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

[Ziltoid]

This thread is nearly halfway to a "technical close", keep at it boys, you'll change the world.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

]First off, not every single argument against a point of yours is a strawman position.[/B] 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.)

This is why I'm choosing not to respond to you or Michael any further. If someone calls out your logic you instantly start attacking the thought process of the opposing argument as means to further justify your position. Calling it "intellectually lazy" isn't far off from ad hominem, either (for those of you keeping track of the fallacies). You're trying to degrade the oppositions view without actually addressing the view.

I'm done with this thread. It's a **** show that's going to go nowhere.

 

[scorpionldr]

This is why I'm choosing not to respond to you or Michael any further. If someone calls out your logic you instantly start attacking the thought process of the opposing argument as means to further justify your position. Calling it "intellectually lazy" isn't far off from ad hominem, either (for those of you keeping track of the fallacies). You're trying to degrade the oppositions view without actually addressing the view.

I'm done with this thread. It's a **** show that's going to go nowhere.

What's this? A thread I haven't ruined?

http://youtu.be/WWaLxFIVX1s

 

[aborgman]

Congrats. You and the OP are the only 2 people in this thread that companies can't replace.

Oh - I can be replaced.

I just can't be replaced at the rate they, or my current employer, pay.

I would have said the same thing 10 years ago. Not only would I expect to have multiple job offers, but there had better be a nice sign-on bonus. Not even close these days.

Ten years ago I would have been beating off job offers with a stick. Actually, ten years ago when I wasn't even looking I was beating job offers off. Three years ago at the height of the recession I actually had to spend a month or so finding a job.

...but my previous employer is still without a replacement.

 

[aborgman]

Dave, sorry if I was confusing.

Drugs and alcohol are lumped into the same pile. If it is in your system, you are not in our system. We will not hire you if either is present, no matter how small. ZERO tolerance policy.

This includes legally prescribed narcotics which make folks unsafe also - like the previously mentioned person prescribed oxycontin, right?

 

[aborgman]

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.

This is exactly my experience.

Good managers would have fired the folks who ended up fired for drug/alcohol violations WAY before they got nailed for being frunk/high at work.

The policies just provided an easier (less work for supervision) way of getting rid of an employee they should have already fired if doing their job appropriately.

 

[aborgman]

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.

Or they need to structure their employment with folks who drive for them significantly differently.

Hire independent contractors and the situation is obviated.

 

[aborgman]

Governments can grant rights above and beyond what are considered to be natural rights. Government-granted rights are referred to as "entitlements."

Government granted entitlements are, by definition, not rights.

2. Corporations exist solely by entitlement. While it is convenient to generally extend the rights of persons to corporations, it is by no means guaranteed. In fact, it is impossible to precisely define what a corporation consists of except by statute.

Bingo.

 

[aborgman]

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.

Of course - most of those laws were put in place specifically because of lobbying BY the very corporations under discussion.

Drug testing regulation has been largely pushed by - the testing and insurance industries.

 

[cheezewiz]

I will, and I have.

 

[Mike N]

I will, and I have.

+1.

 

[jmverdugo]

If you do not want to take it then don't take it and keep looking for job, no big deal ... Except you really wanted that position but because you made the wrong choice of smoke while you we're job searching you would not get it, and you blame the company's policies and call it invasion of privacy ... If you are a "recreational" user and a "smart" person you should had made the choice of not smoking for a while until you get that job that you wanted, if you could not stop smoking weed while job searching says a lot about you.

If you are the best candidate for a position and you decide to not take the drug test then you become the worst candidate and a company would hire - and do just fine - with an employee with half your skills but who is willing to cooperate is flexible and team worker. There is Very little chance that a company would make the wrong decision with not hiring the guy that did not take the test. The company will not miss you.

It's also about character and how you set your priorities .. Like in many things in Life this is about compromising too, can I stop doing something that I enjoy to get that really cool job that I want? Can I move a little bit the line of what I think is invasion of privacy just to get this really cool job? If you can't that is cool too, just do not complain ... It's only your fault, the company is not missing anything by not hiring you.

The other thing is that you can't take it personal, the HR guy do not know you and doesn't have to believe every word you say , don't get offended if he asks for proofs, background checks, credit checks and drugs tests, they are just trying to find out more about your character, they want to hire you, help them.

I'm fine if you smoke but if you did not make the right choice of stop doing it while looking for job then I do not want you on my team.

As for pop up test, the problem right now is that it is illegal, so a company would not like to be related to a person that do illegal stuff on his free time ( there is not illegal levels, a little illegal is illegal too), if they legalize mj I would like to see a test that could tell you approximate when it was done and that also can differentiate different drugs.

 

[ThatGermanDude]

Do you accept background checks??? No matter how you feel about drug law, the fact of the matter is that drug use is breaking federal law. If you're willingly breaking federal law, it says something about your character. You're participating in criminal activity. Add to that the safety issues of impaired employees (yes, I know....you'd NEVER use at work. Not everyone feels that way), and employers are trying to cover their assets.

This. For me it has nothing to do with using the drug but it's just a part of the background check.

 

[6jase5]

Of course - most of those laws were put in place specifically because of lobbying BY the very corporations under discussion.

Drug testing regulation has been largely pushed by - the testing and insurance industries.

Point one...wrong. The mandating of drug testing is a burden on the corporations, make no mistake about that, both financially and legally. Corporations have to protect themselves but they don't lobby for the "right" to drug test but on the contrary in many states are mandated to do so in order to obtain/retain insurance and to provide a basis for legal defense.

Point two...well, of course. If you sell band-aids, you support running with scissors.

 

[fdeck]

Point one...wrong. The mandating of drug testing is a burden on the corporations, make no mistake about that, both financially and legally. Corporations have to protect themselves but they don't lobby for the "right" to drug test but on the contrary in many states are mandated to do so in order to obtain/retain insurance and to provide a basis for legal defense.

Point two...well, of course. If you sell band-aids, you support running with scissors.

I don't want to make this political, but here is an example of a person who is responsible for a budget -- and who probably lists the reduction of unnecessary spending as a cornerstone of his mission -- demanding the "right" to conduct drug testing on employees:

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Unrepresented]

I don't want to make this political, but here is an example of a person who is responsible for a budget -- and who probably lists the reduction of unnecessary spending as a cornerstone of his mission -- demanding the "right" to conduct drug testing on employees:

Invalid Link Removed

I have yet to come across an ACLU position I disagree with.

 

[spade2you]

I have yet to come across an ACLU position I disagree with.

That's a shock.

 

[fjadams]

I just retired from the railroad industry at the start of the year. In that industry you have to take a pre hiring drug screening. Also when returning to work after furloughs. Also subject to random tests. And after any incident involving an injury, accident in a motor vehicle or on track equipment. Also after a rules violation. During my career there I had many tests and never failed one, but every year we have people terminated or put on medical leave and on in or out patient care. Do I feel sorry for anybody caught, no, no and hell no. They know the rules, they are not kept a secret. If you are so stupid or carefree to throw away a good paying job with benefits and retirement then you deserve what ever befalls you. Even now I'm retired I still will not do any drugs, and the only alcohol I've had is a beer at a friends birthday, and some wine I use for cooking.

Had a roommate once who was always complaining about what a stressful job he had as a manager for Blockbuster (and the way they treat employees should be a crime) til I told him the major difference between his job and mine was, if he or one of his employees screwed up the worse that happened was they had to give somebody a free movie. If I, or somebody else screwed up on my job, somebody else got dead. Big difference there.

 

[Unrepresented]

That's a shock.

I'm beginning to believe that you have a crush on me. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[spade2you]

I'm beginning to believe that you have a crush on me. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Not at all. Your POV is very obvious to most of us. With a name like "unrepresented", it's not too hard to figure out.

For example, I can already tell that if there are seatbelt laws, you see them as a loss of freedom. I was able to get you to defend those who view child porn because you hate authority THAT much.

Do you think your the first rebellious musician we've seen?