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

[Ziltoid]

I would agree to this except for that pesky little right I have as an employer to hire whomever I choose. I did not come to your house and force you to work for my company. That's like saying that just because little Jimmy is dumb as hell he ought to still be accepted to Harvard. What about little Jimmy's right to a quality education?

You do not have the right to ask your candidates if they are married, what are their sexual practices, if they have kids, their religion and so on. Those are considered intrusive, a pee in the bottle test is as intrusive as asking me if I have any "weird sexual practices".

What happens on my time, happens on my time, it's none of the employer's business as long as both do not interfere.

You gave him the right to intrude when you took the job, knowing full well that there would be random drug testing. Just as I forfeited the right to drive with an alcohol content of more than .04 when I got my CDL. Or any other of the things I agreed to WHEN I TOOK THE JOB.

One does not forfeits his rights when he takes a job. It doesn't work that way! You can't come to my home, break-in and go take a shower in my bathroom before checking the content of my dresser just because you're my employer.

The only part I can agree with you is that the guy who took the job agreed to the pee test. But that's not the issue I'm discussing here, the idea I'm defending is that such test should not be legal unless there's suspicions as they are intrusive.

 

[Floyd Eye]

If someone is high, it gets leaked into the saliva. We are constantly swallowing spit, which must be replenished to keep our mouths and throats moist. When saliva glands make more, they also draw whatever else is in the bloodstream. THC gets stored in fat cells and slowly metabolized from these cells, which is why it "hangs around" in urine tests for so long.

If a test like this was proven to be effective, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with this being substituted for random testing for weed. As far as making this a law, I can't see it happening, but that is neither here nor there as far as this argument is concerned, I guess.

 

[Unrepresented]

And some people here seem to feel that other people owe them something.

Yes. I feel entitled to liberties; some of which are established and some of which haven't been fully protected because the changing nature of technology.

I'll pose the question again. The gas company eliminates random drug testing for weed. I come to work stoned, gas up gramma's house and blow her and her neighbors to smithereens. Are you going to hold the company liable for me being intoxicated at work? Are you going to take their money?

If the laws are changed to deny a gas company excessive intrusion into the lives of its employees, then the gas company hasn't failed to protect the public. The criminal liability is on the intoxicated employee, and the costs of the damage are for insurance to pay for.

 

[Lonesomedave]

You do not have the right to ask your candidates if they are married, what are their sexual practices, if they have kids, their religion and so on. Those are considered intrusive, a pee in the bottle test is as intrusive as asking me if I have any "weird sexual practices".

What happens on my time, happens on my time, it's none of the employer's business as long as both do not interfere.

now this, i have got to agree with...as long as you don't test positive for intoxication RIGHT NOW,,,

and the current "pee in a bottle" tests don't test for "RIGHT NOW", hence, should be illegal.

develop a test that does test for"right now" and then you can use it...and don't try to put the onus on us to develop such a test...you want the test...you develop it.

 

[Floyd Eye]

You do not have the right to ask your candidates if they are married, what are their sexual practices, if they have kids, their religion and so on. Those are considered intrusive, a pee in the bottle test is as intrusive as asking me if I have any "weird sexual practices".

What happens on my time, happens on my time, it's none of the employer's business as long as both do not interfere.

This I do not agree with. I could be persuaded to accept that an employer is not obligated to discriminate against an employee that uses a LEGAL drug on their own time, if it can be proven that it isn't occurring at work, but employers have a legal obligation to insure that a heroin addict is not the guy building those airplanes. Or flying them. Or driving my kids to school.

 

[deeptubes]

If a test like this was proven to be effective, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with this being substituted for random testing for weed. As far as making this a law, I can't see it happening, but that is neither here nor there as far as this argument is concerned, I guess.

Some police departments use them to test for marijuana DUI. They are admissible evidence in court.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Yes. I feel entitled to liberties; some of which are established and some of which haven't been fully protected because the changing nature of technology.

If the laws are changed to deny a gas company excessive intrusion into the lives of its employees, then the gas company hasn't failed to protect the public. The criminal liability is on the intoxicated employee, and the costs of the damage are for insurance to pay for.

So now employees must maintain their own insurance? How many people do you think would go to work for the gas company if they had to incur that sort of obligation? I'll tell you how many. None.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Some police departments use them to test for marijuana DUI. They are admissible evidence in court.

You guys need to start lobbying then. As I said, smoking weed is not important enough to me that I am going to waste any time fighting for it.

 

[fdeck]

If someone is high, it gets leaked into the saliva. We are constantly swallowing spit, which must be replenished to keep our mouths and throats moist. When saliva glands make more, they also draw whatever else is in the bloodstream. It gets stored in fat cells and slowly metabolized from these cells, which is why it "hangs around" in urine tests for so long.

Right now there is a huge field of study, of the things that can be detected in saliva. It's amazing. For instance: Pregnancy. I have an occasional band mate who is a scientist studying pig spit.

However, I think there would be a mounting list of challenges to applying it in the workplace. Remember, that this kind of testing has to be done perfectly with no screw ups, or your liability exposure exceeds any possible business benefit. You can't just have the office boy take the sample and mail it to the testing facility. Chances are, trying to do it in an uncontrolled environment such as a factory is impossible. Taking somebody off the line and sending them to a test lab would be costly in terms of productivity. And since more lower-level workers tend to work "out in the open" it would be hard to pull them off the line without a) embarrassing them; and b) making it look like "certain people" are getting singled out.

With any kind of screening process, you're walking a fine line between the benefits of weeding out bad apples, versus the cost of creating a hostile workplace environment.

At the very least, every business would want other businesses to try it out for a while, to see how it pans out in practice and in the courts.

 

[Floyd Eye]

You do not have the right to ask your candidates if they are married, what are their sexual practices, if they have kids, their religion and so on. Those are considered intrusive, a pee in the bottle test is as intrusive as asking me if I have any "weird sexual practices".

What happens on my time, happens on my time, it's none of the employer's business as long as both do not interfere.



One does not forfeits his rights when he takes a job. It doesn't work that way! You can't come to my home, break-in and go take a shower in my bathroom before checking the content of my dresser just because you're my employer.

The only part I can agree with you is that the guy who took the job agreed to the pee test. But that's not the issue I'm discussing here, the idea I'm defending is that such test should not be legal unless there's suspicions as they are intrusive.

Well, you signed a piece of paper stating that you read and understood the rules and the consequences for breaking them. Your employer has the right to enforce any rules he wishes ( Excepting the aforementioned federal civil rights) and you just signed a piece of paper legally binding you to that contract. So, yeah, you did forfeit the right to smoke dope when you took the job.

 

[Lonesomedave]

You guys need to start lobbying then. As I said, smoking weed is not important enough to me that I am going to waste any time fighting for it.

if what deep tubes said is true, that seems like the answer...

and, BTW, Floyd, we can make you want to by making the current tests illegal...that would put us all on the same side...ie having a test which tests for 'right now", since none of us want intoxicated employees on the job.

 

[Ziltoid]

Well, you signed a piece of paper stating that you read and understood the rules and the consequences for breaking them. Your employer has the right to enforce any rules he wishes ( Excepting the aforementioned federal civil rights) and you just signed a piece of paper legally binding you to that contract. So, yeah, you did forfeit the right to smoke dope when you took the job.

"right to smoke dope"... are you not reading what we write? The drug usage is not the issue here, it's the privacy invasion.

edit: I wouldn't mind "right-now tests", as those would be used to check if your private life interferes with work.

 

[deeptubes]

Right now there is a huge field of study, of the things that can be detected in saliva. It's amazing. For instance: Pregnancy. I have an occasional band mate who is a scientist studying pig spit.

However, I think there would be a mounting list of challenges to applying it in the workplace. Remember, that this kind of testing has to be done perfectly with no screw ups, or your liability exposure exceeds any possible business benefit. You can't just have the office boy take the sample and mail it to the testing facility. Chances are, trying to do it in an uncontrolled environment such as a factory is impossible. Taking somebody off the line and sending them to a test lab would be costly in terms of productivity. And since more lower-level workers tend to work "out in the open" it would be hard to pull them off the line without a) embarrassing them; and b) making it look like "certain people" are getting singled out.

With any kind of screening process, you're walking a fine line between the benefits of weeding out bad apples, versus the cost of creating a hostile workplace environment.

At the very least, every business would want other businesses to try it out for a while, to see how it pans out in practice and in the courts.

It uses a swab and gives results in 1 minute.

edit: 5-7 minutes. My bad.

 

[Unrepresented]

So now employees must maintain their own insurance? How many people do you think would go to work for the gas company if they had to incur that sort of obligation? I'll tell you how many. None.

Nope. Homeowners insurance for the house.

If the homeowner wants to sue, the homeowner will sue. Nothing is going to stop that. Whether they will win or not is another question.

 

[Floyd Eye]

"right to smoke dope"... are you not reading what we write? The drug usage is not the issue here, it's the privacy invasion.

If that is the case then you must obviously believe that it is an invasion of privacy for a company ( Let's say the company that transports your kids to school) to test employees for things like meth, coke, heroin and x?

 

[Floyd Eye]

Nope. Homeowners insurance for the house.

If the homeowner wants to sue, the homeowner will sue. Nothing is going to stop that. Whether they will win or not is another question.

I can guarantee you they would sue. Not only the employee but the gas company. They would likely win too ( especially with all the ridiculous judges we have these days), which is the ENTIRE REASON that companies have policies against drug use.

 

[fdeck]

It uses a swab and gives results in 1 minute.

Cool. Now let's take a look at:

1. Calibration and certification records for the test equipment
2. Serial numbers, lot numbers, and expiration dates for the chemicals
3. Operating procedure and training records
4. Records for the refrigerator used to store the chemicals

Etc. Etc.

 

[Ziltoid]

If that is the case then you must obviously believe that it is an invasion of privacy for a company ( Let's say the company that transports your kids to school) to test employees for things like meth, coke, heroin and x?

You're creating a false dilemma.

 

[Lowactnsatsfctn]

Cool. Now let's take a look at:

1. Calibration and certification records for the test equipment
2. Serial numbers, lot numbers, and expiration dates for the chemicals
3. Operating procedure and training records
4. Records for the refrigerator used to store the chemicals

Etc. Etc.

That sounds expensive already

 

[fdeck]

Nope. Homeowners insurance for the house.

If the homeowner wants to sue, the homeowner will sue. Nothing is going to stop that. Whether they will win or not is another question.

Actually, the homeowner will get a pay-out, and then the insurance company will sue the gas company.