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

[1958Bassman]

In the 50s, black people sat at "whites only" lunch counters. They were breaking the law. Were they irresponsible?

It wasn't illegal, it was forbidden by those establishments and sitting at a lunch counter doesn't cause accidents. Buses, cars, trucks and planes don't crash, people don't fall from girders or off of ladders, they don't run their hand through a table saw. That is an act that hated someone for their skin color and perceived inadequacies. That's not a good example and it wasn't nationally illegal. It was ignorant people forcing their will on others and taking away the rights from those whom they hated.

Look at Prohibition- the Mob made millions, people were killed and lives ruined by booze. Some others made fortunes (Joe Kennedy, among others) and Al Capone fed people by funding soup kitchens during the Depression in an effort to help people who were poor, like he had been. Also, he is the one responsible for the date being on milk cartons because he had been given spoiled milk as a child and he hated it enough to do something about it when he had the opportunity. He did some good things, but that doesn't make him a good person, overall.

Bottom line- working for an employee comes with some agreements. If the company requires employees to not use drugs and the employee agrees to this going in, they have no right to use it. If they agree to a contract with this agreement and intentionally use the drug(s) that are to be avoided, they have defrauded the company and breached the contract. Hopefully, they didn't harm someone in the process. Look at employee theft- it's rampant and everyone I have talked with who did this justified it in their mind in some way. They all "deserved it", it was owed them for some reason, or they "wanted to get back at their employer/company". I can't think of many who weren't drinkers or drug users. A past CEO of Harnischfeger Industries lied when he was interviewed and bilked the company out of millions. Turns out, he was in the throes of a huge mid-life crisis and got caught up in drugs, drinking, spending money he didn't have in order to impress women, etc. Was that his "right"? Did he "deserve" that job?

I think not.

 

[Uncle Snake]

My experience with work-place drug testing was somewhat unique.

My main responsibility at this job(which I held for 17 years) was programming the cnc mills, lathes and laser as well as running that department. I inherited the in house inspecting of aircraft parts that we repaired/reworked before they went back into service.

During this time I ended up getting a fairly rare type of Leukemia and the treatment gave me brutal headaches. To combat the headaches I ended up taking some pretty large doses of fentynol, morphine, hydrocone, etc...... Whenever I had to take the drugs at work I'd immediately inform our customer that no inspecting would be done that day.

Since I was FAA certified as an inspector I was subjected to random drug/alcohol testing which averaged out to 6-8 times a year.

I don't know what they tested for but I came up clean on every test I took. This includes testing with in 4 hours of taking morphine and Vicodan together many, many times.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

I don't disagree with this in theory. The problem is that pesky freedom thing. As a business owner I have the right to choose whether or not I want a drug user as an employee. If you take that right away from me, you have just changed from capitalism to, uh, something else.

And that's the underlying issue. Why are the rights of businesses' superseding the rights of individuals? Does anyone besides me not see an issue here?

 

[1958Bassman]

Illegal does not equal irresponsible.

It does when someone/something (company, employer) is harmed because of it.

Are you saying that it's OK to smoke pot "for the greater good" or the good of society, by being disobedient? GMAB!

 

[Lonesomedave]

I don't disagree with this in theory. The problem is that pesky freedom thing. As a business owner I have the right to choose whether or not I want a drug user as an employee. If you take that right away from me, you have just changed from capitalism to, uh, something else.

and i don't disagree with that..AT ALL... matter of fact i am usually in the same camp as the business owners here on most issues of running a business, policies they set etc...it is my business, i'll run it the way i want.

except, we have already accepted certain restrictions on the freedom of business owners to make those decisions...can't racially or sexually discriminate etc.

i am not advocating taking away business owner's rights (as a matter of fact, my wife IS a business owner)

what i am advocating is making the current tests for pot use illegal (at least in the states that have legalized) and requiring testing only of what's relevant...IS THE PERSON INTOXICATED RIGHT NOW...develop THOSE tests.

that's pretty simple

that way, we achieve the same level of protection for society (whatever that level might be...given Bama's post above and the fact that HIS test did not weed out the particular drunk who caused his damage at work) with out giving our blessing to drinking (which potentially is far more dangerous than pot) while stigmatizing pot users...SIMPLY FOR BEING POT USERS!

 

[Floyd Eye]

And that's the underlying issue. Why are the rights of businesses' superseding the rights of individuals? Does anyone besides me not see an issue here?

My rights as a business owner have nothing to do with your rights. You don't like my rules, you are free to work for someone else. I am not legally obligated to employ you.

 

[Lonesomedave]

It wasn't illegal, it was forbidden by those establishments ....

you're entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to your own facts.

do some history research and then tell me there were not absolutely segregation laws in place in may southern states (hell, i don't know...maybe others as well).

discrimination was the law in many places.

 

[Floyd Eye]

and i don't disagree with that..AT ALL... matter of fact i am usually in the same camp as the business owners here on most issues of running a business, policies they set etc...it is my business, i'll run it the way i want.

except, we have already accepted certain restrictions on the freedom of business owners to make tose decisions...can't racially or sexually discriminate etc.

i am not advocating taking away business owner's rights (as a matter of fact, my wife IS a business owner)

what i am advocating is making the current tests for pot use illegal (at least in the states that have legalized) and requiring testing only of what's relevant...IS THE PERSON INTOXICATED RIGHT NOW...develop THOSE tests.

that's pretty simple

that way, we achieve the same level of protection for society (whatever that level might be...given Bama's post above and the fact that HIS test did not weed out the particular drunk who caused his damage at work) with out giving our blessing to drinking (which potentially is far more dangerous than pot) while stigmatizing pot users...SIMPLY FOR BEING POT USERS!

I suppose this is where our opinions differ. While I personally would not disqualify an employee for smoking weed on his own time, I certainly believe it is my right to do so. Until dope smokers become a federally protected class of people,with their own set of civil rights, I do not have to cater to them. The fact is that as long as I have less than 50 employees, I am not obligated to hire anyone other than those whom I choose to hire, regardless of civil rights issues.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

My rights as a business owner have nothing to do with your rights. You don't like my rules, you are free to work for someone else. I am not legally obligated to employ you.

That's not the argument. You're pushing your rules on our own personal lives. In my mind, there is a big difference between company policies that dictate what a person can or can't do on the job and policies that dictate what a person can or can't do on their own time. Your rights as a business owner should only be applicable to when a person is on your own time. Anything beyond that is nothing more than an attempt to control people beyond reasonable expectations from an employer.

 

[1958Bassman]

1958bassman:

can't disagree with your post, except to add...


we are not talking about coming to work drunk or high...that is a red herring.

we are talking about what people do in their off hours...have a drink, smoke a doob...both absolutely irrelevant to coming to work intoxicated.

develop a test to see if the person is intoxicated RIGHT NOW, and i will be in there with you.

we already have such a test for alcohol...and look how much good it did BAMA (read his post above)

NO ONE IS ADVOCATING ALLOWING PEOPLE TO WORK INTOXICATED....i don't know how many times that must be said before people on the other side of this debate will stop bringing up that straw man.

what we are advocating is treat pot smokers the way we now treat alcohol users...which is basically leave' em alone until their use actually or potentially causes harm.

I smoked and drank for quite a while. When someone smokes and/or drinks enough, they're NOT clear-headed the next day. Period. There's no way to metabolize the alcohol or drug in the time between stopping and going to work if enough is consumed. That leaves one conclusion- they are still affected by those substances. There's no other argument that can refute this without just resorting to dig your heels in the ground. Whether the harm to the employer comes from loss of physical ability, lack of interest in doing the job well, coming in on time, not slacking off when they should be getting things done, lying/being forgetful, making mistakes or actually committing other crimes, it still came from a moral/ethical defect that was inherent or brought on by their seeing drug/alcohol use as more important than doing their job and being honest.

You want to leave user alone until they cause a problem. That's called 'enabling'. How would you determine when the problems start? Usually, they start small and build up to something major. Where is the threshold between "it's not a problem" and "it's a problem" and who makes that decision?

It's the right of an employer to decide that they don't want to deal with ANY problems that arise from people doing drugs. If I hire someone to help me, they had damn well better live up to my expectations because, if they screw up, it would ruin my business and since I'm self-employed, it would seriously damage me. Not only would it ruin me financially, it would ruin my reputation, destroy any trust my customers have in me and it would be just about impossible to reverse it. THAT is unacceptable and if that happens, it wasn't necessarily a matter of someone being physically hurt.

 

[Lonesomedave]

I suppose this is where our opinions differ. While I personally would not disqualify an employee for smoking weed on his own time, I certainly believe it is my right to do so. Until dope smokers become a federally protected class of people,with their own set of civil rights, I do not have to cater to them. The fact is that as long as I have less than 50 employees, I am not obligated to hire anyone other than those whom I choose to hire, regardless of civil rights issues.

well, our opinions do differ there, but believe it or not, i am not advocating taking away that right, hire and fire for any reason all...or no reason

what i am advocating is taking away one of the tools you have for making such discriminatory decisions.

in states that have legalized pot, make the current tests for pot illegal...then you would know who to discriminate against...

 

[Floyd Eye]

That's not the argument. You're pushing your rules on our own personal lives. In my mind, there is a big difference between company policies that dictate what a person can or can't do on the job and policies that dictate what a person can or can't do on their own time. Your rights as a business owner should only be applicable to when a person is on your own time. Anything beyond that is nothing more than an attempt to control people beyond reasonable expectations from an employer.

Really? That's ridiculous. I'll say it again. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT HIRE YOU, PERIOD. You DO NOT have the right to FORCE me to employ you. I don't know who gave you all these ideas about what you are entitled to, but the fact is that I am perfectly within my rights as an employer to refuse to hire you or to terminate your employment for whatever reason I see fit. It is MY business.

 

[1958Bassman]

I'm pretty sure Steve Jobs has admitted several times to smoking and taking LSD. It didn't seem to stop him.

Right, but he didn't make decisions or do things that caused the company to go under. aside form what was stated publicly, I have to wonder why they booted him out, though. If he had just been an employee and did something that caused the whole thing to tank,.....

As I wrote, it was the '70s and drug use was almost a certainty, but it was a "What if they had caused it to fail?" scenario.

 

[Floyd Eye]

well, our opinions do differ there, but believe it or not, i am not advocating taking away that right, hire and fire for any reason all...or no reason

what i am advocating is taking away one of the tools you have for making such discriminatory decisions.

in states that have legalized pot, make the current tests for pot illegal...then you would know who to discriminate against...

Long hair has nothing to do with job performance, neither do tattoos or having a criminal record. None of those things are illegal to have, yet I can refuse to hire you based on your possession of them. Whether or not something is legal has no relevance on whether or not I can refuse you employment based on them.

 

[Lonesomedave]

I smoked and drank for quite a while. When someone smokes and/or drinks enough, they're NOT clear-headed the next day. Period. There's no way to metabolize the alcohol or drug in the time between stopping and going to work if enough is consumed. That leaves one conclusion- they are still affected by those substances. There's no other argument that can refute this without just resorting to dig your heels in the ground. Whether the harm to the employer comes from loss of physical ability, lack of interest in doing the job well, coming in on time, not slacking off when they should be getting things done, lying/being forgetful, making mistakes or actually committing other crimes, it still came from a moral/ethical defect that was inherent or brought on by their seeing drug/alcohol use as more important than doing their job and being honest.

You want to leave user alone until they cause a problem. That's called 'enabling'. How would you determine when the problems start? Usually, they start small and build up to something major. Where is the threshold between "it's not a problem" and "it's a problem" and who makes that decision?

It's the right of an employer to decide that they don't want to deal with ANY problems that arise from people doing drugs. If I hire someone to help me, they had damn well better live up to my expectations because, if they screw up, it would ruin my business and since I'm self-employed, it would seriously damage me. Not only would it ruin me financially, it would ruin my reputation, destroy any trust my customers have in me and it would be just about impossible to reverse it. THAT is unacceptable and if that happens, it wasn't necessarily a matter of someone being physically hurt.

i did not say "until they cause a problem" i said "until they actually OR POTENTIALLYcause a problem"

so, it's your position is it, that no one who works for you can have a drink off-work, socially?...

just askin'

because i think what you want to do, really, is accept drinkers as long as they don't come to work drunk, but reject all pot smokers whether they come to work high or not.

as said, that is your right, but in my system, one of the tools you currently have for making that discrimination would be taken away.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I smoked and drank for quite a while. When someone smokes and/or drinks enough, they're NOT clear-headed the next day. Period. There's no way to metabolize the alcohol or drug in the time between stopping and going to work if enough is consumed.

"enough" is the key point there.

It's be wrong to assume that because someone smokes weed, they must be consuming massive amounts, not just a small spliff. Just as if someone drinks, it doesn't mean that any time they have a drink they end up paralytic.

 

[Floyd Eye]

By the way, if I don't like drinking, I can also refuse to hire you based on the fact that you drink at home. Guess what? If I get a DWI on a Friday night on my way home from a gig, I will lose my job. Do you know why? Because my employer has the right to fire me for whatever reason they see fit. And I have a union job. lol

( I may be confusing some people because not only am I a union gas man, but I am also a contractor).

 

[Lonesomedave]

Long hair has nothing to do with job performance, neither do tattoos or having a criminal record. None of those things are illegal to have, yet I can refuse to hire you based on your possession of them. Whether or not something is legal has no relevance on whether or not I can refuse you employment based on them.

what did i say that indicates i disagree with your position... go for...just don't use illegal tests to make that determination...and since, under my system, the current test for pot would be illegal...how ya gonna decide who uses pot etc...divination?

 

[Floyd Eye]

what did i say that indicates i disagree with your position... go for...just don't use illegal tests to make that determination...and since, under my system, the current test for pot would be illegal...how ya gonna decide who uses pot etc...divination?

How are you going to make such tests illegal? Alcohol is legal. I can go to the store right now and buy a test for that. You might as well theorize your position based on the tooth fairy because there will never be a day in your lifetime that it becomes illegal to buy a test kit for weed or illegal for an employer to choose who they can hire. And if such a day ever comes, I will definitely be leaving the US for greener pastures.

 

[1958Bassman]

And that's the underlying issue. Why are the rights of businesses' superseding the rights of individuals? Does anyone besides me not see an issue here?

OK, you call it a 'right', some would call it 'a habit'. In some cases, it's an illegal habit. Is it medically necessary? If not, it's not a right, it's for "recreational use" or it's an addiction. This isn't a matter of playing Jarts during a yard party or at a picnic.

Does the business not have the right to survive and succeed? Does the company not have the right to set rules that determine workplace safety, efficiency and productivity? Does the employer not have the right to follow rules that are set by their customers? Think about this one, because I have seen factory workers from two well-known corporations getting hammered during their break at a bar/restaurant, then taking beer with them when they left to finish their shift. I'm pretty we all know someone who rides or uses their products, too.

Does any employee have the right to break rules they agreed to when they started workign for someone? Do you want hungover or burned-out people building your house or car? What if something was done wrong and it hurts/kills you or a family member? Would that suddenly change your mind?