Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Would you/do you submit to drug tests at work?
- Thread starter zachoff
- Start date
- Status
That's because this specific discussion has no political lean. I know libertarians who would be just fine with drug testing. They would use the same response I have, "businesses are allowed to do it because they are private". They have bigger fish to fry. I really can't place anywhere why someone would be so adamant against a company drug testing. I'm usually pretty analytical when it comes to discussions like this but I can't really pin it. I don't know what motivates someone. I know for a few, the absurd false belief that a job is a "right" definitely dictates responses.
Suppose genetic test showed one type of gene had a better more productive worker, would you submit such genetic information?
Less prone to illnesses etc, or is it fair to no hire a smoker vs a non smoke of cigs?
Cigs cost the health care industry 198 Billion per year and 192 Billion in lost productivity. That's big money. Should non smaokers have to pick up the tab for the smokers? Smoking is legal but cost businesses far more in insurance health care cost and illnesses, lost production.
I do not any longer do drugs, and no longer smoke but the issue is one of personal rights, not employer rights.
Still, why should I have to pay for someone else's bad habits?
Maybe they are damn good at what they do, then what?
I have worked for others, but own my own company today.
We do not do drug testing, but if they come in messed up, have issues doing the job and there's reasonable suspicion, I will talk with them and find other employment for them or treatment.
Less prone to illnesses etc, or is it fair to no hire a smoker vs a non smoke of cigs?
Cigs cost the health care industry 198 Billion per year and 192 Billion in lost productivity. That's big money. Should non smaokers have to pick up the tab for the smokers? Smoking is legal but cost businesses far more in insurance health care cost and illnesses, lost production.
I do not any longer do drugs, and no longer smoke but the issue is one of personal rights, not employer rights.
Still, why should I have to pay for someone else's bad habits?
Maybe they are damn good at what they do, then what?
I have worked for others, but own my own company today.
We do not do drug testing, but if they come in messed up, have issues doing the job and there's reasonable suspicion, I will talk with them and find other employment for them or treatment.
well...count me out among those who feel a job is a "right"...it is not.
i think my response was more against the hypocrisy of having drinkers and shunning pot smokers.
as far as whether drug testing should be legal...as things stand now, i have to come down on the side of yes, and for the reasons you stated...but i bet it will come under regulation in those states that are legalizing pot.
HAH! I fully explained the instance when I pointed out your fallacy - whether you like to accept it or not.
:scowl:
There's a difference between making a great point and farting just so everyone can hear it.
well...count me out among those who feel a job is a "right"...it is not.
i think my response was more against the hypocrisy of having drinkers and shunning pot smokers.
as far as whether drug testing should be legal...as things stand now, i have to come down on the side of yes, and for the reasons you stated...but i bet it will come under regulation in those states that are legalizing pot.
If/when the legality of marijuana changes, I will move my position on drug testing for specifically marijuana. Presently, it is illegal so I believe all drug testing is legitimate.
I would not question the legitimacy of a company to test post-legalization; the only stance I would change is whether the tests are accurate and specific to work-related events and time periods.
I would agree in part that using a LEGAL drug and being tested for it OFF-hours (or traces of it off-hours) is illegitimate unless stated in contract. If, hypothetically, in the future I was concerned and applied for a position that required me to be tested for legal drugs off-hours I would negotiate with them or call them out on it. If they declined to change their stance and I refused, I would dismiss myself. I would still not claim it was some "privacy right" or "freedom" being taken from me though; that position is a joke in this conversation and those espousing it receive no credibility from me.
I will, however, respect positions of people who believe that their off-hours activity with LEGAL drugs is something to take issue with the company; I will not, however, expect the company to change its policy for any reason.
It seems that most of the "pro-testers" are generally on the same page in this thread while "anti-testers" hold various positions - some of which I consider to be legitimate and others ridiculous nonsense. The ones referring to "loss of freedom", "1984", "big brother", "rights", or "slippery slope" need not apply in this thread IMO (pun intended).
A right that was deemed so important that it is enumerated in the COTUS.
BTW there are right to work states and Right to Work platforms. I find it an interesting concept and maybe not what you're thinking. This concept could be expanded and might actually be useful in bringing jobs back to US soil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
BTW there are right to work states and Right to Work platforms. I find it an interesting concept and maybe not what you're thinking. This concept could be expanded and might actually be useful in bringing jobs back to US soil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
Unfortunately, the Constitution is not divine nor does it encompass humanity. It was written by humans for specific humans (the colonies). We can use it as a blanket for the rights of all people but that doesn't explicitly mean the rights stated in it are "inherent" (divine) rights. That's up for interpretation - of which I will not get into any further.
The "right to work" had nothing to do with what I was thinking because it is not an advocacy of a "right". It's merely a basic stripping of unions to be able to organize all employees without consent of all employees. I.e. making someone pay for union dues when they don't want to be in a union. It is not a guarantee of employment (which is what would be defined as a "right"). I don't know who coined the term "right of work" but it is sort of a twist on the real concept (probably a twist that proponents used).
I would discuss my position but it is surely too political a concept to discuss on here beyond the rough definition. It doesn't guarantee a "right to work" so much as a "right to not have to unionize".
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
"Right to work"in that context is a euphemism that has nothing to do with a right to work but rather is intended to undermine unions.
It shouldn't be political but if you look at which party has been behind laws that support labor (employees) and which supports business, the division will likely follow traditional lines.
The irony, I find, is the pro-testers all seem to have to create strawman arguments in order to make their arguments stick. Close to 20 pages in and we still have people believing the anti-testers want to be able to blaze up on the job, or that they believe they have a 'right' to a job
In fact, I'd say the exact opposite of what you claim is the case is true.
We have a random drug policy at work but I've worked there for four and a half years and never been tested.
Random testing , truck driver , you don't want me driving on drugs, but everyday in NYC and its hard not to!
The irony, I find, is the pro-testers all seem to have to create strawman arguments in order to make their arguments stick. Close to 20 pages in and we still have people believing the anti-testers want to be able to blaze up on the job, or that they believe they have a 'right' to a job
If it applies to ALL posters in favor of pre employment drug testing, please feel free to review my previous post and pick out something that falls under "strawman arguments".
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
Would you/do you submit to drug tests at work?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of the good paying jobs make you pee in a cup ...
Small price to pay to have a good income and good benefits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of the good paying jobs make you pee in a cup ...
Small price to pay to have a good income and good benefits.
Is a coked out healthcare professional in the operating room a strawman argument?
Funny thing in one of the last big marijuana debates is that most preferred that your friendly neighborhood pharmacist didn't use it. Ok, I get that I probably shouldn't be using it while I play with medications. There are more than a few professions out there where it shouldn't be used. Naturally, most folks will justify how and why they should be able to do it.
The irony, I find, is the pro-testers all seem to have to create strawman arguments in order to make their arguments stick. Close to 20 pages in and we still have people believing the anti-testers want to be able to blaze up on the job, or that they believe they have a 'right' to a job
You must not have read ANY of my posts then. I never said I assumed anyone who didn't want a test was even a user, much less at work. All I EVER said was that......
1) What you do on your off time COULD reflect badly on me as your employer. So your social media posts, your credit rating, and your off work activities DO MATTER. That still doesn't mean you don't have the right to participate in drug use, stupid activities that hurt your reputation, or bad debts. You do. However I HAVE the right to find out if you do and not hire you on that basis. Your performance at work IS NOT the only thing that matters.
2) You have the right to smoke all you want. However, I HAVE the right to not hire anyone I choose not to. And if smoking weed (on or off work) is one of the criteria I would choose to deny and applicant, so be it. If I OWN the company, MY RIGHTS TRUMP YOURS within the confines of my business. You have the right to smoke. You have the right to go out and get a job. You DO NOT have the RIGHT to work for me if I choose to not hire on the basis of a drug test.
And I believe that several other posters had the exact same points. Maybe YOUR reading comprehension isn't up to par?
Are we clear yet? Probably not.
- Status
