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

[spade2you]

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.

That may be, but nobody has a little black tar heroin, little coke, and/or little meth problem. Weed wasn't a factor in any of these incidents.

While I might agree it's no big deal, I have a family to feed and can't afford to be on the wrong side of that argument in a drug test.

 

[eyeballkid]

now IF the job had a legit safety reason...or...heavy machinery, driving people around, surgery etc...I would not mind, but to sit in an office, or do labor or be creative...hell no!

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

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.

Sure, it's an issue if they are under the influence on the job. I'm not, nor is anyone else, claiming that's something that's OK in any manner.

However, if you went out with some of the guys on Friday night after work (assuming none of you were working the weekend), come Monday morning would you then start handing out notice to the people who had consumed a few beers on the previous Friday? Probably not.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

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.

Yes, it is. Without employees a business could not operate. They wouldn't be able to turn a profit if someone wasn't working the line, making sales calls, contacting partner firms, making management decisions, etc... So long as these people are doing their jobs, and are doing them well, there should be no reason to look further into their personal lives. That's like someone in HR asking an interviewee if they occasionally have a beer on the weeks. It doesn't matter.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Sure, it's an issue if they are under the influence on the job. I'm not, nor is anyone else, claiming that's something that's OK in any manner.

However, if you went out with some of the guys on Friday night after work (assuming none of you were working the weekend), come Monday morning would you then start handing out notice to the people who had consumed a few beers on the previous Friday? Probably not.

i really don't know what's so hard about that for the people on the other side of this argument to understand.

 

[aborgman]

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

If they had big enough incidents to warrant drug tests, they had big enough incidents for supervisors to fire them without a positive drug test.

 

[Ziltoid]

That may be, but nobody has a little black tar heroin, little coke, and/or little meth problem. Weed wasn't a factor in any of these incidents.

While I might agree it's no big deal, I have a family to feed and can't afford to be on the wrong side of that argument in a drug test.

Do those things even show up? I always thought harder stuff didn't leave traces after some hours.

tell that to employers who drug test...

What can I say, I'm young and progressive

 

[Turock]

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.

You mean that you researched and found my beliefs on the "want of a nail"? Our freedoms have eroded much more than I had thought.
Have a good day, and be sure to bend over and grab your ankles while you let your employer examine your personal email, facebook page, have your passwords, credit report, pee in a cup, dictate your lifestyle, and other assorted camel nose fallacies (or should that be phallic-ies).
Some people will do anything for money.

 

[BawanaRik]

So after someones dies then it's ok to test? Seems a little bit late. How about DUI? Are you against testing for that also?

Since drunk driving seems to be a pretty safe endeavor with the vast majority of drunks arriving home safe and sound.

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.

 

[alembicguy]

Time to leave when it no longer makes sense.

 

[aborgman]

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

Not really - considering there have already been cases of employers asking for potential employee facebook passwords.

In a market, employees are capital and they sell their skills. They sign a contract; they are under no obligation to sign that contract.

About 85% of all worker in the USA are "at-will" and not working under any contract.

Never mind that not ANY contract provision is enforceable.

Note - no one is saying they don't legally have the right to test. It's just a question of how many rights one is willing to give up for a job.

Some are willing to pee in a cup. Some are willing to give up their facebook password... and as the days of Sinclair Lewis and "The Jungle" show - there are some folks who will do ANYTHING no matter how horrible.

 

[BawanaRik]

Methamphetamine is related to adrenaline. It becomes part of the metabolic pathways that would normally involve adrenaline and shows up as a metabolite.

Do those things even show up? I always thought harder stuff didn't leave traces after some hours.



What can I say, I'm young and progressive

 

[Ziltoid]

Methamphetamine is related to adrenaline. It becomes part of the metabolic pathways that would normally involve adrenaline and shows up as a metabolite.

For how long?

Marijuana traces stay in your pee for about 4 weeks, way longer then just about every other drugs (I think). Hair follicles is even longer, way longer.

 

[Lowactnsatsfctn]

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.

They test for what ever you pay them to test for.

But Fact is
A person that test positive for drugs has been proven to be more likely to use drugs than a person that test negative for drugs.

 

[zachoff]

....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.

It's totally mutually beneficial. If you have no employees you have no product (unless you do everything).

If you choose to drug test your employees, so be it... That's your choice and I will choose not to work for you. It's a bummer for you because I'm really good at my job and the drug free person you end up hiring might not be. By drug testing, you're probably missing out on employees that could really make you money.

 

[Eric Perry]

Why don't you just explain to the adolescents how it is that you avoid getting caught?

I'm not sure I follow. How am I avoiding getting caught? It's not like my agency tests, and I am sidestepping the tests or anything. If my agency began testing, there would be a change in my personnel policy, and I would act accordingly. The same could be said if wearing a tie became mandatory. I would act accordingly. I'm certainly not "avoiding" anything, and I encourage you to tell me how I am.

Besides, the youth I work with are here for a multitude of reasons. Simple drug use is not a reason for referral to my agency. Ongoing mental health and emotional issues, along with behavioral symptomology, are core requirements for referral. That being said, how drug use has caused or exacerbated my clients' negative behavior is the focus when they have a substance use/abuse hx. Look in the DSM for criteria of substance abuse or dependency. Usage which negatively affects day-to-day responsibilities of life (arrests, relational problems, inability to keep a job, failing in school, etc.) is one of the main criteria. I meet no such criteria. Nor do I meet *any* of the other criteria to be diagnosed for *any* substance, except alcohol. The only criteria I meet there is my consumption amounts, which are much lower than you may expect to be a criteria.

 

[spade2you]

If they had big enough incidents to warrant drug tests, they had big enough incidents for supervisors to fire them without a positive drug test.

Not necessarily. Mistakes happen. It's a large bureaucratic hospital. Certain offenses like breaching patient confidentiality can get someone fired quickly. Mistakes may take an additional incident or two since ALL healthcare workers make them from time to time.

The positive drug test gets the ball rolling to not only get them fired from this institution, but unable to work at other institutions since they have proven themselves unfit for duty. Back in the old days, you could fire someone and they'd just go to another city or state like nothing happened.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

So after someones dies then it's ok to test? Seems a little bit late. How about DUI? Are you against testing for that also?

Since drunk driving seems to be a pretty safe endeavor with the vast majority of drunks arriving home safe and sound.

Again, that's using the assumption that people are doing those things on the job. A drug test coming up negative one, two, or how many more times doesn't mean someone won't get smacked up on the job later on. You're really only invading someone's privacy through these tests just to see what your employees do in their own free time and not what they're doing on the job. Unfortunately, that's something you can only screen for when they're already at your business.

 

[spade2you]

Methamphetamine is related to adrenaline. It becomes part of the metabolic pathways that would normally involve adrenaline and shows up as a metabolite.

Nope.

 

[Eric Perry]

Nope.

Not even close.