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

[Lowactnsatsfctn]

So it's ok to nose into someone elses life, if it saves you money?

Its not's as about what they do on their own time as much as it is a question of am I protecting my assets. View it as a preemptive measure. Its not much different than A DMV print out saying you haven't crashed.
Most people on this forum wouldn't let someone they hardly know play their most expensive Bass when they were drunk. Compare that to, Lets say, A 320,000 dollar excavator that is capable of some very expensive mistakes.

When its your company's name on the line, and you're paying for workmans comp ins its a whole different ballgame.

 

[michael_atw]

But remember, you'll never go anywhere if you touch alcohol, ever.

Better miss out on the cigar, it might be tested for tomorrow and we don't want to be under the influence of nicotine!

I also propose we institute tests to see if anyone masterbates in their own time, or worse, sex out of wedlock :scowl:

That's funny man, because I haven't seen anybody say that except you.

 

[michael_atw]

No, it is you who should revisit; especially if you believe it means something different than what I interpret. How could you even know that anyway?

Research is easy to do, my friend.

The proverb speaks in hindsight; as I stated, the "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy.

The proverbs origins reveal that this is true; that the King Edward(?) looked back in hindsight and realized the chain of events that caused him to lose a battle. He did not anticipate that such a small thing would cause his kingdom to be lost; that makes no sense.

 

[BawanaRik]

I think this is a bigger problem than anyone realizes. I'll bet 10% plus of the folks in the medial industry has drug problems. The same, ironically with Law Enforcement.

These groups an get away with it due to having a powerful union backing them up.

I have seen this, too. Bad things happened. Incidents prompted testing and the positive drug test suspended their licenses. No clue what happened after that since they were also banned from this institution.

 

[eyeballkid]

So a person is spoiled because they want to protect their own privacy, but you aren't spoiled for thinking you deserve the ability to strip others of their privacy?

+1!

 

[Lonesomedave]

what don't you understand...whether someone masturbates on their own time is definitely as relevant as whether they puff a doob on their own time...maybe more so

 

[alembicguy]

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

In my line of work yes that is what will happen. In yours maybe not. My job involves being alert so people don't die. Yours maybe not.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

When you apply for a job and sign the contract, you are obligated to abide by their principles. If you cannot, there will be someone who can.

Unfortunately, you also seem to not understand the employer-employee relationship.

It's a two-way street. If you want our skills then you have to meet us halfway on the terms of the agreement. If anything, I think I understand the bargaining position we, as potential employees, have better than you do if we all stood together and said, "You know what, we like our privacy and don't appreciate employers thinking they have the right to snoop around in our personal affairs that happen outside the workplace."

The problem occurs when someone has a weak spine and says, "I'll sacrifice my privacy and throw my fellow man's rights aside because I'm want a job and will undercut others to get it." A person should have more pride in themselves and in their fellow man than that. If a person is clearly having issues in the workplace then an employer should have the right to investigate the situation further if performance or safety issues are beginning to occur. Until then, everyone should have the right to their privacy.

 

[michael_atw]

In my line of work yes that is what will happen. In yours maybe not. My job involves being alert so people don't die. Yours maybe not.

I worked on two crossdock freight operations where it was imperative that even we got enough sleep to do the work. Multiple forklifts, fast operation, dangerous freight, driving into trucks were all safety issues - not to mention the dock height itself (about 5 feet off the ground).

I had one night where I went into one job and one of my co-workers was outright wasted. Hardly could walk. He was not only on the job, but my co-workers thought it humorous (I was new, for all I know it was a semi-regular occurrence). They left him to his own device, leaning against a door and half-asleep.

I doubt he did drugs but if he had the audacity to come on drunk, how much more willing would he come in under the influence of drugs?

 

[spade2you]

I think this is a bigger problem than anyone realizes. I'll bet 10% plus of the folks in the medial industry has drug problems. The same, ironically with Law Enforcement.

These groups an get away with it due to having a powerful union backing them up.

I didn't think healthcare workers could unionize. I don't care to look this up.

I doubt 10% of medical staff have drug problems, it's probably 5% or less. This would be hard to detect if they stay at their job for a long time and don't have any incidents.

These individuals all had a big enough incident to warrant drug tests.

I'd like to think pharmacists aren't as likely to abuse since it would be a very high temptation environment and a little too easy to get caught. The few that do almost always get caught.

 

[Musiclogic]

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.

....it's not mutually benefiscial. It's employment.

You do not have a job, I have one to offer....under the rules I put forth. If you want the job, you perform the duties and the mandates set forth at the outset or you do not get this job. It is that simple.

 

[michael_atw]

It's a two-way street.

No, it's not. These are private businesses. I don't know where some of you get off believing that they owe you something, but they don't.

You continue to call this a "rights" issue - you and others.

And no, it isn't a compromise of "pride in myself" to piss in a cup for a 5 minute test and "undercut" someone. That is absurd. That's like saying that when I run track, I should slow down and let the fat smokers who are wheezing catch up. HAH! Bye bye.

I don't sit at home and eat junk food all day, then go out and demand that women appreciate me and give me my "right" to them while they are disgusted by my obesity. Yes, this is a relevant analogy because it reflects upon that fact that other people don't owe you things merely because you think they do. You have as much right to a "woman" at the bar as you do a job.

 

[aborgman]

His values. Not wanting anyone to know that he doesn't do drugs?

How far are you willing to go with what legally amounts to a search?

Police have to get a warrant to take your bodily fluids. Or strip search you. Or get your facebook password.

You're willing to let a potential employer take your bodily fluids. Are you willing to let them inspect your house? Strip search you? Give up your facebook password?

Is there ANY privacy or rights line you won't allow a potential employer to cross?

If so - (to paraphrase Winston Churchill) we are merely haggling over the price.



Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"

Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "

Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"

Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"

Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”

 

[Lonesomedave]

I worked on two crossdock freight operations where it was imperative that even we got enough sleep to do the work. Multiple forklifts, fast operation, dangerous freight, driving into trucks were all safety issues - not to mention the dock height itself (about 5 feet off the ground).

I had one night where I went into one job and one of my co-workers was outright wasted. Hardly could walk. He was not only on the job, but my co-workers thought it humorous (I was new, for all I know it was a semi-regular occurrence). They left him to his own device, leaning against a door and half-asleep.

I doubt he did drugs but if he had the audacity to come on drunk, how much more willing would he come in under the influence of drugs?

again, for umpteenth time...no one is proposing that we allow people to either 1. come to work drunk or stoned or 2. drink or smoke at work.

you keep saying that as if it answers our argument.

what we are saying is (or, again, at least what I am saying is): if you drink or smoke off work, so what.

and are YOU differentiating between alcohol and pot....and if are...on what basis

 

[aborgman]

Keep in mind that employees do NOT have the upper hand in this economy.

Keep in mind SOME employees do NOT have the upper hand in this economy.

 

[michael_atw]

again, for umpteenth time...no one is proposing that we allow people to either 1. come to work drunk or stoned or 2. drink or smoke at work.

you keep saying that as if it answers our argument.

what we are saying is (or, again, at least what I am saying is): if you drink or smoke off work, so what.

and are YOU differentiating between alcohol and pot....and if are...on what basis

I didn't say anything as an answer to anyone. I told a story and asked what could be considered a rhetorical question.

 

[Ziltoid]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, I did not read the thread. The thing I dislike about drug testing in most of its forms is that it only targets marijuana users. Marijuana consumption outside of work hours is imo. a non-issue.

 

[spade2you]

Keep in mind SOME employees do NOT have the upper hand in this economy.

Ain't no short man safe from the hang man.

 

[Lonesomedave]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, I did not read the thread. The thing I dislike about drug testing in most of its forms is that it only targets marijuana users. Marijuana consumption outside of work hours is imo. a non-issue.

tell that to employers who drug test...

 

[michael_atw]

You're willing to let a potential employer take your bodily fluids. Are you willing to let them inspect your house? Strip search you? Give up your facebook password?

Once again, these are employers. Another slippery slope logical fallacy.

In a market, employees are capital and they sell their skills. They sign a contract; they are under no obligation to sign that contract. If a business decided to start doing such things, they would go out of business being unable to find employees. Even so, they are redundantly ad nauseum, businesses. So even if people did work these jobs, the inability to find workers would likely find that they are paid a higher wage in order to forsake things to the private business.

Once again, we are talking about businesses. If I sign a contract with a payday loan company giving them access to my account, then when they overdraw because I have not paid them under obligation of contract I can't go whine to everyone about it. The law would laugh at me and so would anyone else with common sense.

If you don't like a job because they test you - leave. If you can't find one you like where they don't test you, then suck it up or drop out. Ever since the first day a business came out and started to hire people these have been the rules. And they are far more lax now than they were even 60 years ago. My grandfather could have easily been terminated for no reason - no recourse and no government sending him a paycheck for it. You are selling your skills to an employer for a wage. Simple as that. And yes, your skills are not just physical. Too bad. They are businesses, with increasing redundance I guess I have to repeat that.