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

[alembicguy]

and drunk...how do you feel about him being drunk the night before.

just askin'

I feel if you have to work the next day and your job requires your full control of your senses so YOU don't cause harm or worse kill somebody then you should be responsible enough to manage your drug and alcohol intake appropriately.

 

[Turock]

Nope. I didn't say that. I only said that it is OK for me to show you the door if you DON'T want to pee in a cup to save me some money.

And my employees are paid higher than average for what they do. They are respected, as am I. I say yes sir, no sir, please and thank you to the lowest paid person on the staff. I give out random bonuses. Everyone here is happy. But they know where I stand as well (which is rare these days). Just because I REQUIRE a few things of people who I PAY, that does not make me a jerk. That makes me the boss. If they don't like it, they can start their own company, mortgage their own house to start up, work 60 hours a week for years and let THEIR employees do whatever they want. Heck, they can smoke up at lunch together, at THEIR business. They are still free people. I'm not chaining anyone to a desk. They can leave at any time.

So... you pay them; you own them; you control them, even what they may or may not do while on vacation. Sounds kinda jerkish to me.
I'll pee in a cup for ya, you hold the cup.

 

[duff beer]

Nope. I didn't say that. I only said that it is OK for me to show you the door if you DON'T want to pee in a cup to save me some money.

And my employees are paid higher than average for what they do. They are respected, as am I. I say yes sir, no sir, please and thank you to the lowest paid person on the staff. I give out random bonuses. Everyone here is happy. But they know where I stand as well (which is rare these days). Just because I REQUIRE a few things of people who I PAY, that does not make me a jerk. That makes me the boss. If they don't like it, they can start their own company, mortgage their own house to start up, work 60 hours a week for years and let THEIR employees do whatever they want. Heck, they can smoke up at lunch together, at THEIR business. They are still free people. I'm not chaining anyone to a desk. They can leave at any time.

No. That is unfair. I DEMAND that you hire me under my conditions and my conditions only!!

 

[alembicguy]

I don't think drug testing has anything to do with nosing in on somebody else's life. When you have to pay the insurance for a business that has had numerous accidents involving impaired coordination because someone is at work with less brain cells than the next employee who wasn't out at break smoking a doobie.
If you smoke pot and drink and don't see anything wrong with it that's fine, there is a bunch of low to medium paying jobs for you to obtain. All I know is there isn't a lot of high paying jobs that require total concentration on the employees part in my area that drunks and stoners are occupying.

 

[michael_atw]

It's not so much being owed a living, it's that a lot of people are tired of having every single facet of their life read into, for the privilage to work. People are simply drawing a line in the sand at where they believe work should stop being part of their life.

You just proved the point of the person you quoted. Work isn't a "privilege", you're selling your skills to an employer who pays you for those skills. If you don't stand up to the test, then step aside and let someone who does.

I personally can handle laying off the pipe in order to live a reasonable existence. My father did it, my grandfather did it, my great-grandfather did it, my great-great-grandfather did it.

This is the first generation of wholesale "entitled brat disorder".

 

[zachoff]

If you smoke pot and drink and don't see anything wrong with it that's fine, there is a bunch of low to medium paying jobs for you to obtain.

Quite presumptuous wouldn't you say? I know a couple handfuls of people that make $100k+ and smoke daily. Business owners, coordinators, programmers, architects, freelancers... There are many jobs out there where it matters not what you did the night, week, or month before. Then again, I'm in CO and weed has been all but legal for the last 7 years.

What's the difference between a poor drunk and a rich drunk? The rich one drinks better booze.

 

[Turock]

I don't think drug testing has anything to do with nosing in on somebody else's life. When you have to pay the insurance for a business that has had numerous accidents involving impaired coordination because someone is at work with less brain cells than the next employee who wasn't out at break smoking a doobie.

Yeah, because as everyone knows, if one doesn't drug test, all employees will be smoking doobies at break and having numerous accidents.

 

[MatticusMania]

What I do on my own time, away from work, is irrelevant to work so long as it is not affecting my performance or productivity. Bottom line.

I agree.

Have you considered though, that they may only be testing for certain drugs/levels?

Straight out, I smoke pot regularly. When I got hired where I work now I had to submit to pre-employment drug screening. No random testing. I drank a bottle of Carbo-clean, and passed my test. I had smoked two days prior (not knowing I was going to have an interview). Id say its likely not a secret to my employers that I smoke pot. There is a fake plant outside of my office that looks like a pot plant. My boss got mad when someone tried to move it.

Do I like having to submit to a drug test, no not really. But, I needed a job, and had a good offer on the table. Ive been with this company since 2005 and my habits outside of work havent changed much, except that I moderate my use of illicit substances much more, for my own reasons though, not because of work.

I'm getting tired of the excuse, "If you have nothing to hide then you should have no issues with drug tests, searches of your vehicle, searches of your person, people reading through your personal emails, people checking up on your browser history, etc..." It doesn't matter if someone has something to hide or not; their personal space, property, and privacy should be respected until there is reason not to respect it.

I agree.

was it the book 1984 that had the phrase "Honest people have nothing to hide"?

i think so, but feel free to correct me...anyway

the phrase was jokingly corrupted to "Honest people have nowhere to hide"...that about sums it up.

you either want to live in a police state or you want freedom and liberty...i opt for the latter.

Another +1

 

[michael_atw]

What is surprising to me is the number of people who willfully give up their freedoms. I'd have to be pretty damn hungry to submit to a test to prove that I didn't smoke pot on a weekend two weeks prior.
I agree with lonesomedave's "drunk right now...ok. lifestyle test...not ok".

In this case, they aren't invading anything. You're selling your skills to an employer who pays you for them. Don't like it? Go run through the forest. Most of this ideologue principled liberty defying of reality belongs romping around naked in a forest. We're the freest, most mobile group of people ever in history. I guess that's not enough for some people.

 

[spade2you]

I don't think drug testing has anything to do with nosing in on somebody else's life.

The coworker with the Xanax and coke addiction had a few costly incidents, which prompted the drug test.

I am not at liberty to discuss details. Let's just say his personal life was the least of our worries at that point.

 

[zachoff]

You just proved the point of the person you quoted. Work isn't a "privilege", you're selling your skills to an employer who pays you for those skills. If you don't stand up to the test, then step aside and let someone who does.

I personally can handle laying off the pipe in order to live a reasonable existence. My father did it, my grandfather did it, my great-grandfather did it, my great-great-grandfather did it.

This is the first generation of wholesale "entitled brat disorder".

I don't think my choice of protecting my privacy is entitlement. Employers don't own their employees. Employees don't owe their employers. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. Some employers don't see it that way and I choose not to work for them. It's pretty simple, really.

 

[michael_atw]

No. That is unfair. I DEMAND that you hire me under my conditions and my conditions only!!

This is supposed to be sarcasm and satire but sadly, it is the state of many 20-something (and other demographic groups) white middle-class people in this country. Selfishness has taken a front-seat to common sense. At some point one jumps the shark from reasonable discourse about "freedom" and "liberty" to a full-scale ignorance. I have some friends who have made that jump.

 

[Munjibunga]

It is rather insulting to think that I should have to prove to anyone that I don't do drugs! It's like being told you are guilty until proven innocent. But I don't care enough to make any fuss over it. If an employer wants me to pee in a cup in exchange for employment, that's what I'm going to do.

Drug users are a huge liability to employers for a host of reasons. Drug users are also dangerous to other employees. I don't want to work next to someone who's on drugs operating machinery that could hurt me. It's for your own safety as much as the employer's liability.

In my business, how would you like to be a soil technician taking a test on the ground with 50-ton earth movers running within 20 feet and being operated by a crack head?

 

[Lonesomedave]

i think all of you guys who are supporting this (or at least some of you) are justifying your positions with a red herring...

no one has said employees should be allowed to either come to work high or get high at work...in the same way that no one has said anyone should be allowed to come to work drunk or to drink at work.

what we are saying is (or at least what I am saying) is: treat pot the way we treat alcohol.

there are tests to determine whether someone has been drinking RIGHT NOW...we don't care whether they had a couple of drinks last night.

develop such a test for pot...prevent them from either working high or smoking at work...no problem with that.

but DO NOT punish them for having a doob off work, and then say "oh, if you DRINK off work, that's ok"...for one thing it is hypocritical, and for another thing, in some cases now, you are punishing them for perfectly legal behavior.

is there a test that can show whether someone is under the influence of pot right now in the same way we can test for alcohol right now...don't know, but i have been led to believe not.

so, get on your testing companies, you bosses and make them develop such a test.

until then, unless you actually observe someone smoking at work, or observe some kind of stoned behavior at work, lay off....

or would you rather just have the system we have now, where you fire people for any pot use at all, while you go off to enjoy your beer and whisky off duty, and sanctimoniously talk about "drug users"?

 

[Munjibunga]

This is supposed to be sarcasm and satire but sadly, it is the state of many 20-something (and other demographic groups) white middle-class people in this country. Selfishness has taken a front-seat to common sense. At some point one jumps the shark from reasonable discourse about "freedom" and "liberty" to a full-scale ignorance. I have some friends who have made that jump.

Thankew.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I don't think drug testing has anything to do with nosing in on somebody else's life. When you have to pay the insurance for a business that has had numerous accidents involving impaired coordination because someone is at work with less brain cells than the next employee who wasn't out at break smoking a doobie.
If you smoke pot and drink and don't see anything wrong with it that's fine, there is a bunch of low to medium paying jobs for you to obtain. All I know is there isn't a lot of high paying jobs that require total concentration on the employees part in my area that drunks and stoners are occupying.

There is a difference between drinking in your spare time and drinking on the job, just like there is a difference between smoking weed on the job or off the job.

Yes, if you drink or do drugs you'll end up in a low or medium paying job. Er, yeah. Ok.

 

[michael_atw]

I don't think my choice of protecting my privacy is entitlement. Employers don't own their employees. Employees don't owe their employers. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. Some employers don't see it that way and I choose not to work for them. It's pretty simple, really.

And they choose not to hire you. If you can't look at the reality of a private employer-employee relationship, then you don't have a job. I choose to make a living instead of fight for frivolous things. There are reasonable things to fight for and ridiculous things. I don't live an ideologue existence but a realistic one.

 

[two fingers]

You just proved the point of the person you quoted. Work isn't a "privilege", you're selling your skills to an employer who pays you for those skills. If you don't stand up to the test, then step aside and let someone who does.

I personally can handle laying off the pipe in order to live a reasonable existence. My father did it, my grandfather did it, my great-grandfather did it, my great-great-grandfather did it.

This is the first generation of wholesale "entitled brat disorder".

Preach! +1 billion

If I pay for your skills, I own the skills while you are with me, not the man. I frankly don't care what you do on vacation or at home. I don't use drug tests. But if I CHOSE to start using them, my employees could take the test, or take about five minutes to gather their stuff.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

no one has said employees should be allowed to either come to work high or get high at work...in the same way that no one has said anyone should be allowed to come to work drunk or to drink at work.

what we are saying is (or at least what I am saying) is: treat pot the way we treat alcohol.

there are tests to determine whether someone has been drinking RIGHT NOW...we don't care whether they had a couple of drinks last night.

develop such a test for pot...prevent them from either working high or smoking at work...no problem with that.

but DO NOT punish them for having a doob off work, and then say "oh, if you DRINK off work, that's ok"...for one thing it is hypocritical, and for another thing, in some cases now, you are punishing them for perfectly legal behavior.

is there a test that can show whether someone is under the influence of pot right now in the same way we can test for alcohol right now...don't know, but i have been led to believe not.

so, get on your testing companies, you bosses and make them develop such a test.

until then, unless you actually observe someone smoking at work, or observe some kind of stoned behavior at work, lay off....

or would you rather just have the system we have now, where you fire people for any pot use at all, while you go off to enjoy your beer and whisky off duty, and sanctimoniously talk about "drug users"?

Bingo.

 

[BawanaRik]

I am against drug testing simply because what I do is my business. However I am enough to a pragmatic to submit and also to realize that the potential employer has rights also.

I would wonder why they don't test for tobacco abuse or for that matter MacDonalds addictions.

The other factoid that I found interesting is that the testing has been shown to be inaccurate 50% of the time. If you've never had the opportunity to work in a contract lab you should try it. A positive opens a can of worms that many will avoid so they can get more work done and advance in the company.

A word of advice, benzodiazepines can show positive a month after taking them. So that Ambien you took a month ago can cost you a job. Keep the container with the doctors name and info. And when you get the script ensure that all info is correct.