• 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?

Would you/do you submit to a drug test?

  • Yes

    Votes: 83 67.5%

  • No

    Votes: 34 27.6%

  • Carrots?

    Votes: 6 4.9%
  • Total voters
    123
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
#21
I have no real issue with it. It is an invasion of privacy though. If you're curious as to how I spend my free time, just ask.

That being said, they do the "Lottery" around here the Tuesday before the last full week of the month.
 
#22
Eric Perry said:
Where I work, I drug test my clients (adolescents) randomly. There have been a few times where one or several over the years have whined about staff not being drug tested... So I gave myself tests for them. I'd gladly give a sample to my employer as well. It's very rare that I dabble in anything that would cause a positive result. If I knew that screens were being implemented by our corporate office it would affect me *very* little. If they spring a test on me today, I'd come up 100% clean regardless of what they tested for. Actually, if they tested me any day in the past month it'd be the same result.

I get paid fairly well for my field. If my employer wants to know I'm not coming to work messed up and that they are paying me for that kind of behavior, they have EVERY right to know.

It always surprises me when innocent people are so outspoken against others checking their behavior. This thread, and the shoplifting thread, immediately come to mind.
Click to expand...

Why don't you just explain to the adolescents how it is that you avoid getting caught?
 
#23
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!
for the record, I would test clean.

I once applied for a job that paid quite nicely for what it was.. I did the interview and after 45 minutes the woman says to me "I just have one more question... can you be here at 9am tomorrow morning and supply a urine sample?". I looked at her and said "sorry, no." she paused for a second and said "do you understand I'm offering you the position?" Without hesitation I answered " Yes, I do, but I only share my body fluids with people I really care about, and we just met. Thanks for the offer, but invading your privacy was not a prerequisite to me applying for the position so invading mine should not be a condition for accepting me into it. I am clean and have been for a very long time, but the only thing that is applicable to this position is how well I perform it. what I choose or choose not to do with my life, other than the hours I sell to your company is none of your concern. If you hire me as I am you will have an excellent employee, if you don't, you will have lost one. it's your decision, and I am content either way."
I didn't get the job and glad of it!
 
#24
As long as it doesn't affect your productivity i don't think its really relevant..
You should be judged on the ability to do the work provided. Doing what you want with your own mind should not be of concern, unless its causing a change in working condition of an individual. Fire someone for being a complete ******, not because of the drugs he was doing that made him that way. If someone can do drugs and be completely productive and stay the same way without anyone notices then i dont see any problem with it and i dont know how people could. OH thats right...its illegal.
 
#25
I drive a company vehicle........so I had to have a drug test before being hired and I would have to have another if I ever was involved in a accident......other than that they leave me alone and let me work relatively independently.......so I'm ok with it.
 
#26
duff beer said:
It doesn't surprise me any more. We're raising a generation of people (both in the US and in Canada) who believe they're owed a living...but only under the conditions that they dictate.
Click to expand...
What is surprising to me is the number of people who willfully give up their freedoms. I'd have to be pretty damn hungry to submit to a test to prove that I didn't smoke pot on a weekend two weeks prior.
I agree with lonesomedave's "drunk right now...ok. lifestyle test...not ok".
 
#28
Yes I would, yes I have. It is a non-issue for me. When I worked in construction, I was happy to know everyone was being drug tested considering the hazards on job sites.

-Mike
 
#29
Keep in mind that employees do NOT have the upper hand in this economy. Feel free to refuse, protest, talk about your rights, etc. I'm not the best worker on the planet, but all I gotta do is get the position over you.

Since I work with controlled substances, I'm obligated to take random drug screens when asked. The only people in my profession who have a problem with that would not pass.
 
#31
i have given this a lot of thought, because, i think, we want to balance the interests here and do what's reasonable.

i propose a law that says, in effect "any alcohol or drug testing is ok to use as long as it tests whether the person is intoxicated right now.

this accomplishes a couple of things

first, it equates drugs with alcohol, something the liquor lobby and the powers that be have strongly resisted.

when their ox is being gored, they squeal, but tough.

and, we make it clear that a cause of action shall lie for any test that does not test for "intoxication right now" as opposed to whether you use at all.

the testing companies to my knowledge have not come up with such a test YET. that is because of essential laziness and the fact that they have not had to. they did come up with that test for alcohol, because alcohol is a legal drug...so let's make 'em do the same, at least, for pot...which is now a legal drug in some states and the trend is going toward that side.

once the testing companies start losing revenue because they can no longer use their old tests, they will get off their butts and develop one.

as far as Eric and parolees, that is even more obvious, since we are talking about someone's freedom and we are talking about government action.

i ask Eric...is it ok for parolees to drink alcohol? (don't know, but i am presuming yes). in that case, it's ok for them to (at least) smoke pot...end of story.

so, we are not infringing upon the right of companies to hire and fire at will, and we are not infringing upon the right of the government to set reasonable restrictions on parolees. we are just saying, if you want a drug free workplace, then your tests must be reasonably calculated to achieving that. and we are sending a message that pot smoking, done at the proper time and place is just as ok as having a drink.

we don't allow witchcraft or divination to determine whether someone is drinking or using drugs at work...why, then, should we allow tests that do not determine that all, but instead determine the red herring of whether they use drugs at all?

it does not follow.

in short, treat pot exactly like alcohol, no more no less, and require that any tests be specifically tailored to determine whether someone is using at work.

but, Dave, you say...that's all well and good, but what about the meantime? how do we proceed right now?

well, for a start, you stop using the tests you currently use, and demand that testing companies come up with reliable tests for current usage, exactly like the have had now for years with alcohol.

will it be easy...don't know. i presume not, but that's also tough. i am sick of a bunch of alcoholics telling me i can't smoke pot...which by any objective standard is less harmful. but i am also cognizant of the need for safety and of protecting the basic principal of "Hire and fire at will"

i think my proposed solution does that.

davesignatureII-1.png
 
#32
I took a random drug test this week. Im not bothered by it.

The way I see it is, I have every right to refuse a drug test, but my company also has the right to let me go if I refuse to comply.
 
#33
I would, I have, and been in management fields where I had to request it be done, including my current position.
The problem is not everyone is responsible enough to NOT abuse some type of substance, WITHOUT the threat of getting caught while on the job. Most workmans compensation insurance companies set the requirment for testing, which makes perfect sense from their point of view.
The real purpose of random drug screening is actually to check employees under the influence at the current time...it just so happens most drugs remain traceable for longer than the high you get from them. It really boils down to what price you're willing to pay for your "privacy" or your desire to alter your consciousness.

edited because I can't type when I'm high! :rolleyes:
 
#34
bloobass said:
I would, I have, and been in management fields where I had to request it be done, including my current position.
The problem is not everyone is responsible enough to NOT abuse some type of substance, WITHOUT the threat of getting caught while on the job. Most workmans compensation insurance companies set the requirment for testing, which makes perfect sense from their point of view.
The real purpose of random drug screening is actually to check employees under the influence at the current time...it just so happens most drugs remain traceable for longer than the high you get from them. It really boils down to what price you're willing to pay for your "privacy" or your desire to alter your consciousness.

edited because I can't type when I'm high! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

see my post above...:D

davesignatureII-1.png
 
#36
Lowactnsatsfctn said:
I have been hired a lot, and been in a position to hire people and
Iv'e only ever known of two reasons for this.

#1: They don't have the $40 to spend on a Physical/ drug test until they reimbursed

or

#2: They're going to test positive for drug usage
Click to expand...

Or they might value their own personal privacy, regardless of if they're innocent or not. Personally, (and this isn't in regards to your post, but just me ranting for a second) I'm getting tired of the excuse, "If you have nothing to hide then you should have no issues with drug tests, searches of your vehicle, searches of your person, people reading through your personal emails, people checking up on your browser history, etc..." It doesn't matter if someone has something to hide or not; their personal space, property, and privacy should be respected until there is reason not to respect it.
 
#38
In order to be hired at my place of employment you must submit to a drug test. Once you are hired you are on probation for your first 1040 hours and are subject to random testing at any time during that probation period.
Once you complete your probation you are only tested if you do something stupid like crash a piece of equipment.
I have no problems with drug testing for my job, it is a highly desirable and very well paying job. I also have nothing to hide and grown out of recreational drugs 30 years ago.
I prefer a lifetime with a nice home and nice gear and a bunch of nice toys to a 45 minute high , but that's just me. Now I'm off to jam on one of my Alembics and watch my 60" high definition TV 😁😁😁😁😁😁
 
#39
jmattbassplaya said:
Or they might value their own personal privacy, regardless of if they're innocent or not. Personally, (and this isn't in regards to your post, but just me ranting for a second) I'm getting tired of the excuse, "If you have nothing to hide then you should have no issues with drug tests, searches of your vehicle, searches of your person, people reading through your personal emails, people checking up on your browser history, etc..." It doesn't matter if someone has something to hide or not; their personal space, property, and privacy should be respected until there is reason not to respect it.
Click to expand...

was it the book 1984 that had the phrase "Honest people have nothing to hide"?

i think so, but feel free to correct me...anyway

the phrase was jokingly corrupted to "Honest people have nowhere to hide"...that about sums it up.

you either want to live in a police state or you want freedom and liberty...i opt for the latter.

davesignatureII-1.png
 
#40
jmattbassplaya said:
Or they might value their own personal privacy, regardless of if they're innocent or not. Personally, (and this isn't in regards to your post, but just me ranting for a second) I'm getting tired of the excuse, "If you have nothing to hide then you should have no issues with drug tests, searches of your vehicle, searches of your person, people reading through your personal emails, people checking up on your browser history, etc..." It doesn't matter if someone has something to hide or not; their personal space, property, and privacy should be respected until there is reason not to respect it.
Click to expand...
Damn right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back