show up to work early, I work hard, I stay back late, and I always work to the best of my ability. Who cares if I don't wear shoes.

Now a good buddy of mine has a medical problem which leaves in a substantial amount of pain. He is prescribed painkillers (oxycontin) for this, which he takes daily, thus making him a (involuntary) drug addict. A few years back this guy had to take a drug test for a job, but his employer looked past his addiction since it is prescribed by a doctor. Does this make his less of a risk?

Of course it does, because those are "legal" drugs, so he's not a filthy criminal.

/sarcasm

 

[eyeballkid]

Yup, showed up drunk. Crashed a big machine....stuff went BOOM! It is written in our policy that if you are on any type of prescription medication that may affect job performance or safety....STAY HOME! We have never had an incident like that happen, thank God.

To me, a lot of this is similar to PED testing in the NFL. You get a list of what is not allowed by league rules....NOT BY THE LAW, but by the company paying your paycheck. You agree to abide by it....you are responsible for what you put in your body.

To be honest, I have never thought about how we would handle an incident with legally prescribed meds that were taken in accordance with the prescription. Without much thought, I guess it would really have to do with the employee and the incident, but I cannot say fully.

and that situation is very different from a fella who puffed down Saturday night. The guy that showed up drunk is a total jackass and im so sorry you suffered from his jackassery. In a perfect world his coworkers would have noticed his condition before anything happened and told him to hoof it. No amount of random drug testing, or pre employment testing would have prevented this. Just wondering, doesn't your company have potential recourse, other than just during him, for losses caused by gross negligence?

 

[spade2you]

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?

LOL, sometimes I wish I could tell ya what the physicians, nurses, and pharmacists abusing prescriptions or illegal drugs did. Needless to say, you wouldn't want them to care for you or a loved one.

 

[Simo98]

There's been a lot of back and forth here. My question, and this is serious, has anyone with all this discussion changed their mind from the opinion they held at the beginning?

I haven't change my view completely, but I have a better view on the subject due to some interesting points being raised.

It's nigh impossible to change somebodies mind during an argument, it's when they process the information in the future that it comes into play. Small things that add up, different perspectives being raised.

 

[willop]

it's not the laws - its the lawyers that create the problems, but then, they usually make the laws.

It's illegal for a kid to buy cigarettes - but no illegal to posses or consume them.
So pot is legal in colorado...its not legal federally speaking.

you boss may be OK with your 'habits', but workers comp may not be. I can save on workers comp by having 'safety training' for example. I know my rates are based on claims as well as the type of work my employees do. Higher risk means higher premiums.

If I was told that drug testing would save me (i am my company) on some insurance, more than the costs of the tests, I'd certainly be interested in testing.

 

[willop]

I've yet to be refused entrance to any store due to lack of footware, only restaurants and bars where it is required by law.

I've not been refused entry either..but I've not tried. Just about every store I know has a 'no shoes no shirt no servce' sign and many have a 'no firearms' sign as well.

AFAIK there is no law that says you have to wear shoes anyplace ever - but that may vary by state. In PA you drive barefoot but I've been told it's not legal in ohio.

I've never seen a sign that says 'drunk/high/under influence stay out' - most bars say they reserve the right to refuse anyone, but then every business has that right...to a point at least.

 

[eyeballkid]

LOL, sometimes I wish I could tell ya what the physicians, nurses, and pharmacists abusing prescriptions or illegal drugs did. Needless to say, you wouldn't want them to care for you or a loved one.

do tell.

 

[BawanaRik]

That's a good point. That some of this might get processed.

I find the term argument interesting also. I think that keeping a discussion below the line where it becomes an argument might make for a higher possibility of achieving a workable compromise is many settings.

Thanks for your reply

I haven't change my view completely, but I have a better view on the subject due to some interesting points being raised.

It's nigh impossible to change somebodies mind during an argument, it's when they process the information in the future that it comes into play. Small things that add up, different perspectives being raised.

 

[bamabass]

and that situation is very different from a fella who puffed down Saturday night. The guy that showed up drunk is a total jackass and im so sorry you suffered from his jackassery. In a perfect world his coworkers would have noticed his condition before anything happened and told him to hoof it. No amount of random drug testing, or pre employment testing would have prevented this. Just wondering, doesn't your company have potential recourse, other than just during him, for losses caused by gross negligence?

I agree that they are completely different.

No recourse.....this was a few years ago. Contrary to the perception that all of us business people are hard hearted and trying to screw the working man.....he got fired....got sober....the company payed for rehab after the termination because he had a family and needed to get sober....and then hired him back a year ago. Great employee who has been clean for almost 2 years.

This isn't about going after people who do these things. Its about protecting ourselves, employees, and their livelihoods. As employers, our hands are also somewhat tied regarding this because these are legal and liability issues. Whether we like them or not doesn't matter. They are there. If a court of law considers something illegal....we do too. If something you do, whether real or perceived, can cause damage or jeopardy to the company, we have to address it accordingly.

Someone is also going to say that accidents can happen when you're sober and it is not your fault, and because you have a tiny bit of THC in your system from 2 weeks ago, you're going to get screwed. The truth is, YUP, that could probably happen. It hasn't, not that I have seen in my experience. If you know the policy, and decide to ignore it or at best risk it and see if we will enforce it....well, we don't bluff. We have too much riding on it. If you are the main provider for your family....you have too much riding on it as well. Don't be a mope.

 

[Lowactnsatsfctn]

I find the term argument interesting also. I think that keeping a discussion below the line where it becomes an argument might make for a higher possibility of achieving a workable compromise is many settings.

Thanks for your reply

I'm kind of amazed at how civil the entire thread has been so far. There have been threads about gear that get closed faster

 

[Diesel Kilgore]

Yes. I took one to get hired. And my job will institute for reasonable suspicion. But we transport kids. So I would hope there is some kind of rule that you shouldn't be on drugs or alcohol. I don't care what anyone's opinion is on testing. Drugs and handling children's lives don't mix.

 

[eyeballkid]

I agree that they are completely different.

No recourse.....this was a few years ago. Contrary to the perception that all of us business people are hard hearted and trying to screw the working man.....he got fired....got sober....the company payed for rehab after the termination because he had a family and needed to get sober....and then hired him back a year ago. Great employee who has been clean for almost 2 years.

This isn't about going after people who do these things. Its about protecting ourselves, employees, and their livelihoods. As employers, our hands are also somewhat tied regarding this because these are legal and liability issues. Whether we like them or not doesn't matter. They are there. If a court of law considers something illegal....we do too. If something you do, whether real or perceived, can cause damage or jeopardy to the company, we have to address it accordingly.

Someone is also going to say that accidents can happen when you're sober and it is not your fault, and because you have a tiny bit of THC in your system from 2 weeks ago, you're going to get screwed. The truth is, YUP, that could probably happen. It hasn't, not that I have seen in my experience. If you know the policy, and decide to ignore it or at best risk it and see if we will enforce it....well, we don't bluff. We have too much riding on it. If you are the main provider for your family....you have too much riding on it as well. Don't be a mope.

gotta applaud you on the rehab and rehire. that is very gracious of you.

 

[spade2you]

do tell.

As much as I'd love to, it's generally not good practice to post on public forums the illegal things that happen within your company/institution. Let's just say cocaine and the OR doesn't mix.

However, other folks are fair game.

A former classmate of mine got hooked on benzos and Percocet. A few serious errors and not showing up for work a few times earned him a drug test. He failed and lost his license was suspended. He lost his house and is having a heck of a time finding a new job because most applicants haven't been fired or had their license suspended.

There was a manager at another local hospital who used to cover for his friend who had a narcotic abuse problem. His friend eventually got popped, although the guy who covered it up never felt any sort of sting. He somehow got a few honest people fired over the last 20 years because he somehow pinned the narcotic discrepancies on them instead of his friend. Kinda reinforces why I don't want to work with anyone who has a problem. The smart ones seem to know how to trick their coworkers into getting involved.

 

[Unrepresented]

I noticed that not one of the anti-testing guys had a single comment on this, so I'm asking for one........

My friend, CEO and founder of his corporation, had to settle for $751,000 because one of his office clerk employees running an errand rear ended another car on his way back from Office Depot and then tested positive.

My friend's company had to pay because according to the judge "His corporation showed negligence by not having a routine drug testing policy." THE CORPORATION...then had to pay for the guys drub rehab as well.

So, it cost THE CORPORATION money because they didn't drug test....and you all hate Corporations for infringing on your freedom?

BLAME THE LAWS.....which the Corporation didn't create!!! How hard is it to figure out that businesses don't really care what you do on Saturday, they have to cover their assets!!!

I don't see how legislation limiting testing wouldn't have helped release your friend from some obligation. Limited access means limited accountability, no?