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

[fmoore200]

This thread is an interesting read. I can see it from both sides, but generally fall on the side of right to privacy.

I say generally because I can see instances where drug testing should be required.

In my industry, for example, I definitely agree with drug testing. I personally am responsible for transporting literally hundreds of people per day and thousands of people per week in a vehicle that weighs over one ton, sometimes at highway speed. And there are thousands of other employees in my company that do the same thing. And we do this with little supervision.

As a condition of employment I was required to submit to a drug test. I am also subject to random screening, a yearly drug test as part of 19A certification from the state, and if an accident occurs where there is an injury or the road operations supervisor finds cause.

Given the responsibility of the job, coupled with the enormous sums of money lawsuits would result in, i don't feel drug testing is too much to ask.

Having said that, I don't believe that management positions (ie non driving positions) are required more than a pre employment drug screen.

 

[Yango]

Where I work, if you don't submit to the drug test, you don't get hired.

 

[Unrepresented]

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.

It was originally intended to be ironic a la "Username N/A." I'm clearly representing myself despite the name claiming otherwise. I definitely understand how other people could read it otherwise though.

For example, I can already tell that if there are seatbelt laws, you see them as a loss of freedom.

Maybe I'm too young to have seen them as an intrusion, but I don't see seatbelt laws as unreasonable. Or maybe I'm a hypocrite. I wear mine every second the vehicles I operate are moving.

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

I'm probably much less rebellious than you think. I am employed by a huge corporation, am in a long term committed relationship, have a couple house cats, and my favorite non-musical hobby is volleyball.

I am passionate about civil liberties though.

 

[4dog]

See what ive noticed is, there are many more workers here than biz owners so i understand why it seems like workers rights are being infringed upon, but since we do not live in a communist society, too bad, on the other hand i noticed in the poll alot of people dont mind peeing in a cup, so its a tad confusing to read all the posts saying,(paraphrasing) its not your business what i do, either someones lying or someones not telling the truth. Pun intended.

 

[chadds]

I get that because we'd have a more constructive health care debate in this country if employees knew what it really costs. Now only HR or small business owners know the true costs. In fact many employees don't realize what deductions from their checks are matched by their employer.

 

[chadds]

Random drug testing took away the potential discriminatory aspect.

 

[Unrepresented]

See what ive noticed is, there are many more workers here than biz owners so i understand why it seems like workers rights are being infringed upon, but since we do not live in a communist society, too bad,

Only the reds should have the right to peaceably retain their own urine?

on the other hand i noticed in the poll alot of people dont mind peeing in a cup, so its a tad confusing to read all the posts saying,(paraphrasing) its not your business what i do, either someones lying or someones not telling the truth. Pun intended.

The poll is poorly worded/organized and combines two questions. I wouldn't read too much into it. Separating it into multiple questions would clear up some of the confusion:

1) Do I have to submit to drug tests?
2) Do I believe I should be forced to submit to drug tests?
3) Do I believe that others should be forced to submit to drug tests?

Even then, we're clearly not in Gallop territory.

 

[Munjibunga]

Only the reds should have the right to peaceably retain their own urine?

The poll is poorly worded/organized and combines two questions. I wouldn't read too much into it. Separating it into multiple questions would clear up some of the confusion:

1) Do I have to submit to drug tests?
2) Do I believe I should be forced to submit to drug tests?
3) Do I believe that others should be forced to submit to drug tests?

Even then, we're clearly not in Gallop territory.

Quick question:

Does your company require drug tests and, if so, do you take them?

 

[fmoore200]

See what ive noticed is, there are many more workers here than biz owners so i understand why it seems like workers rights are being infringed upon, but since we do not live in a communist society, too bad, on the other hand i noticed in the poll alot of people dont mind peeing in a cup, so its a tad confusing to read all the posts saying,(paraphrasing) its not your business what i do, either someones lying or someones not telling the truth. Pun intended.

I think that you would have more workers than employers/business owners in any public forum (except a forum for entrepreneurs )

I get that because we'd have a more constructive health care debate in this country if employees knew what it really costs. Now only HR or small business owners know the true costs. In fact many employees don't realize what deductions from their checks are matched by their employer.

I think the costs involved in healthcare is an ancillary issue. The way the debate has been constructed is more philosophical; the question being about a worker bees right to privacy and the intrusive nature of a corporation.

Btw, I am so very grateful for my health plan. For about 6 years I had no coverage and believe me it sucked.

 

[Unrepresented]

I have never taken one but would have to if I was suspected of being intoxicated or in the case of certain accidents.

There are clear procedures for when and how they're applied, and they're generally more retroactive than proactive.

 

[fmoore200]

I have never taken one but would have to if I was suspected of being intoxicated or in the case of certain accidents.

There are clear procedures for when and how they're applied, and they're generally more retroactive than proactive.

Retroactive as read "covering our a$$" :sly:

 

[Unrepresented]

Retroactive as read "covering our a$$" :sly:

Undoubtedly. Priorities are always going to be to protect the company from any fault that can otherwise be assigned to an individual employee. If an employee was in violation of both laws and company policies, clearly they're to blame.

 

[chadds]

I think that you would have more workers than employers/business owners in any public forum (except a forum for entrepreneurs )







I think the costs involved in healthcare is an ancillary issue. The way the debate has been constructed is more philosophical; the question being about a worker bees right to privacy and the intrusive nature of a corporation.

Btw, I am so very grateful for my health plan. For about 6 years I had no coverage and believe me it sucked.

I mentioned healthcare to show that there is a difference in viewpoint depending on your perspective as employer or employee and an absence of real info and understanding.

 

[6jase5]

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

And go figure, I rarely EVER agree with the ACLU, yet outside of Talkbass I'd consider Unrepresented (name withheld), the other tall SD bassist, a friend and will be inviting him to a house party I'm having when I finally pick the day.

You see, cats and alligators CAN live together on the same thread.

J, pot brownies at the door and you have to wear your uniform so that I can take pictures and send them to your boss.

 

[Unrepresented]

And go figure, I rarely EVER agree with the ACLU, yet outside of Talkbass I'd consider Unrepresented (name withheld), the other tall SD bassist, a friend and will be inviting him to a house party I'm having when I finally pick the day.

You see, cats and alligators CAN live together on the same thread.

J, pot brownies at the door and you have to wear your uniform so that I can take pictures and send them to your boss.

I think it's a safe assumption that we're probably all much more likeable when not engaged in divisive topics.

Lamentably, I'm a sucker for "big debates" like a leopard seal is for adorable little baby penguins.

 

[two fingers]

there is a difference in viewpoint depending on your perspective as employer or employee and an absence of real info and understanding.

This. Until you own a business, you have no idea what kind of gun we are under daily. You have no idea what we actually DO FOR our employees. Some things we WANT to do, and some we HAVE to do, but we do them none the less. As a business owner, you have no idea how often I feel MY RIGHTS are being trampled by the same government you think I use to trample YOURS. (Not the person I quoted, just in general.)

As for perspective, I have it. I have been the "worker bee". AND I have been the CEO. I can tell you that (although the pay sucked of course) I had it much easier as a worker bee. Many of YOU, however, don't have the benefit of both perspectives. So you probably think I am being a jerk for asserting even the possibility that workers bees have it easier than I do. I make more money, yes. But I am working harder than I ever have.

But, again, RISK MANAGEMENT is the only reason for requiring drug tests (or background check, credit check, or at least looking at your Facebook). YOU have NOTHING invested in your business. All you did was show up with some skills. The company was built from the ground up when you got there. You have nothing to lose but a job. And you can get another just as easily as you got that one. I, however, mortgaged my house, and gave up precious years with family to build what I have. The sweat equity alone I have in it is priceless. And, it feeds my children, keeps a roof over my head, and pays my bills as well. If my business were to go under, all of my employees could pick up the pieces and be working somewhere else by Tuesday. I, on the other hand, would be sunk. Again, that is why your rights mean very little to me. That is a perspective many of you don't have. I love my employees and treat them well. However, I live with the fear every day that one of them could do ONE STUPID THING while working for me, at it all would come crashing down. I choose not to play the odds. Doing a thorough check on all perspective employees doesn't mean it couldn't happen. But it increases the odds that it won't. And that's good enough for me.

 

[two fingers]

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

That tells me pretty much everything I need to know about you. The thing about the ACLU isn't always who they take up the cause for, but rather who they don't. If you are a good little sheep, and follow the right set of "values", they are one of the strongest allies one can have. However, if you don't fall lock step in line with what they believe, you will be left hanging in a situation identical to one they have helped with before. That's as close to politics as I am willing to go, so let's not make this into something it isn't.

 

[Lonesomedave]

That tells me pretty much everything I need to know about you. The thing about the ACLU isn't always who they take up the cause for, but rather who they don't. If you are a good little sheep, and follow the right set of "values", they are one of the strongest allies one can have. However, if you don't fall lock step in line with what they believe, you will be left hanging in a situation identical to one they have helped with before. That's as close to politics as I am willing to go, so let's not make this into something it isn't.

right on!......WHO THEY DON'T

you know, i was just thinking that this morning after i read his post

 

[TOOL460002]

It's hard to aim for the cup when you're tripping.

 

[Unrepresented]

That tells me pretty much everything I need to know about you.

Maybe I should include that as a disclaimer to save others some time.

The thing about the ACLU isn't always who they take up the cause for, but rather who they don't. If you are a good little sheep, and follow the right set of "values", they are one of the strongest allies one can have. However, if you don't fall lock step in line with what they believe, you will be left hanging in a situation identical to one they have helped with before. That's as close to politics as I am willing to go, so let's not make this into something it isn't.

I don't want to derail this thread into the values of the ACLU, but they've defended Oliver North as well as Muslims who'd been detained, they defended Rush Limbaugh and communists, and American Nazis (Does this officially count as Godwin's law?) and gay marriage rights. They have an agenda, yes. Civil liberties. It's in the name.