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

[1958Bassman]

As Dave has been saying time and time again, these tests show positive not for current use, but for use that may have happened days, weeks, if not months ago. That's a problem. Furthermore, these tests look into the personal lives of people, and that's not cool. I don't think potential, or even current, employees have the same ability to demand drug tests of all their managers or corporate execs, either, which seems unfair and heavily skewed. Regardless, these tests can only show past usage. They have no way of determining or preventing someone from getting drunk/high on the job later on, either.

What would you do as an employer, if your whole business depended on customers and clients specifying that they have a zero-tolerance stance on illegal drug use? Alcohol isn't included in this question because the original post asked about drug testing. Would you hire drug users and take the chance of losing all of your business because of it? Do you think you would be accepted by other potential customers if they found out and see things the same way as your old customers?

I asked before and haven't seen a response- how is it determined that a problem exists? Should employers just let people do what they want and make changes when something bad happens?

 

[Lonesomedave]

I never said people can't drink socially if they work for me. What I said is that they had better live up to my expectations and part of this is not doing a single thing that could cause a problem for me or my business and that includes being hungover. I did it and I regret it. I also know that I wasn't at my best and at times, wasn't even close to it. The fact that I did it doesn't exempt me from blame and even though most of us did it, it didn't exactly help the company. Our desire to keep the company alive is the reason it's still in business.

What I have been saying is that an employee doesn't have a right to do these. It may be socially acceptable to drink, but that doesn't mean it does any physical good. It's a crutch and a way to escape when drunkenness is the goal. There's no reason to smoke pot if it's not being used for medicinal reasons and self-medicating isn't the way to go through life. If someone didn't need alcohol or drugs before they started, they probably don't need them at all.

You feel like someone is discriminating against you? That's amazing. Sorry if you feel that your employer wants to set some rules. Sorry for making you feel like a victim. Sorry you can't live without being high. Sorry you can't stop pissing away money on something that only lasts a few hours and doesn't come back.

I'm left wondering why so many think that smoking pot or drinking is a right. Care to explain your reasoning? I'll bet that the same reasons you think this is a right can be used by a business to prohibit it.

From past experience, some people clearly SHOULD NOT have access to some things. That includes drugs and alcohol- I know a lot of people who should never have started these and it ruined or killed some of them.

and that goes equally for drinkers as well as pot somokers...as i have said, i have not smoked pot in 20 years although i do have a beer several times a week.

smoking or drinking is not a right, but a privilige...at least drinking is right now...smoking pot is still a crime in most states.

i am simply pointing out the hypocrisy of treating drinkers (who use the more dangerous drug) differently from pot smokers (who use the less dangerous drug)

can YOU justify that distinction...besides using the red herring of "well, one is illegal and the other is not"...because we have already determined that laws can and do change and further, are sometimes made on very flimsy bases, not on anything that makes sense.

 

[1958Bassman]

"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.

I know that but the reason for banning these is due to the inability of some to stop when they have had 'enough'. Laws aren't written to control the majority, although they end up having that effect. Laws are written and enforced because a small % of people can't go through life without being a problem for others. Someone who has a few hits or a few drinks after work isn't the problem- it's the ones who cause problems that make it necessary to remove these substances from the list of what's acceptable to an employer. They have every right to make sure their business survives and if they see drug tests as part of this for personal, legal, liability or for reasons that have to do with employee drug use causing their customers to stop doing business with them or exposing them to some kind of liability, that should be allowed. Again, no employee has the right to force an employer to hire them for any reason.

 

[1958Bassman]

While I agree with this, it still doesn't matter. Some dude who likes to smoke weed has no bearing on my right to refuse to hire him. Period. I don't give a crap what my reason is. My right to hire/fire employees are not subject to some stoner's "Right" to chief out on his couch.

Again, you want a good job, put the bong down. Otherwise feel free to exercise your rights all you want, just be prepared to work at McDonalds or whatever.

You got the wrong idea- I'm not in favor of refusing these tests or taking an employers' right to refuse hiring based on use.

 

[Floyd Eye]

You got the wrong idea- I'm not in favor of refusing these tests or taking an employers' right to refuse hiring based on use.

I know you are not. The argument you made is just more than what is necessary. What I am saying is that you are correct and your justification, while also correct, is much more justification than what is necessary. In fact, your last post up there is all the justification you need. That's all I'm saying.

 

[1958Bassman]

Thing is, not everyone who is against testing takes illegal drugs.

The only additionals you'll find in me is some caffeine in the morning and possibly some alcohol from a whisky or two on a friday or saturday night. I'd still say no to testing (in most circumstances) simply because for most of the jobs I'd be in, it has sweet FA to do with the employer and if they can't trust someone off the bat, then I'm not all that interested in continued employment there.

I also have nothing illegal to hide in my home, nothing illegal to hide in my past, nothing illegal to hide on any of the social networking sites and nothing illegal to hide on my email. Employers wouldn't be getting a look into those either (with the exception of disclosure, and only if it's something where the employer justified needing it).

Re: trusting someone off the bat- is it your opinion that trust is implicit, or needs to be earned? This isn't about whether we should be able to trust others, but about whether someone who's looking for employees can afford to trust the applicants before they actually have a good reason to. The cost of screening applicants before any drug test or in-person interviews is about $100 if an outside agency is used to get background/criminal checks is used. They use these agencies because the fact is, people lie and hide pertinent information. I have used one of these companies when screening rental applicants and am glad I did- I weeded out people who would have been a nightmare to deal with later. $35 a pop, just for a credit check. Not one of the bad ones volunteered the information that kept me from renting to them, even though I asked if they had credit problems. From their history, it's impossible that they didn't know.

I don't want people crawling into every orifice on me, either, but the position of some is that an employer doesn't have any right to impose drug tests and the OP asked if people would or currently submit to them. The reasons came out after the question was asked. Will someone die or be less healthy if they have to stop? For the vast majority, the answer is NO. Have employers been damaged/harmed by people who used drugs/alcohol to excess? Absolutely. Is this the reason they their customers require drug testing? Damn skippy.

 

[1958Bassman]

I know you are not. The argument you made is just more than what is necessary. What I am saying is that you are correct and your justification, while also correct, is much more justification than what is necessary. In fact, your last post up there is all the justification you need. That's all I'm saying.

Me, overstating something? Say it's not so!

 

[two fingers]

Re: trusting someone off the bat- is it your opinion that trust is implicit, or needs to be earned? This isn't about whether we should be able to trust others, but about whether someone who's looking for employees can afford to trust the applicants before they actually have a good reason to. The cost of screening applicants before any drug test or in-person interviews is about $100 if an outside agency is used to get background/criminal checks is used. They use these agencies because the fact is, people lie and hide pertinent information. I have used one of these companies when screening rental applicants and am glad I did- I weeded out people who would have been a nightmare to deal with later. $35 a pop, just for a credit check. Not one of the bad ones volunteered the information that kept me from renting to them, even though I asked if they had credit problems. From their history, it's impossible that they didn't know.

I don't want people crawling into every orifice on me, either, but the position of some is that an employer doesn't have any right to impose drug tests and the OP asked if people would or currently submit to them. The reasons came out after the question was asked. Will someone die or be less healthy if they have to stop? For the vast majority, the answer is NO. Have employers been damaged/harmed by people who used drugs/alcohol to excess? Absolutely. Is this the reason they their customers require drug testing? Damn skippy.

Bongo.

 

[Unrepresented]

You're right- it doesn't stop drug use but it can weed out the people who won't submit to the test or stop, no pun intended. If someone stops because they want a particular job and know that the company does random testing, that's up to them. If they want to try their luck and apply anyway, that's up to them. It's like anything else- tell someone to stop doing something and they'll usually resist.

A test will "weed out" the people it catches on the days it's performed plus whatever delays there are in test analysis. It is a barrier to preventing intoxication at work, but definitely not a foolproof one, and absolutely an intrusive one.

The problem with privacy rights is how far they can be allowed to extend. If the person stays in a private setting, I think they should be able to do anything they want- if they want to do things that are harmful to themselves, fine, and this is something that is a sore point for me, considering the fact that I have known a lot of people who committed suicide. Some didn't do it privately and it definitely had an impact on those who were there.

If someone is an immediate threat to themselves or others, legal actions can be taken. There's no right to privacy then.

As much as I liked to party in the past, I don't feel that a single person has any right to do anything that will cause a problem for another person or company. People doing their job as well as possible and not "as well as possible under the circumstances" is the distinction. People going about their lives without negatively impacting someone else is what I consider 'responsible'.

If someone's under the influence of drugs, it's likely going to be either directly noticeable in their behavior or their performance. Both are reasonable grounds for termination. No one should be under the influence at work.

Re: your comment about the many, many employees' privacy concerns vs a single employers' concerns, who ever said working for a company is supposed to be a democracy? Employees don't set the goals of a company, the products/services offered or how the company is run. They certainly have input- if the owner(s) are complete DBs and constantly do stupid things/make stupid decisions, the employees will leave. Some intentionally damage the company. All will be unhappy but they'll dance on the grave of the company when it folds. However, if a vote is taken and the result is that the company folds, regardless of the owner's desires and intent, who wins? The employees won the vote, but everyone lost, in the short OR long run. They should also have input WRT design/idea implementation and improvements but again, there's no way a company should relinquish any control over their destiny to employees who don't want to give up habits that could cause damage to others.

While it's nice to think that market forces will correct unreasonable employers, not everyone has the ability to be as choosey with their employer. Many people live paycheck to paycheck. Most people don't want to pack their lives and families away and move to a different location to improve their employment situations. Most people will quietly deal with a bad employer because it's the only choice they have.

Here's an example of what could happen if drugs/alcohol cause a small company to fail, with the acknowledgement that some drugs help people to "think outside the box". Two small groupls of people started working on projects that are related, but not exactly the same. One is a physical product and the other is something the physical item uses. Being small companies in the '70s, drug use was almost a certainty and at that time, if they had failed early, it wouldn't have made much of a difference at the time, but the rippling effects have been absolutely massive on a global scale and if they had failed at the start, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion now.

These companies had ideas for products that hadn't been utilized to the current extent because the people who controlled most of this industry didn't see a need for it, so they started in apartments and a garage. The ones who controlled this at th e time lacked the foresight and imagination to see why anyone outside of industry or certain businesses would need them and to be honest, not many small companies or individuals, schools, offices or local governments could have afforded one as they were at the time. They made a few things happen through a bit of trickery and deception, but not really a criminal act. Fast forward a few years and people saw the first products come out. Primitive when compared to what's available today, but futuristic to many and the possibilities were yet to be tapped. FF even further and we start to see these products in everyday life. The wealthy/adventurous may have been the first to buy, but the prices came down so quickly that soon, people bought them by the millions. Families had them, schools began to use them, offices and companies began to exploit their capabilities and whole industries sprung up across the globe, supporting and exploiting this product. Competitors came up with their own versions, competition caused the price to drop and innovation caused new and wonderful improvements, creating the need for millions of jobs to be filled, adding business to companies that sell/handle materials, shipping, manufacturing, packaging, legal work, accounting, employment agencies and anything else you can think of. Along the way, they created whole industries and have made fundamental changes in the lives of almost every person on the planet, in some way. These two companies have created more millionaires and billionaires than any others, created products that were inconceivable just a few years before and as we know, people with lots of money want things and have varied interests, so they build houses, buy and start their own companies and ask "Why can't we make this?, Why can't we do this?, Why can't we control this?" in some new and interesting way.

What if Apple and Microsoft had failed because someone decided that drinking or doing drugs was more important than making the companies work?

Someone else would've picked up the ball where it got dropped. Apple's story of success is decidedly nonlinear. If you believe in the market forces as strongly here as in the rest of your post, you'd believe it would churn out someone else who would pick up that dropped ball and run with it.

 

[Ziltoid]

Circular thread is circular.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Businesses ARE INDIVIDUALS! What do you think I am, a ROBOT? I own a business. And I am a human. So what you do as my employees affects ME AND MY HUMAN FAMILY MADE UP OF LIVING BREATHING INDIVIDUALS. And as a human, MY RIGHTS are EVERY BIT as important as YOURS. I AM my business. My business is not the building, or the filing cabinets, or the forklifts. It is ME.

Say what you want, businesses ARE PEOPLE. Corporations ARE PEOPLE. Stock holders are PEOPLE. There is no such thing as a business that creates itself, is owned by computers or robots, or is NOT OWNED BY YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS.

When in the hell did we get to the point that companies are some sort of enemy made up of space aliens sent here to beat down the little guy?

I am not the great and powerful OZ. I am a guy. Don't talk about businesses as if they are not your friends, family, and fellow citizens. Because your parents, grandparents, friends, uncles, and the girl at the coffee shop hopefully all have retirement accounts. And that means THEY ARE publicly traded companies. All of these huge corporations are owned by EVERYONE who has a 401K. Does that make your parents' rights not important? Their money is tied up in those corporations. And if one dipstick does something stupid to cause a company they are invested in to come crashing down, it is those regular people with a 401K (or any mutual fund account) who are negatively affected.

Geez guys. Grow up would ya'? It's not us against them. We all have the same dreams, goals, aspirations, and needs. Just because I have found a way to achieve some of mine, that doesn't mean I have screwed anybody, or will in the future.

Wal-Mart is people. Exxon is people. BP is people. And most of them are just regular Joes trying make it just like you.

Do your employees get the same ability to drug test you and snoop around your private life as you do to them? What rights do they have to protect themselves from you? What about the millions of people who lost their livelihood when the economy tanked because select individuals at the top decided to take unnecessary risks? What protections did we have from them? How many of them have been prosecuted and thrown in jail? Let me tell ya, the guy in middle management who smokes a doob on Friday night with his buddies after work is much less of a liability or threat to the safety and well-being of both his company and others than the guy at the top. History and laws have shown us that businesses operate on the sole basis to increase shareholder wealth. Beyond that, they don't care about anyone or anything else. Saying they're people as if it somehow means they'll act morally and not overstep their bounds is asinine. Businesses have constantly pushed the boundaries of what they believe they can get away with at the expense of the well-being of everyday people. This is not to say all businesses are evil but that we should be skeptical of any 'rights' they claim when they begin to infringe on the rights of individuals. Apparently some of you guys have zero issues with losing your privacy because of the rights of businesses. Personally, I'm of the belief that individual privacy should be respected until there is reason not to do so.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Bongo.

Bingo?...

... Have employers been damaged/harmed by people who used drugs/alcohol to excess? Absolutely. Is this the reason they their customers require drug testing? Damn skippy.

so, where in this great drug testing utopia is there a distinction between testing for those who use drugs and alcohol "to excess" and those who do not.

i thought the purpose of pot tests was to find out if someone used pot at all, and then disqualify him immediately....just askin'

if there was a test to determine "to excess" and if that was the one employers used, i would be in favor of it.

 

[two fingers]

Circular thread is circular.

Yep. It's fun though.

It's a lot more interesting than "Which EMG P bass pickup is best for stoner/doom/dread/gaze/Mickey Mouse/apple core screamo punk post new wave prehistoric doom sludge and Motown music (and by the way I do Jazz gigs on Tuesdays too)?"

 

[Floyd Eye]

Do your employees get the same ability to drug test you and snoop around your private life as you do to them? What rights do they have to protect themselves from you? What about the millions of people who lost their livelihood when the economy tanked because select individuals at the top decided to take unnecessary risks? What protections did we have from them? How many of them have been prosecuted and thrown in jail? Let me tell ya, the guy in middle management who smokes a doob on Friday night with his buddies after work is much less of a liability or threat to the safety and well-being of both his company and others than the guy at the top. History and laws have shown us that businesses operate on the sole basis to increase shareholder wealth. Beyond that, they don't care about anyone or anything else. Saying they're people as if it somehow means they'll act morally and not overstep their bounds is asinine. Businesses have constantly pushed the boundaries of what they believe they can get away with at the expense of the well-being of everyday people. This is not to say all businesses are evil but that we should be skeptical of any 'rights' they claim when they begin to infringe on the rights of individuals. Apparently some of you guys have zero issues with losing your privacy because of the rights of businesses. Personally, I'm of the belief that individual privacy should be respected until there is reason not to do so.

They have the right to seek employment elsewhere. Who gave you this stupid idea that your employer owes you anything other than the paycheck you earn? People don't start businesses because they feel the need to take care of whiners who feel that they are entitled to **** they didn't earn.

 

[two fingers]

Bingo?...

Yep. That too.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Do your employees get the same ability to drug test you and snoop around your private life as you do to them? What rights do they have to protect themselves from you? What about the millions of people who lost their livelihood when the economy tanked because select individuals at the top decided to take unnecessary risks? What protections did we have from them? How many of them have been prosecuted and thrown in jail? Let me tell ya, the guy in middle management who smokes a doob on Friday night with his buddies after work is much less of a liability or threat to the safety and well-being of both his company and others than the guy at the top. History and laws have shown us that businesses operate on the sole basis to increase shareholder wealth. Beyond that, they don't care about anyone or anything else. Saying they're people as if it somehow means they'll act morally and not overstep their bounds is asinine. Businesses have constantly pushed the boundaries of what they believe they can get away with at the expense of the well-being of everyday people. This is not to say all businesses are evil but that we should be skeptical of any 'rights' they claim when they begin to infringe on the rights of individuals. Apparently some of you guys have zero issues with losing your privacy because of the rights of businesses. Personally, I'm of the belief that individual privacy should be respected until there is reason not to do so.

well, if you do not like the risks of what you described actually happening, start your own business and run it how you want...don't take risks etc.

i am not in favor of either discriminating against pot smokers or the current testing to help in such discrimination..BUT

i am certainly not in favor of the analysis you have just described...as said, the right to employment does not exist...if there is a job, and if they want you to do it, fine...and if you agree to do it, such that it results in your getting a paycheck...HAPPY DAY

but as far as drug testing of employers, insuring that they do not take risks etc...that's just BS

after all, if someone hadn't taken the risk of starting up the business you work for in the first place, there would not now be a job for you to have...WOULD THERE?

 

[1958Bassman]

Apples and oranges.

Our stances are not based upon everyone having the right to go to work effed up. They are based upon doing something that has zero effect upon job performance or working conditions.

Again, who decides it has "zero effect"? The user? Not a reliable source for the opinion and that's why "I don't have a problem, I can stop anytime I want" is used as a joke. Not talking about going in wasted, either. I think the discussion was skewed toward "going in suffering (or enjoying) the effects of the drug(s)", but it's about whether a drug test is an invasion of the personal rights and whether that takes precedence over the employer's rights to enforce rules prohibiting drug use and using these tests to detect drug use. The fact that they're not infallible needs to be seen as a reason for improving them, but with people understanding that they're presently the least expensive way to do this right now. The cost is borne by the company up front, then by their customers and clients on the back-end. Finding out that someone has a problem after they scammed the test can be extremely expensive for a company and can cost lives. If a prospective employee can't understand this, that's their problem. Anyone who refuses this test is an attempt to force the company to accept their use of something the company doesn't want. If they were doing extensive background checks without permission and entering the person's home, I don't think there would be any argument.

 

[Unrepresented]

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?

I'm pretty sure I've made this point in this thread as well.

Businesses ARE INDIVIDUALS! What do you think I am, a ROBOT? I own a business. And I am a human. So what you do as my employees affects ME AND MY HUMAN FAMILY MADE UP OF LIVING BREATHING INDIVIDUALS. And as a human, MY RIGHTS are EVERY BIT as important as YOURS. I AM my business. My business is not the building, or the filing cabinets, or the forklifts. It is ME.

Say what you want, businesses ARE PEOPLE. Corporations ARE PEOPLE. Stock holders are PEOPLE. There is no such thing as a business that creates itself, is owned by computers or robots, or is NOT OWNED BY YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS.

When in the hell did we get to the point that companies are some sort of enemy made up of space aliens sent here to beat down the little guy?

I am not the great and powerful OZ. I am a guy. Don't talk about businesses as if they are not your friends, family, and fellow citizens. Because your parents, grandparents, friends, uncles, and the girl at the coffee shop hopefully all have retirement accounts. And that means THEY ARE publicly traded companies. All of these huge corporations are owned by EVERYONE who has a 401K. Does that make your parents' rights not important? Their money is tied up in those corporations. And if one dipstick does something stupid to cause a company they are invested in to come crashing down, it is those regular people with a 401K (or any mutual fund account) who are negatively affected.

Geez guys. Grow up would ya'? It's not us against them. We all have the same dreams, goals, aspirations, and needs. Just because I have found a way to achieve some of mine, that doesn't mean I have screwed anybody, or will in the future.

Wal-Mart is people. Exxon is people. BP is people. And most of them are just regular Joes trying make it just like you.

Wal-Mart doesn't have dreams, goals, aspirations, and needs. Its disparate field of employees do, and they are people. The collective isn't a person, those people have already been accounted for.

 

[Floyd Eye]

I'm pretty sure I've made this point in this thread as well.

Wal-Mart doesn't have dreams, goals, aspirations, and needs. Its disparate field of employees do, and they are people. The collective isn't a person, those people have already been accounted for.

Wal-Mart is not a representative government. They don't owe you jack. If you agree to their terms and accept them upon employment, fine. Otherwise go find somewhere else to work. I notice a lot of people bitching about Wal-Mart, yet they seem to have little trouble finding employees.

Companies are not created simply because people need jobs and it is NOT any employer's job to hold your hand as you walk through life.

Half of you people sound like spoiled teenagers. Grow up and join the rest of us in the real world.

 

[Lonesomedave]

...Half of you people sound like spoiled teenagers. Grow up and join the rest of us in the real world.

yep, agree...but let's be consistent....

however you treat drinkers...that's how i want pot smokers treated.