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

[Lonesomedave]

No doubt. That part is tragic. I regret to say that I know of individuals and their families destroyed by alcohol, meth, cocaine, narcotics, and benzos.

but not pot?....

 

[fdeck]

False. There is nothing reasonable to say that jobs are "rights" for anyone. That's ridiculous. The only place where that would be legitimate is under Socialism.

Moving back in your post, yes, rights evolve. Take for example the right to bear arms - which was an idea that emerged largely during the enlightenment.

I didn't claim that jobs are rights. I was talking about workplace safety. But I was just using it as an illustrative example, and I think we both agree that rights can evolve.

So I think we're cool.

 

[zachoff]

From your description, it doesn't seem like your job has much responsibility. If you maintain your stance against drug testing, you probably won't advance very far unless you start your own company or work for friends/family. Nothing personal meant by this, BTW. Employees reflect on the company and it's in every employee's best interest to do this to the satisfaction of the company. Of not, they'll be DTFR soon enough.

I build and maintain the UI for the e-commerce platform and brand websites for a very large company. My job holds quite a lot of responsibility. I maintain my stance against drug testing and still earn a comfortable living.

I will also probably eventually start my own company, but not until my kids are moved out and I can devote a bunch of time to it... And I won't drug test my employees.

 

[Unrepresented]

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.

Anything could matter. If that's the only criteria we're looking at for disregarding employees rights to privacy, then all aspects of their lives are open to inspection. It's clearly too loose of a justification.

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.

I agree that you shouldn't be forced to hire an employee you don't want (within all applicable equal opportunity employment laws). The amount of intrusion into their private lives to determine whether or not you want to hire them is our disagreement. A resume, an interview, certifications, work history, references, probation periods, etc. seem like they should be excellent ways to determine pre-employment qualifications. Going beyond that is excessive and should be protected.

But a drug test isn't without the person's consent. They may do it begrudgingly, but they do it, realizing that it's a condition of getting or keeping the job.

Re: how far an employer can go- wherever the person allows them. Some draw a line at a drug test and they probably won't get a lot of good jobs. Most allow a credit check, which is now common. Some will drop their attempt at landing the job as soon as they find out how far the company wants to go. If someone tells me they want passwords and access to personal info, I would decline. That's none of their business, although many think anything they can get away with is OK, until they're caught.

This is my issue. Workers will always undercut themselves in a race to the bottom to give away their dignity and their liberties because we all are in need of a paycheck to put food on the table. The power balance is unequal. Any given employee needs a paycheck more than any given employer needs that employee.

Organized labor is the obvious answer to shifting the balance to a more equal playing field. Unfortunately, those numbers are shrinking along with the average American's paycheck, benefits, and rights.

"Rights", you mean to use drugs on one's own time, even though they may be illegal? Employees look at it as an infringement but as has been stated, a person who does this and is affected by it while working, exposes the employer to unimaginable liability. No employee has the right to do this to an employer, regardless of their opinion on the matter. I have seen factory workers getting hammered on their break. These people slammed beer and shots, shoved soem food down their throats and grabbed a six-pack to go, presumably for the rest of the shift. All of them were union "workers" and if the company had suspended or attempted to fire them, I'm sure the union steward would have been there to stand up for the workers' "rights". That's a bunch of crap- workers DO NOT have any right to get drunk on break, especially when they're using the company's facility, machinery and other equipment. They also don't have any right to go to work with a monstrous hangover or even worse, still drunk from the night before. That's called "time theft" and the drop-off in performance is very costly, especially when multiplied by the number of employees who do it. If a company of 50 has 10% of its workers frequently hung over on the job, calling in sick or coming in late, it can be a serious problem. Again, this isn't about rights, it's about someone being a grownup and doing a good job- the job they agreed to do to the best of their ability. This doesn't, however, mean "the best of my ability when I have a hangover or don't feel like working".

No one here is advocating for intoxicated workers. The conversation is on the amount of intrusion into employees lives employers should be able to go.

Welcome to the grownups club! I guess some don't have so much to lose......... or don't value it very much anyway.

Your condescension doesn't make your strawman position any more endearing.

 

[two fingers]

First off, not every single argument against a point of yours is a strawman position. Flinging that term about all willy nilly is intellectually lazy. If I am wrong, please point out EXACTLY what the "straw man" I created was.

And the "power to balance" is NOT unequal. You too can start your own business just like I did. No one is stopping you. And once you do, YOU can set the standards for your employees, just like I do. The playing field is as equal as you make it. (By the way, that wasn't a strawman position either, in case you were wondering.)

 

[Lonesomedave]

First off, not every single argument against a point of yours is a strawman position. Flinging that term about all willy nilly is intellectually lazy. If I am wrong, please point out EXACTLY what the "straw man" I created was.

And the "power to balance" is NOT unequal. You too can start your own business just like I did. No one is stopping you. And once you do, YOU can set the standards for your employees, just like I do. The playing field is as equal as you make it. (By the way, that wasn't a strawman position either, in case you were wondering.)

got to agree with that...same as my argument back on the facebook thread...if you want, start your own

and as far as labor unions being the answer, they were losing power and members way before the current economy...

i live in Tennessee, a right to work state and i wouldn't have it any other way

 

[fdeck]

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.

Clear. Your social media posts could also reflect badly on you as an employer. Just saying.

 

[spade2you]

but not pot?....

Pot. LOL. There's no "Faces of Pot". Did Rick James ever say, "pot is a hell of a drug"?

 

[Unrepresented]

First off, not every single argument against a point of yours is a strawman position. Flinging that term about all willy nilly is intellectually lazy. If I am wrong, please point out EXACTLY what the "straw man" I created was.

This is the first one that comes to mind:

You have the right to smoke all you want.

This isn't about the right to smoke pot, it's about the right to privacy.

And the "power to balance" is NOT unequal. You too can start your own business just like I did. No one is stopping you. And once you do, YOU can set the standards for your employees, just like I do. The playing field is as equal as you make it. (By the way, that wasn't a strawman position either, in case you were wondering.)

Then I'm sure you'll appreciate that starting a business takes capital to start, and to sustain during the fledgling period, plus undoubtedly more during down cycles. It's a risky investment that not everyone has the ability to initiate, let alone succeed at. The successful entrepreneur class shouldn't be the only group of people immune from indignity and privacy violations in the workplace.

 

[spade2you]

Busting people who view child pornography is about privacy, too. Right?

 

[fdeck]

Non sequitur.

 

[Unrepresented]

Busting people who view child pornography is about privacy, too. Right?

I'll pass on letting you derail this thread, thanks.

 

[two fingers]

The successful entrepreneur class shouldn't be the only group of people immune from indignity and privacy violations in the workplace.

We're not. You should see some of the forms I fill out, the insane regulations I have to adhere to, the government agencies that crawl me every chance they get, the inspectors who look my business over as if it were a yard sale, and the sheer scrutiny I am under at every turn. It is for these reasons that I HAVE to be so careful about who I hire. And it is for these reasons that your rights (or the rights of any perspective employee) never cross my mind when making decisions. Owning a business is a juggling act. I promise you that you are not under the kind of microscope I am.

As for the "straw man" of your right to smoke versus your right to privacy, they are not mutually exclusive. They go hand in hand. Your smoking could affect me. Maybe not from a safety standpoint. But if you were to slip and fall down the stairs, lawyers would be literally inside my butt. (I and am neither claiming, nor do I care if your smoking CAUSED you to slip. It doesn't matter.) They would be representing you and the insurance companies. The insurance companies would require a drug test. They would then turn down your claim for workman's comp. Then they would crawl out of my butt to make room for YOUR lawyers who would claim it is still my fault that you slipped and busted your yin and yang in my business. So, no, your right to privacy is NOT a separate issue from your right to smoke. They both affect ME (potentially) the same way. So I choose not to separate them. They are one issue TO ME. They are separate TO YOU.

 

[spade2you]

I'll pass on letting you derail this thread, thanks.

Good restraint. You were seemingly unable to stop yourself previously.

 

[zachoff]

First off, not every single argument against a point of yours is a strawman position. Flinging that term about all willy nilly is intellectually lazy. If I am wrong, please point out EXACTLY what the "straw man" I created was.

And the "power to balance" is NOT unequal. You too can start your own business just like I did. No one is stopping you. And once you do, YOU can set the standards for your employees, just like I do. The playing field is as equal as you make it. (By the way, that wasn't a strawman position either, in case you were wondering.)

I totally get where you're coming from and respect your decision to run your business how you see fit. Above and beyond our apparent differences in world view, I'm sure there's a difference between our industries. I'm guessing you're in the construction industry?

I sit at a desk, type, listen to music, and attend the occasional meeting. That's my day pretty much every day. And although I don't drink beers at work at this job, I've worked at places where we would have a couple beers at lunch and I've worked for two places that had kegs in the office. No workman's comp claims. Nobody even got drunk at work. It was a privilege until it was abused it and we never did abuse it.

Anyway, I guess my point is we're all products of environment. The IT world over the last 15 years has generally been a world where you can do what you want as long as you get your work done. This is the corporate world I "grew up" in, so to say and it's a work hard/play hard industry. It's also a highly creative industry and it seems that a lot of highly creative people are also recreational drug users for one reason or another.

I digress. I didn't start this thread to validate my stance... More of a survey of the landscape. When all is said and done... To each their own.

 

[spade2you]

As for the "straw man" of your right to smoke versus your right to privacy, they are not mutually exclusive.

How does a smoker retain privacy? Most non-smokers can smell them a mile away and who the heck wants to go outside in sub zero weather several times per day?

 

[fdeck]

We're not. You should see some of the forms I fill out, the insane regulations I have to adhere to, the government agencies that crawl me every chance they get, the inspectors who look my business over as if it were a yard sale, and the sheer scrutiny I am under at every turn. It is for these reasons that I HAVE to be so careful about who I hire. And it is for these reasons that your rights (or the rights of any perspective employee) never cross my mind when making decisions. Owning a business is a juggling act. I promise you that you are not under the kind of microscope I am.

That's a relief. I was worried that your business might be insufficiently regulated.

 

[PWRL]

I'd better start studying right away.

 

[bassistjoe93]

 

[UncleFluffy]

Then I'm sure you'll appreciate that starting a business takes capital to start, and to sustain during the fledgling period, plus undoubtedly more during down cycles.

Not always. I went straight from university to self-employment with zero capital, and I'm certainly not the only person on planet Earth to have done so. From my 40-odd years of observations of life, most people are too scared to take the jump or too fixed in their world-view to see it as an option.

It's a risky investment that not everyone has the ability to initiate, let alone succeed at. The successful entrepreneur class shouldn't be the only group of people immune from indignity and privacy violations in the workplace.

Everyone (who didn't inherit wealth) has a customer. Unless you're the only provider of an essential product or service that customer can choose to do business with you or not. Doesn't matter whether your "customer" is your employer or your customer is a customer in the traditional sense - they offer a deal, you negotiate, the pair of you agree and move forward or not and walk away.

If the balance of power is in the hands of the employers (which I'm not 100% convinced that it is) then maybe there's an oversupply of employees and and undersupply of employers. How should we fix that?