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

[eyeballkid]

some of you guys really need to just take a few puffs and relax a little.. geez.

 

[TOOL460002]

Someone really hungover or tired from a night of partying could be dangerous at work, perform below standards, or they might get through the work day, doing everything asked of them. If I were an employer, of course I would want perfect employees, but if someone is doing what you ask of them, what's the problem? Give the raise or the promotion to the person who is going above and beyond what is asked of them.

 

[Unrepresented]

OK, civil liberties are great if there's no chance the person who refuses these tests has no chance of harming someone while they're doing their job but if a train runs into another, goes too fast or goes off the tracks ahd kills someone in your family because the driver/engineer is wasted, what would you do? Never mind the fact that it's a transportation-based job, anyone who works for someone else is a representative for that company. If they come into contact with clients/customers, the chance of harming the company is high if they come in with effects of doing whatever is prohibited. Think as if you own a company and someone ruins it because they scammed the test and the effects caused them to do something bad. You would change your mind in a big hurry, I guarantee it. Companies have been shut down because of this.

Someone I grew up with was hunted down and killed in his own factory by an employee who scammed the test and was addicted to either coke, meth or both. The company made parts and accessories for weapons used by the military and drug testing was mandatory. I have no sympathy for anyone who refuses to take a test and loses a job or the chance of being hired- drugs do too much damage and this is different from the way I thought in the past. People who are too selfish to consider that they could damage someone or something by continuing to do something the company forbids are pretty far down on my list of those I want to associate with.

Drug testing doesn't stop employees from doing drugs. They stop employees from being able to pass drug tests as easily. There is a difference.

I'm not advocating drug use, or violence in the workplace, or unsafe working conditions. I'm against those things as well. I'm advocating privacy rights.

I am not going down that road. You are naive. I'll leave it at that.

Did I mention earlier in this thread that you were condescending?

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

Oh good. I was spot on then, and I'm gonna check the scoreboard... Yup. Two for two.

Back on topic. So, basically, you think that the rights of the worker trump the rights of the business owner. Does that about sum it up?

Not in all cases, but in this case yes. I believe that the many, many employees' privacy concerns should take priority over the concerns of the single employer. Adjust as needed with high risk occupations, and to relieve employers of undue burden from litigation through appropriate legislation.

 

[jp58]

I've never had to take a test after I've gotten a job. We don't do "randoms," and the only time they give a drug test is before a promotion or if it's suspected. We can also get one entering and leaving worker's comp, but I only had to take one to get paid for my claim.

Most of the time, I think they let everyone go until they have problems out of an employee. I know management has seen some evidence of drug use from "good" employees and completely let it go, but they rarely, if ever, let someone get away with suspected use if they are looking for a reason to fire them.

All in all, we've had around 5 people let go from drug use in the last year. The first got fired after coming to work drunk, and he actually got popped with a DUI a few weeks later, the second and third were caught sneaking off on the clock to take or smoke something, the fourth guy failed a drug test after he was sent to the ER for passing out on the clock, and the last girl had a customer say they saw her smokign weed in the parking lot on her break.

All in all, I think they had what was coming for them. They were all letting it affect their work in some way or another.The rest of us are either:
A. Valuable enough to them that they let us stick around even if their suspicion is aroused; or
B. Don't do anything stupid like take something on the clock, come to work stoned or drunk, or take things on store grounds.

 

[Jazz Ad]

Companies, shops especially should install a mandatory cavity search for every employee before they leave the building.
This way they'd make sure nobody is stealing anything. Why would any innocent person be opposed to that?

 

[deeptubes]

No, You're not. :scowl:


Virginia Marijuana Laws

Possession of marijuana is punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine up to $500 for the first offense and up to one year in jail and a fine up to $2,500 for subsequent offenses (§ 18.2-250.1).

Cultivation of marijuana is punishable by 5 - 30 years in prison and a fine up to $10,000. A conviction for manufacturing marijuana must include proof that the marijuana was being grown for a purpose other than the grower's personal use (§ 18.2-248.1).

The delivery or sale of one-half ounce of marijuana or less is punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine up to $2,500. For greater than one-half ounce, the penalties increase to a possible 1 - 10 years in prison and a fine up to $2,500. Sale or delivery of greater than five pounds carries a penalty of 5 - 30 years in prison. Any amount of 100 kilograms or greater is punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years in prison with a possible maximum of life in prison and a fine of up to $1,000,000 (§ 18.2-248.1).

What does state law have to do with being responsible? All of my bills are paid. I maintain my house. I maintain my cars. There is food in my fridge. My house is nowhere near threat of forclosure. I don't smoke before work. I don't smoke at work. I don't drink. I turned down an out of state job that included a 250% pay raise so that my 2 year old daughter could grow up in a nice house a block from the beach, in a good neighborhood, and go to good schools. I am responsible to the NTH degree, and my priorities are straight. If I choose to smoke a little in the evening on the weekends, it doesn't make me a dredge of society.

And as I have previously stated, illegal doesn't mean immoral, and immoral doesn't mean illegal. When it's no longer illegal in the US, will your views change? It's only a matter of time until all of these debates are moot.

 

[Floyd Eye]

I have a good job and it is well worth the not smoking weed thing. I voted yes. Personally I think anyone who can't quit smoking weed in order to keep a high paying job, doesn't deserve a high paying job.

 

[1958Bassman]

Well, except the part about getting shot in one's own factory.

What's wrong with that part? We grew up less than a block apart- he was 49 when this happened.

 

[1958Bassman]

I would, but then I don't do drugs. I feel it's an invasion of privacy, but if you want the gig and the gig requires a drug test, then you have no choice.

I've worked in places where people used drugs and it never bothered me. As long as the work gets done satisfactorily.

I don't think I'd want to work in a place that required testing.

And done safely. Should people who are heavy drinkers and drug users use dangerous equipment? I would say that they shouldn't. As much as I'm all for people being left alone, the cost to an employer when someone is hurt on the job is exorbitant. Think of someone working in a cabinet shop- table saws, band saws, routers, large disc sanders can do a lot of damage and in cases of amputation, rehab time is long. It's not that hard to be hurt by these machines when totally sober and wide awake- being wasted or hungover and tired makes it that much easier. What is missing when someone is in this state is the willingness to tell the boss that they shouldn't be using these at that time because it's possible that it would catch the boss at a bad time and might cost the person their job. OTOH, that's better than being hurt or killed.

What about someone who works on a construction crew- some of the same machines are used, as well as climbing on ladders, scaffolding and across framing, sometimes at great height. Clumsiness can cause dropping of tools/materials, falls, bumping into someone else and knocking things over.

Who is at fault when these things happen and who is sued when a company is involved? Does a worker have liability insurance? No, it's the company whose insurance is used to cover the damage.

Is it the right of a drunk or stoner to cause a company to have their insurance canceled because they hire people without testing, due to the workers' refusal and feelings that their privacy is being invaded?

 

[deeptubes]

I have a good job and it is well worth the not smoking weed thing. I voted yes. Personally I think anyone who can't quit smoking weed in order to keep a high paying job, doesn't deserve a high paying job.

So, if someone chooses to partake on their own free time, they don't deserve a good career or to be properly compensated for excellent job performance? Have you ever had oral sex performed upon you? That's sodomy - any kind of non-vaginal sexual penetration - and is technically illegal in every state. Therefore, you are a criminal and don't deserve a good paying job. Most people do illegal things every day, e.g. speeding, not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, failing to signal when changing lanes.

Generally speaking, testing is not about legal/illegal. They will still test for marijuana when the federal ban is repealed. It's about company control and conformity.

 

[deeptubes]

And done safely. Should people who are heavy drinkers and drug users use dangerous equipment? I would say that they shouldn't. As much as I'm all for people being left alone, the cost to an employer when someone is hurt on the job is exorbitant. Think of someone working in a cabinet shop- table saws, band saws, routers, large disc sanders can do a lot of damage and in cases of amputation, rehab time is long. It's not that hard to be hurt by these machines when totally sober and wide awake- being wasted or hungover and tired makes it that much easier. What is missing when someone is in this state is the willingness to tell the boss that they shouldn't be using these at that time because it's possible that it would catch the boss at a bad time and might cost the person their job. OTOH, that's better than being hurt or killed.

What about someone who works on a construction crew- some of the same machines are used, as well as climbing on ladders, scaffolding and across framing, sometimes at great height. Clumsiness can cause dropping of tools/materials, falls, bumping into someone else and knocking things over.

Who is at fault when these things happen and who is sued when a company is involved? Does a worker have liability insurance? No, it's the company whose insurance is used to cover the damage.

Is it the right of a drunk or stoner to cause a company to have their insurance canceled because they hire people without testing, due to the workers' refusal and feelings that their privacy is being invaded?

The problem is that they don't test for under the influence, and they can, using a saliva test. They are testing for past use, trying to be the moral police. What happens when they start refusing to hire people because they are obese? Their argument being that obese people have more health issues. Their added health issues drive up health insurance costs for the company as well as the other employees. However, being obese does not automatically mean reduced job performance, and they should not be punished for it.

What people do after they clock out is their own business. Is free time is owned by the company, too?

 

[chadds]

I haven't read all the posts in this very long thread... but In my line of work, I haven't come across any bandleaders or booking agents, studios or night clubs that require Drug testing.

Yet if it impairs your work you get fired. Every working musician knows this and wouldn't state to musicians, "it's not fair. I got fired because I blew the changes or showed up late or missed the gig or acted stupidily on stage".

 

[chadds]

Companies, shops especially should install a mandatory cavity search for every employee before they leave the building.
This way they'd make sure nobody is stealing anything. Why would any innocent person be opposed to that?

That's why my women employees in my illegal drug lab are naked during their shift. No clothes to hide product in.

 

[prd004]

It really depends on the job. I have been both an employer and an employee so I see both sides clearly.
An employer has the right to hire and keep who they want for whatever reason they deem important.
If your job involves risk to you or (even more importantly) others, I would actually prefer my employer tested.
If you have a slacker-type job where there is no safety issues, I wouldn't care how much you partied the night before as long as you can still do your job!

I was a locksmith for many years, and drug testing was part of the job, I didn't have a problem with it.

I was also a DJ in strip club before that and drinking & partaking was almost part of the job! I didn't have a problem with that either!!!!

I was able to roll with both. If smoking weed is more important to you than a particular job, go find a different job.

If a certain job is more important to you than smoking weed, quit smoking. It's really quite simple.

 

[Floyd Eye]

So, if someone chooses to partake on their own free time, they don't deserve a good career or to be properly compensated for excellent job performance? Have you ever had oral sex performed upon you? That's sodomy - any kind of non-vaginal sexual penetration - and is technically illegal in every state. Therefore, you are a criminal and don't deserve a good paying job. Most people do illegal things every day, e.g. speeding, not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, failing to signal when changing lanes.

Generally speaking, testing is not about legal/illegal. They will still test for marijuana when the federal ban is repealed. It's about company control and conformity.

If smoking weed is more important to you then a good living, then you may want to re-evaluate your needs/problems. This is not a question of morality to me. I smoked weed forever, until I got a chance to take a great job. I haven't smoked in over 6 months and I make great money.

If weed is more important to YOU, then providing a nice life for your family, then smoke up. Makes no difference to me.

 

[1958Bassman]

I have a good job and it is well worth the not smoking weed thing. I voted yes. Personally I think anyone who can't quit smoking weed in order to keep a high paying job, doesn't deserve a high paying job.

I don't think it's a matter of not deserving it, but it's not their right to use drugs when it goes against the company's policy and nobody has a right to do something that's illegal, regardless of their thoughts on the law- if it becomes legal later, they can do it on their own time, but if the use affects their performance, I think the company has the right to protect their operation.

I worked for a company as the manager of a department and one prospective hire was told he needed to pass a drug screening. He came up 'dilute', which means he was scamming the test to hide the fact that he smoked pot. Second time was the same and when I called him, his response was "I have to re-hydrate my body" and I told him "Cut the crap, I know what you're hiding". He passed the next time, but once he started, he would tell the other guys about getting high, not knowing I could hear him. I hadn't seen him smoking, so I really couldn't do much about it, although I thought about having him tested again. He turned out to be a royal PITA and my having to baby sit him cost me that job. He sounded the same as many in this thread- he told me "What I do on my time is none of the company's business" and then, I laid out the things he did that cost the department more than just money.

 

[96tbird]

I think that with say, marihuana, if you aren't high at work but you're positive on a test from a few days ago: Saturday night lettin' loose, thats unfair and invades your privacy. Right There's the problem with the drug tests. Opiate positive without a scrip is another matter but you should watch the Mythbusters episode where they ran tests after eating poppyseed bagels

The test themselves give no context or timeline, only +- ...not cool.

But If you're high at work, you need to get your shiznit together mister.

 

[Floyd Eye]

I don't think it's a matter of not deserving it, but it's not their right to use drugs when it goes against the company's policy and nobody has a right to do something that's illegal, regardless of their thoughts on the law- if it becomes legal later, they can do it on their own time, but if the use affects their performance, I think the company has the right to protect their operation.

I worked for a company as the manager of a department and one prospective hire was told he needed to pass a drug screening. He came up 'dilute', which means he was scamming the test to hide the fact that he smoked pot. Second time was the same and when I called him, his response was "I have to re-hydrate my body" and I told him "Cut the crap, I know what you're hiding". He passed the next time, but once he started, he would tell the other guys about getting high, not knowing I could hear him. I hadn't seen him smoking, so I really couldn't do much about it, although I thought about having him tested again. He turned out to be a royal PITA and my having to baby sit him cost me that job. He sounded the same as many in this thread- he told me "What I do on my time is none of the company's business" and then, I laid out the things he did that cost the department more than just money.

In my opinion, if you don't want something, deserving it is moot. If you don't want the job, keep on smoking weed. If you do, then quit. It's really that simple.

 

[chadds]

The problem is that they don't test for under the influence, and they can, using a saliva test. They are testing for past use, trying to be the moral police. What happens when they start refusing to hire people because they are obese? Their argument being that obese people have more health issues. Their added health issues drive up health insurance costs for the company as well as the other employees. However, being obese does not automatically mean reduced job performance, and they should not be punished for it.

What people do after they clock out is their own business. Is free time is owned by the company, too?

It isn't owned by the company.
You are right. It's just that what you do on your free time can affect others. That's your responsibility to see. Standing behind your "rights" is also admirable.

You have a gig that will put you in the national spotlight. Your band has worked years to get here. Your drummer decides to go to the beach with his new girlfriend and miss the final practice before the gig.

He has a right. By objecting you are trying to control his personal life.

Or, do you expect him to consider the needs of the band first in this case?

 

[deeptubes]

If smoking weed is more important to you then a good living, then you may want to re-evaluate your needs/problems. This is not a question of morality to me. I smoked weed forever, until I got a chance to take a great job. I haven't smoked in over 6 months and I make great money.

If weed is more important to YOU, then providing a nice life for your family, then smoke up. Makes no difference to me.

Why are the two linked? That's the real question. I have no problem whatsoever with testing for under the influence. They can test for under the influence, AND it costs less. I used to work for a company in which I was the only one who didn't drink. Everyone else drank rather heavily every night. I outperformed all of them. Part-time toking has zero effect upon full-time job performance. Employment should be conditional upon job performance and under the influence, not private time.

AGAIN, if someone smokes in their free time, why don't they deserve a good paying job if their performance is above and beyond all others?