Thank you for that. People are still blaming the employers for invasion of privacy when in reality it's the laws and due diligence that the corporations have to abide by to have insurance, to satisfy local and federal mandates, even for stockholder confidence.
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!!!
very good points raised here.
with your permission, i'd like to comment.
at first i was going to say that Judge was an idiot...but that would not have been fair. he just was not thinking rationally at the moment and that is typical of judges...they get what we lawyers (yes, i admit it...
) call "Black Robe Fever"...one of the symptoms of which is very often the inability to use common sense.
Bama already said he had testing at HIS company for alcohol and drugs. i guess the company that you are talking about did not.
did Bama's company's policy protect him from the loss we are talking about?...it did not
how in the world could a company have a test which would tell them that on that day, in that place a particular employee would drive under the influence of drugs?
are they going to breathalyze every employee at the start of every day? do they have an instant drug test that they can use at the beginning of each shift on every employee? no
what the judge did ( and what insurance companies do) is give his blessing to a system which discriminates against pot, ie, have a testing system in place which tells about general use but does nothing to tell if a particular employee is intoxicated at work.
what if it had been alcohol instead of drugs? what the judge have said then? "you are liable because you did not routinely breathalyze at the beginning of every shift"?
c'mon, i think we would agree that is not reasonable
and Bama's company, for it's testing, was not saved from the actions of a drunk, even though they DID have testing in place.
my point is, even with testing and even if we developed a test for pot similar to that we now have for alcohol, such incidents as Bama described, or you described would still take place, UNLESS WE USE THEM ON EVERYBODY, EVERY DAY!
you and i may not like it, but that's the reality.
to say that drug testing solves the problem is simply wrong. it doesn't really have an effect on drunks who can just stop drinking for a day or two, and if a determined pot user wanted the job, they could just stop smoking for a couple of months
and in the meantime, by advocating drug tests (to the extent we ignore alcohol) we give our blessing to a discriminatory system and will do so further as more states legalize pot.
in short, i think the judge just took the wrong and easy way out...the corporation had the deep pockets, so they should pay. a result, i might add which is not uncommon in our legal system and is one of the dirty little secrets thereof.
i bet the Judge drinks alcohol himself, but can sit there with a straight face and condemn a company for not showing pot smokers the door...regardless of whether they are intoxicated at work or not.
what's the answer...don't know....but i predict we are going to get one from some state that has legalized pot and whose voters find themselves smoking legally, but unable to get work because the tests do not distinguish between "intoxicated right now" and "generally smokes pot"
that's the real answer...develop a test which does make that determination...but even then, some will slip through the cracks
