Does anyone approve of drug testing on the job?

[Nikia]

Recent governmnet furthering of drug testing as well as my own upcoming preemployment drug testing reminds me of this.
What does drug testing have to do with anything? For preemployment testing, if a potential employee is interviewed extensively and has good references, couldn't an employer be reasonably certain that the employee does not have a work affecting drug problem. Since the applicant may have plenty of time to prepare, won't most applicants prepare.
What is the purpose of random drug testing? What business is it of the employer if the employee uses drugs off of company time? As far as reports about drug testing reducing problems at work, couldn't an employer just fire problem employees? What good does it do to test and fire good non problem employees?
Doesn't making drug users unemployable make them more likely to turn to other crime? Doesn't stable employment minimize the impact of mild drug use for most Americans?
Even if drugs are really bad and negatively impact employment, why are marijuana users, who are often impacted the least negatively, targeted by the most common drug test. Why is it that the cocaine user that used their drug of choice a few days ago able to maintain employment while the marijuana user who used their drug of choice a few dayds ago fired?
Why is it that alcoholics are protected under the American's with Disabilities Act while illegal drug users are not? Isn't illegal use and especially addiction a health problem?

[happyending]

1. job categories

Sure, in some job categories, for example,
airline pilots and President of the United States,
drug testing is perfectly reasonable.

[TimMooring]

37. Job performance should be the criteria

In nearly every type of job, performance should be enough to decide whether the person should stay or go. Exceptions for certain types of jobs, like sports for instance, might be understandable. The reason I feel this way is that it would otherwise give people using the drugs an advantage over those that don't. And as I understand it the long term health implications are quite serious - so it can't be a free-for-all.

[cheezus]

50. tests should extent to being high/drunk on the job

what do I care if my pilot smoked a doob on his weekend off? If he's high at takeoff, however, that's a different matter.

the problem is that drug testing isn't used to stop people from being high at work, it's used to root out drug users. It's not legal for the government to snoop in your blood, but an employer can.

[HornBuckler]

2. I Agree Wholeheartedly

Drug Testing Is A Waste Of Everyone's Time And Energy

[PaveThePlanet2]

36. So you don't mind the guy,...

driving a multi-ton 18-wheeler next to you being doped up on something? Hell, I'm afraid of the soccer mom in the SUV next to me talking on the cell-phone doped up on that crap Starbucks sells

[comsymp]

45. Problem is, these tests don't work that way

What they show is whether you've used drugs within a given period.

Coke/Heroin - w/in 2-3 days
Weed- depending on frequency of use, couple days to couple months.

Additionally, specificity is a problem. For instance, certain over-the-counter cold medicines (wanna say diphenhydramine but can't remember for sure) can show up as + for THC. A poppy seed bagel can show up as + for opiates (heroin).

[cheezus]

52. of course we mind. but we have rights in this country

we'd mind if he was sleepy. should we set up monitoring systems in people's bedrooms so we can make sure they're sleeping 8 hours a nite?

we'd also mind if he was a pedophile. does that mean we should search everyone's homes and computers for kidde porn?


but you need a WARRANT and PROBABLE CAUSE before you can search someone. Searching INSIDE someone's body is even more private than their residence.

[SemperEadem]

139. I'm far more concerned that that same truck driver

has had enough sleep to make the trip safely.

Drowsy drivers are a far bigger danger.

[quinnox]

3. Sure

I can understand why employers would want drug testing done, especially in certain high risk and stressful jobs involving the public like police officer or fireman or emergency health woker, etc. It would be essential to know that these kind of jobs were filled with people not wacked out on drugs.

[timdoodle]

6. Quinnox

I agree, there are certain positions where drug testing is necessary for the public good, but some jobs certainly don't need it. Examples of jobs for drug testing:

1. Cops/Emergency Workers of any kind
2. Anyone who deals with kids
3. Politicians - Lord knows we need this
4. Commercial drivers


etc.

[quinnox]

16. I agree

n/t

[bonemachine]

28. I think we need more

Drug using politicians.

[cheezus]

54. DISAGREE TOTALLY - they shouldn't come to work high

of course. and there could be tests for that, if performance is noted to be low. but why should I care if the emt smoked a joint on his weekend off last month?

[democratreformed]

72. Another example - crane operator, welder (esp. if he is welding things

that will hold something or someone up in the air)

[babzilla]

135. how often have you witnessed someone

"whacked out on drugs" in the workplace?

How often have you witnessed someone "whacked out on stress" in the workplace?

I'm all for mandatory stress testing in the workplace, and fire them if they test positive.

[Abe Linkman]

4. I DO approve of testing for "drugs" such as: stupidity, greed, lying...

to employees, cheating stockholders, propensity for "back stabbing",
etc.

Testing for substances you eat, smoke or otherwise ingest is as morally wrong as criminalizing any other victimless activity.

[stopthegop]

5. dons flame proof suit...

up to the employer...employment at a given place is not a right..if you don't like the boss's rules, go elsewhere...

[maddezmom]

20. I guess I'll don mine too

a lot depends on the job description and what kind of drugs are they testing.

[Djinn]

40. not quite

a boss can't grope all his/her staff, or refuse to hire people of a certain colour - or atleast they can't here I'm assuming there are atleast SOME discrimination laws in the US??

That said I think any job where the public safety is a question, eg police (or anyone armed) pilots, drivers and anyone who's use of machinery could hurt others.

But an mailroom assitant or receptionist - why is it any of the employers business if they like an E over the weekend - surely their performance is enough - if they do a great job why should the boss care - how does it effect them.

No-one will ever get ME peeing in a jar for a job

[IrateCitizen]

51. So the 4th amendment has no bearing in the workplace?

Would you mind if your employer went through your things every day while you were at work? Would you mind if they installed cameras throughout the workplace to monitor your every move?

Where does it end? Shouldn't continued employment be based on performance rather than these extemporaneous factors?

[cheezus]

55. I have a question about your reasoning

lets say the ABC corp wants to make a thorough search of my home to make sure I'm not commiting any crimes or following any kind of lifesytle ABC doesn't like.

is it still up to the employer now?

[democratreformed]

77. Let's say you are a regular drug user

and the employer, much like my dad, is not savvy enough to tell when someone is on drugs by looking or talking with them.

If you are a regular drug user, the drugs affect your performance and attitude even if you do not inhale, ingest, or whatever "on the job".

Our primary problem here is meth. It is destroying our city, our county, and our state. We tried to do without drug testing until our business almost fell apart. One bad apple helps the problem to permeate throughout a whole organization.

[cheezus]

127. then it's not about drugs at all

quote: If you are a regular drug user, the drugs affect your performance and attitude even if you do not inhale, ingest, or whatever "on the job".

If someone is suffering from poor performance and bad attitude you do something about it, whether they are on drugs or not.

As for your primary problem being meth... in most cases drugs are a symptom, not a problem. Tackling this problem by testing for drugs is like curing chicken pox by scratching the pox off.

[democratreformed]

142. I agree. I was totally off the mark on this one.

Thanks to you and babzilla for helping me see the light.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. Only for undercover drug agents.

They shouldn't be immune from drug laws.

[TacticalPeek]

8. Sure.

Just because it looks good, smells good, has tiny red hairs or whatever, doesn't mean it's good.

Quality control is always important, even on the job. (The safe jobs I mean.)


:smoke:

[2Design]

9. yes I agree with drug testing

If someone is actively doing drugs, they might harm themselves or others. Also, people who are addicted to drugs will steal to get money to support their habit. So they cost the companies money.

You will just have to do your drugs on vacations and weekends :):)

[Bluzmann57]

14. If I do drugs on my own time

it's my own damn business. I work with mobile equipment frequently and am subject to random testing, so I don't do drugs anymore. I know a few at my workplace who do drugs, and they have never stolen from the employer. If they steal, they will get caught and they know it. If a person gets high on their own time, they are not high on the job, usually.

[Nikia]

15. But that's not what drug tests determine

As I said, the least harmful illegal drug stays in one's system the longest. If I smoke pot on Friday night, I will probably test positive on Monday morning if I am not overhydrated or something. If I do cocaine on Friday night, I probably will be clean on Monday morning. I believe that psychoactives like shrooms and LSD are either not tested for or leave the body soon after the high is over.
Anyway, what harm does it do to my employer if I were to take a few hits of pot everyday after work in the privacy of my own home, just as some people drink a couple beers after work?
If the tests tested intoxication, I would not have a problem with testing. If someone has a serious addiction, they should be given treatment although I suppose that it could be argued that they should not be hired in the first place and that's what preemploment test test.
As far as stealing, back to the society as a whole part. Someone with a relatively low cost habit(under a few hundred dollars per month)is better off employed. By working, they can afford their habit and will not need to steal. If money disappears, the incident should be investigated but people steal for other reasons too.

[sangh0]

10. I don't

Testing drugs while I'm on the job makes it hard for me to get anything done.

[hedgetrimmer]

39. Does Kerry support job drug testing, if so do you now?

[sangh0]

93. Please ask that question again at a later date

Like sometime when you're not in the middle of testing drugs.

[hedgetrimmer]

137. Funny, non-answer...

[KTM]

11. It's all about Insurance

Insurance companies give companies a small break if they require mandatory drug testing. Thats it. Violate your privacy, save a few bucks.

Nevermind that the usual testing, at least insofaras as pot, cannot demonstrate that you have ever been on drugs AT WORK. Unless they are doing the saliva test (which will show only very recent ingestion) they can only show that you have at some point in the last 30 days or so used drugs... so they can fire or penalize you for something that may not have taken place on their property, may never have impacted your work, and never has put them at any risk. It has been deemed unconstitutional to perform random drug testing in some states for this very reason - it is an undue and inconclusive invasion of your privacy.

[LTR]

24. Yes, but does that explain the cost of drug testing?

Drug testing can be extremely expensive.

[comsymp]

43. Standard urine testing costs about $15-20

There are other, newer methodologies that are far less expensive- small kits which can be done onsite (very similar to home pregnancy tests) for $5 or less.

[LTR]

48. Hmmm...guess I was wrong

I had heard that it was even more expensive. Must be cheaper now.

[comsymp]

49. It may be, for some companies- if so, they need to

renegotiate w/their clinical lab.

Now, things like hair testing are higher but urine testing by GC/MS is the industry standard. (wanna guess what I used to do for a living?)

[gpandas]

87. nice to see somebody...

at du use those three words- "I was wrong", in my short du time it has been rare

[comsymp]

103. Agreed- speaks to character

And in one simple post, it appears we've completely ruled out any possibility of Rat as being an undercover Bushie!

[LTR]

130. That's a relief

At least I haven't blown my disruptor cover.

Ooops!

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gulfcoastliberal]

53. Amen brother...n/t

[KG]

13. when alchohol is the real scourge on society

it's ludicris to test for something as benign as weed.

[blondeatlast]

17. Tough call, because alcohold is not tested for.

When you have the lives of others as your responsibility, I think it is reasonable--as long as your employer at least asks about alcohol use as well.

I have never used "illicit" drugs, and I would have no problem with an employer inquring about that as long as they also asked about alcohol use--and of course I drink alcohol.

[Bridget Burke]

18. If there were better tests......

One might consider testing pilots, surgeons, etc. Performing their jobs while zonked could cause problems.

But what about pot? As previously noted, it stays in your system long after you're back to "normal".

One reason for lots of drug testing: The pressure to advertise a "Drug Free Workplace". Companies get caught up in this & do random testing on everybody. One guy I know was fired although his employer hated to do it. He'd been at band practice the previous night & the evil THC was in his system. His job: Graphic designer!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

78. "If the drugs don't ruin our life WE will."

Couldn't the boss just shop for other insurance company and avoid losing his best employees? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[stevedeshazer]

19. My pee belongs to me n/t

[progressivebydesign]

21. I agree with it.

Sorry.. flame me silly. Drug use, and alcohol abuse result in increased medical costs (which is passed on to each person in the insurance policy for the company). It results in reduced work output, more social problems.. which also affect the company, and other workers. Sorry.. if I was hiring people (which I have) I'd run screaming from people who abuse drugs or alcohol. People who do those things have emotional issues, escapism issues that would make them a pretty bad risk professionally. There is also the safety issue.

[Nikia]

27. But they can use all the alcohol that they want legally

I read somewhere that alcoholics were protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act as long as they don't show up to work drunk.
Not everyone that uses drugs, especially just occaisionally, is a safety or health issue. Few employers would think twice about hiring or keeping on someone who averages 3 alcoholic beverages per week as long as they weren't consumed at work. Why should they be prohibited from hiring or forced to fire someone who averages 3 joints or less per week who consumes outside of company time?

[comsymp]

44. Huge diference between use/abuse

I'd be apprehensive about hiring anyone who abuses anything: drugs, alcohol, food, sex. But an employee who gets high, drunk, laid, whatever on Friday night has absolutely no detrimental effect on his/her company on Monday morning.

As far as employers utilizing these tests out of concern for pontetial employee theft, I'd be far more concerned about a prospective employee who abuses his/her credit cards.

[cheezus]

59. here comes the requested (but thoughtful) flame

what about people who engage in other risk activities. bungee jumping, motorcycle driving, rock climbling. I eat lots of fatty foods - my heart attack will result in increased medical costs. going to give me a blood test to check my cholestoral?

what about people who were abused as children. if there was a test for that would you give it so you could weed out those with emotional issues? they sound like a bad risk.

how about people that don't sleep enough. going to monitor them during the nite to make sure they aren't tired the next morning?


Maybe there's someone who is sexually deviant. could cost you a lot of money in harassment lawsuits. going to search his home for voyer videos, whips and chains?

[Zorra]

22. IMO, drug testing is an invasion of privacy.

If you want to snoop in my urine, get a search warrant.

And hey, if it is ok to subject maintenance workers, factory workers, etc., to drug testing, why not make it mandatory for all public officials, starting with Bu$h and his administration.

Or are they "too good" to be exposed to these government sanctioned humiliations that us regular ol' people have to put up with?

[MrSlayer]

23. No, it's an invasion of privacy.

I'm totally against it.

[onethatcares]

25. here's a funny one

working on a construction site, i accidentally mis fired a nail gun that shot into a co workers hand. He got tested, i got nothing. Not that i would use any kind of illicit drugs of course, but the rationale just seems weird.

Face it, in the trades world, the insurance companies want to get out of paying any claim the can, kinda like the entire insured world. You pay, you make a claim, you get cancelled or your premiums go sky high, geez what a scam.

[guitar man]

26. Bring 'em on down

I'll test them out :)

[eridani]

29. Only where there is a 'for cause' situation that is performance related

Otherwise, nobody's beeswax. If you are going to test people, test them directly for alertness and coordination.

[babzilla]

30. the constitution doesn't approve

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Lefty48197]

31. The constitution says it's OK to search people to see if they did anything

"wrong". Doesn't it?

[babzilla]

47. not without a warrant

issued by a judge, based on probable cause.

[IrateCitizen]

109. Not in the least

The Constitution says that it is illegal to search someone unless there is probable cause to believe that they have done something wrong. Big difference.

Your statement operates under the presumption of guilt and the need to prove innocence. The Constitution operates under the presumption of innocence and need to prove guilt.

Big, BIG difference.

[RobinA]

32. Employment Drug Testing

is a BS waste of time for anybody. Pilots get drug tested. So big deal, the pilot wasn't smokin' dope the weekend before the trip. Nothing to stop him from emptying the mini-bar five minutes before he checks out and catches the van to the airport.

I've worked for 23 years now. Work-affecting drug problems are the least of an employers worries from what I've observed. Money would be better spent (if they are bent on testing) by giving pre-employment IQ tests, or personality tests. Idiots and whackos make the workplace a lot more dismal than the occasional alcoholic you might run into.

[tinanator]

33. All good questions, significant facts that may be of interest

Drug testing companies were started by the same Reagan/Bush crooks who passed and implemented anti-drug policies and programs from their executive and legislative positions while their numerous associates and higher ups engaged in trafficing and abuse. Of course the insurance companies are all too happy to demand this sort of intrusive unconstitutional invasion of privacy, especially if they can make a buck as you are coming and going. Wise guys.

[redqueen]

121. I wish more people knew this

Also I wish more people knew that these tests are widely known to be scientifically unreliable. It's a huge con job. The tests are stupid - drug users can easily fool them - but insurance companies and drug test kit manufacturers are raking in the profits.

Obscenity abounds.

[John_H]

34. Yes, I do it every day...Wait, you said drug TESTING. Absolutely not.

[Tyler Durden]

35. I approve of drug TAKING on the job.

I would smoke every day, and recharge at noon.

Britain seems to have countered Heroin addiction rather well, though, and it seems to have little in common with any of our programs.

[mmonk]

38. Do I approve of drug testing on the job?

Nah, I wouldn't be able to concentrate.

[camero]

41. I approve drug testing

For politicians. It's ironic that they left themselves out of that game. If they had to go through the same tests that we have to take you would either see none for anyone or alot better people being politicians.

[Zorra]

42. I approve of drug testing , too!

When can I start?:beer:

[Seldona]

46. Never.

I prefer personal responsibility.

What I do on my own time has no bearing on my work.

If it does, hold me responsible.

Sort of like say... alchohol use.

[freetobegay]

57. To bad not all people always do it on their own time.

eom

[IrateCitizen]

63. Nor will they

But does that mean that you are willing to cast aside the 4th amendment for everyone over the extremely small minority who have problems and don't do it on their own time?

Being a gay person, does your stance on this issue mean that you disagreed with the recent SCOTUS decision surrounding privacy rights of the gay men in Texas who were breaking existing sodomy laws? After all, they WERE breaking the law.

I'm just looking for a little consistency in your stance.

[freetobegay]

66. My privacy rights doesn't hurt people

Taking drugs on the job does!

Shame on you for even trying to connect the two!

[IrateCitizen]

67. But testing doesn't conclude if people take drugs on the job...

It concludes if they've taken drugs at any time in a period going back as far as a month.

IOW, if a person chooses to smoke a joint in the privacy of their own home while watching a movie on a Saturday night, and then is tested two weeks later and comes up positive, they can lose their job.

THIS is how this issue connects with the overall privacy issue, shame on YOU for conveniently ignoring it to support your fallacious argument.

[freetobegay]

69. Thanks for ignoring my question!

What about the people doing drugs on the job?

Shame on you again It's always the case with...

[IrateCitizen]

75. Nice disingenuous deflection -- too bad I caught it

The problem with your stance is that it is something that is different from the overarching question of drug ABUSE. By abuse, I am referring not only to "illegal" drugs, but also alcohol and tobacco.

I notice that you conveniently failed to respond to my response to you, asking if you favored testing people for alcohol and nicotine on the job as well -- especially considering the amount of time wasted by smokers taking cigarette breaks.

If someone is taking drugs on the job and endangering others, they should either be forced to get help for their problem or terminated. The problem is, that current drug testing procedures do NOT determine whether or not someone is under the influence, a point that you just keep ignoring in apparent hopes it will go away.

Double shame on you for blatant intellectual dishonesty.

[freetobegay]

79. You lost any respect I had for you

Trying to bring Homosexuality into the picture, just like other people I know.

[IrateCitizen]

81. Another nice attempt at deflection

The question is one of privacy, and THAT is why I brought it up. YOU are the one who, thus far, has repeatedly failed to address the overarching privacy issues and instead has resorted to deflection and mischaracterization.

By bringing up the issue of homosexuality with regards to privacy, I was hoping to make you see the problem with the argument you were trying to present.

Apparently, I gave you too much credit. In any case, I don't particularly concern myself with "respect" from people who don't know me in the least.

[outinforce]

104. Never? Ever?

I happen to fly aboard commercial jets and I also happen to take Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor. I also use Washington, DC's Metrorail system as my primary way to get to and from work.

Do I think drug testing for the pilots and engineers and train operators is a good idea?

You bet.

There is a case a few years ago where the engineer of a freight train had smoked a joint, on his own time, iirc, and then gone to his job, which was driving a large freight train. He caused an accident which killed, I think, 2 people.

[freetobegay]

56. All jobs should have drug testing!

eom

[IrateCitizen]

62. Does that include alcohol and nicotine?

Last I checked, both of those were bigger "productivity killers" than all illegal drugs put together. At my workplace, people go and smoke a cigarette every hour or so, and our office is on the 13th floor. HUGE amounts of worktime wasted.

Furthermore, would you then support tests that not only determine if you've taken a drink before coming to work, but if you've had one even in the privacy of your own home two weeks prior? I ask because THIS is what current testing determines -- especially for people who occasionally smoke marijuana.

[IrateCitizen]

83. Still waiting for an answer to this, freetobegay...

<crickets>

</crickets>

[IrateCitizen]

86. Still waiting.... are you going to answer the question, freetobegay?

<crickets>


</crickets>

[comsymp]

89. So how do you address the point that

current drug testing procedures CANNOT distinguish whether the employee is stoned at the time of the test, or smoked a joint 2 weeks ago? Or that he ate a poppy seed bagel (my favorite example) and tests positive for heroin? The clinical lab industry does not currently have testing mechanisms which would allow screeners to make that distinction- basically, the testing does not exist. If it did, testing would be prohibitively expensive- hundreds or thousands of dollars per.

Now, of course, an employee can have his/her blood drawn to determine the immediate presence of alcohol, but that's about it.

[IrateCitizen]

91. freetobegay isn't interested in addressing that point, comsymp...

I have called out freetobegay on this issue repeatedly (see my exchange above) and thus far freetobegay has refused to answer, meanwhile accusing me of showing bias against homosexuals for my attempt to draw a parallel on privacy rights.

[comsymp]

100. Sadly, many of the pro-testers (!?) don't care to address that

minor sticking point.

And I emphatically agree with your parallel re: privacy rights (my absolute credibility on this confirmed by avatar ;-) ).

[x-g.o.p.er]

58. Yes..the company can set terms of employment

because they are making an investment in you, the employee. They have an obligation to their business and to other employees. If you don't like the fact that a company does drug testing, you are not obligated to work there.

[cheezus]

60. can the terms of employment include a search of your residence?

[x-g.o.p.er]

68. No, but the company sets the terms of employment

Coming to work high or drunk on company time is a lot different than searching your home away from work. What you do away from the office is your business, but when you show up to work drunk or high you make it a company problem.

If you were a small business owner, and a stoned/drunk employee cost you a large amount of business, or continually performed poorly due to their problem, you don't feel you should have the ability to test them and either get them help or terminate them?

[IrateCitizen]

71. But drug testing doesn't determine whether or not you're high

Rather, it determines whether or not you've taken drugs within a certain period of time.

Strangely, the drug with the longest detection period is marijuana. You can smoke marijuana and still come up positive in a drug test administered weeks after the event. Go out and snort an 8-ball of coke, however, and your body flushes it within 2-3 days.

If you were a small business owner, and a stoned/drunk employee cost you a large amount of business, or continually performed poorly due to their problem, you don't feel you should have the ability to test them and either get them help or terminate them?

Of course. But the last time I checked, drug tests did NOT include alcohol. Furthermore, what you are talking about here is PROBABLE CAUSE. Current drug testing procedures have nothing to do with probable cause, but instead operate from a presumption of guilt. They are, in effect, an unlawful personal search, because they are not limited strictly to activities or anebriation within the workplace, but what an employee does OUTSIDE of the workplace and within the confines of his/her own home.

[democratreformed]

74. On the contrary, required federal CDL testing includes alcohol testing

[IrateCitizen]

76. But over what time period does it detect alcohol use?

Does it detect alcohol use over a period of several weeks? Or is it meant to determine whether someone has imbibed over the last 12 or 24 hours?

I had to take an alcohol test when I reported to my ROTC cadet training at Ft. Bragg, and it was just a simple breathalyzer meant to determine whether we were at all under the influence.

[democratreformed]

80. You're right - I think. I'm pretty sure it only detects alcohol use

withing the preceding 12 hours or so.

[IrateCitizen]

84. With which I have absolutely no problem

The problem occurs when you have testing that detects what people were doing days and weeks ago during times that they were in the privacy of their own home or that of friends.

If they could develop a test for marijuana/cocaine/heroin/etc. that detected use within the past 12 hours, I would be all for it in such circumstances as well. The problem is that current tests detect use within a much, much longer time frame -- a blatant invasion of privacy and violation of 4th amendment rights.

[democratreformed]

90. I understand what you are saying

At our company, we have pretty much adopted a "it's okay" attitude toward marijuana if it shows up on the drug test. It's the other drugs that people are fired for.

[babzilla]

107. how did your company come to that attitude/policy?

If so, I would be interested in the details of how that attitude/policy officially came about. Or is it just an unwritten rule that applies when a drug test comes back to the office?

When the employee gets their drug test back with a positive score for marijuana do you then inform them of the attitude/policy or did you send out a memo beforehand?

[democratreformed]

123. Informal, unwritten

Like I said below, they may have changed their minds. I'm not sure. What was being discussed was just an informal sort of "looking over" that one - where it wouldn't even be considered positive.

[babzilla]

131. when someone is drug tested in the workplace they receive the results.

You know that right?

How does your family business explain to the employee that it is an informal sort of looking over that isn't even considered positive, depending on the drug?

Oh, I guess maybe they've change they're minds at this point in the thread.

[democratreformed]

133. I really have no idea

b/c I only know what they talked about and haven't ever been involved in any actual meetings with an employee when results came in.

[comsymp]

108. But that isn't a standard Substance Abuse Panel

DOT testing is so unique that the paperwork used for "normal" Chain of Custody (read: legally valid) druq screening is not acceptable.
Apples and oranges.

Additionally, IIRC, alcohol testing is done by blood or breathalyzer, not urine. *been a while- that could just be post-accident but i don't think so.

[cheezus]

124. I was never talking about being under the influence at work

that's obvious grounds for dismissal. And if they are high/drunk at work you'll be able to tell, especially by their performance.

[noonwitch]

61. Only with probable cause

Otherwise, it is an invasion of privacy.

I get annoyed at work with the two workers or so who come in smelling like whiskey. One doesn't need to do a drug test to determine they're drunk, it's pretty obvious most of the time when people are intoxicated.

[Stuckinthebush]

64. I'm conflicted...

But, as a business owner, I don't want a high employee. I can either have drug testing or I can fire an employee based on a suspicion. I'd rather have drug testing.

Of couse, I don't do either because it is not an issue in my line of work. However, if my employees were driving trucks or flying airplanes, I might have a different attitude.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

99. there are ways to beat drug tests.

i have passed two for employment. given, i only smoke pot. i don't smoke pot at work or before i go to work, but sure do when i get home. just because you test comes back negative doesn't mean the employee doesn't do drugs.

[MissMillie]

65. absent probable cause

a drug test is a violation of the 4th amendment.

[tarheel]

113. MissMillie

I am 100% against drug testing myself, but I have to point out that I do believe your argument that drug testing is a violation of the fourth amendment is a flawed one.

The rights and restrictions granted to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights pertain to our government and its interaction with the citizenry. It does not apply to private entities that do not carry the weight of the law on their side as the government does.

As x-g.o.p.er has stated in this thread, it is the right of an employer to set the conditions of employment. The government, however, does not have this same right due to the restrictions placed upon it by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

By vertue of that fact, I believe that sobriety checks are unconstitutional. The 5th amendment of the Bill Rights guarantees me the right to not incriminate myself before the government (i.e. the courts). Well then I should not be forced, against my will, to provide the courts with any evidence that would do so. (Let me specify that am against drunk driving and my preceeding statement is in no way and endorsement of it).

[HEyHEY]

70. No - terrible infringment of rights.

I could see for airline pilots and that kind of thing. But for people who work at walmart or something - bollocks

[Elbowroom]

73. no, I only test drugs at home

[GiovanniC]

82. I Approve of Drug Testing

For the office of President of the United States.

That's one way to get rid of Shrub.

[K8-EEE]

85. Yes, For the President Of The United States Only Though

LOL!

[democratreformed]

88. My general thoughts on drug testing

Several years ago (seven or eight??), my brother and I used to watch potential employees come up to our place of business, see the "Preemployment Drug Testing" sign on our door, and turn around an leave. We made a decision to stop drug testing (it had been started because the worker's comp insurance required it - we had changed insurance so it wasn't a requirement any more).

This year, we voluntarily started drug testing again. Drug testing is primarily to protect the employer and those employees who are not under the influence of drugs.

I said up above here that a regular drug user brings the after-effects of the drug to work. I know that from personal experience. I also said the drug of choice in our area is meth. After my mom died, while I was going through some major problems with grief and my dad, my husband slipped meth into my drink. I didn't know why but I knew that, on that one night, I felt better. I felt like I could handle things. He (my husband) gave it to me unknowingly a couple of more times. By the time he leveled with me and told me what he had done, I did not care - I just wanted to feel better. I was dealing with grief over my mom, running my dad's business, and fighting with my dad over his new g-friend all at the same time. Also, my son was failing in his first year of school and I just felt that everything was so out of control. I became addicted to meth as a coping mechanism and it seemed to bring control back into my life.

I didn't use meth at work, but I brought its effects with me every single day. Even on those days that I hadn't had it for a few days, my mind and my attitude were still affected by it. It takes a while when you are under the influence of such a mind-altering drug to realize when things are actually falling apart. Thank God that we did figure it out, though. It has been over three years now since that terrible year in my life.

Since then, I have watched countless people that I know go off the deep end or even die from this drug. Before I had my own experience with it, I would never have known what caused them to act the way they did. I would never have known that one of our good friends lost sight in one eye most probably b/c of meth. I would never have known that the blackouts he had that eventually caused him to roll his vehicle were most probably caused by use of meth. I would never have know that that was what killed him. People who are unfamiliar with it still don't know.

Most employers that I know don't know enough about drugs to be able to tell when someone is using them. That's how drug testing helps. I have seen those who actually pulled their crap together and stopped b/c they valued their job more than drugs. Also, I have seen many costly and even injurious errors caused by drug use.

Now that I have ranted on, I will just say that I have no problem with drug testing. They can have my urine or my blood or my hair or whatever they want to test whenever they want it.

The only problem I have ever had with drug testing was when they started it in high school. It's no so much the testing but the method they use to coerce compliance. In my daughter's school, they made drug testing a requirement for participation in extracurricular activities. Others didn't have to be drug tested. I was angry b/c they didn't randomly drug test all the students instead of using their participation rights to force compliance.

[babzilla]

92. what a strange story

the fact that you don't seem to be bothered by your husband or your employer violating the privacy of your body under the guise of knowing what is best for you is a perfect example of why the 4th amendment is vital to a free people.

After my mom died, while I was going through some major problems with grief and my dad, my husband slipped meth into my drink. I didn't know why but I knew that, on that one night, I felt better. I felt like I could handle things. He (my husband) gave it to me unknowingly a couple of more times. By the time he leveled with me and told me what he had done, I did not care - I just wanted to feel better.

Now that I have ranted on, I will just say that I have no problem with drug testing. They can have my urine or my blood or my hair or whatever they want to test whenever they want it.

[democratreformed]

94. Oh I was definitely bothered

by my husband's actions. Believe me, it was a very terrible time in my life. But, I got over it.

It just doesn't really bother me to show my employer that I am drug free b/c I definitely know all the harm my drug use caused.

[IrateCitizen]

95. But you should be careful about projecting this onto others

It just doesn't really bother me to show my employer that I am drug free b/c I definitely know all the harm my drug use caused.

You have to realize that, just like with alcohol, there may be many people out there who are able to occasionally use drugs without them causing any kind of real harm to their day-to-day lives.

Just because alcoholism can be incredibly addictive and destructive, we have not outlawed it nor mandated regular testing for it. Don't rush to project your negative experiences onto others who may not have ever had the problems with substance use/abuse that you had.

[democratreformed]

98. I hear what you are saying

but I have yet to meet a single person who can control the use of meth.

[babzilla]

126. now you have

Meet babzilla. I tried it, it sucks.

Not a problem for me to resist snorting battery acid.

[democratreformed]

141. Congratulations

I agree. It is pure evil and it definitely sucks.

[babzilla]

96. 2 words: performance review

A constitutional method to make a decision whether an employee is causing harm to the employer or not.

No muss, no fuss, no body fluids.

[democratreformed]

97. Okay, I understand.

You're right, we are a very small business and very unsophisticated (sp?). Also, many of the policies they come up with are b/c the men are too weak to just say "you're fired!".

[babzilla]

101. I'm curious.

How would you feel about your husband standing next to the punch bowl at your next company function?

[democratreformed]

105. I have been married 21 years in May

I know my husband very well. What he did to me came from his heart. I know that you many not agree or understand but I do and that's all that matters. I was close to a nervous breakdown. There is much more to the story about what I was going through with my dad. My husband was forced to be gone and could not be here most of the time to support or help me.

Yes, what he did was wrong. Yes, it caused a lot of harm. But, in a way, it helped. It kept me from ending up in the hospital. I sincerely believe I would have been there or in the nut house without some major help. Granted, it was the wrong kind of help, but it did help me cope until the problems it caused caught up with us. Then, I got the real kind of professional help that I needed.

I love my husband very much. He is a great man. He would not do that to anyone else. He and I are like one. He felt desperate when he did that to me b/c it was the only thing he could think of to help.

P.S. For the record, he doesn't touch the stuff any more either.

[babzilla]

110. You were close to a nervous breakdown

but the "wrong kind of help" kept you out of the "nut house".

What was the "major help" that you refer to?
You said he gave you the "wrong kind of help" but "major help" kept you out of the hospital.

So what was the "major help"?

Is "major help" and the "wrong kind of help" one in the same in this parable?

I don't understand what you are saying.

[democratreformed]

111. Eventually, I made many visits to the psychologist

My son had been seeing the psychologist for ADHD. One day, I "stold" his appointment for myself. It turned out the psychologist was a certified drug and alcohol counselor.
Another thing that really helped me was leaving my job. I worked (and have since come back) in the family business and was forced to work with my dad on a daily basis.

[democratreformed]

112. To clarify,

I meant that, at the time, I was in desperate need of "major help". I was too stupid, I guess, to know it. Yeah, that help, at first, came in the wrong form.
Drugs, for me, at that time, were a coping mechanism. Methamphetamine works on the pleasure centers of your brain. It fools your brain and, thus, your body, into believing that you are deliriously happy. I was able to cope with the things that were going on because I was "happy". LOL. It also keeps you awake. When you are working 12 and 13 hour days plus serving as a single parent b/c your husband is working out of town, that seems, at first, like a good thing.

[babzilla]

122. so how did he break it to you?

How did you find out that the reason that your pleasure centers were working overtime was because of the drug that he unknowingly slipped into your drink?

Was it before of after he was away for awhile? Did he give you the name of his dealer before he went away?

[democratreformed]

125. Boy, you really want to know all the sordid details, huh?

I'm sorry. I've already put a lot of evidence of my stupidity out there for you to see. I don't know if I can give any more - lol.

My husband works in construction. He is away for one or two weeks at a time. Generally, he is gone for a week and home for the weekend or gone for two weeks and home for the weekend. I NEVER visited a dealer myself.

[babzilla]

129. yes I want the sordid details

because it is a strange story.

You offered up your story to defend drug testing in the workplace even though your husband slipped drugs into your system which could have caused you to be fired for a reason that was unknown to you.

After this experience, you defend the right to test employees because some employers (your father specifically) that are not drug users themselves, are not able to detect who is harming the business or not. I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that.

If your family business had tested you for drugs during one of the times that your husband was medicating you, and then fired you, would that be a "major help" or a ticket to the "nut house"?

[democratreformed]

132. Okay,

at that time, we had no drug testing policy. So, I was in no danger of being fired. On top of that, I was doing the work of three people and running the place. I was in charge of estimating, purchasing for each job, scheduling shipments to jobs, design, overseeing the fabrication shop, safey (ha ha), design of systems and fabricated items.... the list goes on. I was even in charge of HIRING. My dad was not functional as far as business goes - he was chasing women - day and night.

Thinking on it some more, I guess it's like this:
Like I said below, we were like one big happy family. We had about 50 employees. Poor performance was traditionally explained away by "family problems" by employees. Or some other such life problem. Sometimes we would know that the employee really was having problems with his wife or something. What we sometimes didn't realize was what caused the problems. Maybe if we had, we would have adopted a sterner attitude and not allowed the missed days and poor performance.

Now, maybe it is wrong to have a different attitude toward an employees problems if you know that they are caused, in part (or at least compounded) by drug abuse. But, I can't help it. I do. I tried to adopt an attitude whereby I would be lenient if the employee would accept help and work on his drug problem. That never worked. (By the way, this was after I had straightened up but before I left my job).

I left here for about a year and a half. I am only here now as an employee. I guess I can't really tell you why they decided to start drug testing again. Back about seven or eight years ago, it was a requirement for their worker's comp insurance carrier. Then, they switched carriers and it was no longer a requirement.

Anyway, have you ever wondered if someone's problems were caused by valid stress in their lives or if they were caused by substance abuse? Would it make a difference if you knew? Would you feel more compassionate toward them if you knew that their less than stellar performance were caused by, say, the loss of a loved one or if they were caused by drug or alcohol addiction? It makes a difference to me. Mainly b/c I have tried to help people who had no home or other problems b/c of drug abuse. Every one of them ended up taking advantage of me and going right back into the life of abuse.

My husband and I now own our own small business as well. We choose not to perform drug testing. But, we only have four employees.

I cannot really get into a big debate with you over drug testing. I can't really defend it. All I can say is that it does not bother me.

[babzilla]

136. I guess its just a lucky break for you and your employer

that at the time that you were hopped up on meth just happened to be the time that there was no drug testing while you were doing the job of three people (if there ever was a reason to do meth, it would be when you are doing the job of three people).

You cannot really get into a big debate with me over drug testing? Its a little late for that.

I think its great that you and your husband choose not to drug test your 4 employees. Why did you defend it earlier in the thread?

[democratreformed]

138. In my ignorance,

I thought that I was merely relating more of my story rather than debating drug testing.

The reason for telling my story was to tell why I know that drug use can still affect your job even if you have not used it in a few days. My use was not a daily occurrence, yet it affected my job and my family (most notably my children).

I was only saying that it is not necessary for a person to actually use the drug while ON THE JOB PREMISES for it to effect his or her performance.

To be quite honest, I don't think that drug testing solves anything. It only contributes to the problems of a person who already has problems. I was only saying that I understand why they do it - or, at least, I thought I did.

Isn't the purpose of debate to change someone's mind? Well, I can now agree that their decision to perform drug testing serves absolutely no purpose. If it was still a condidition of their getting worker's comp insurance for their employees, then I could see at least some purpose. As it stands, it doesn't even serve as a deterrent.

There is NEVER any good reason to use meth. NEVER. I don't usually talk about it b/c I am ashamed of it. Maybe my tiredness level contributed to my ouburst of stupidly spilling my guts today. We just got a phone call this afternoon telling us that my ex sister-in-law is back in jail. The problem in our area is epidemic and it distresses me. It is so sad to see so many people in such a sad situation.

I'm sorry it took me so long to reply to you this time. I had to go judge an art contest for my son's school.

[IrateCitizen]

102. Sorry, but I can't get past this...

You're right, we are a very small business and very unsophisticated (sp?).

Because you're a small, rather unsophisticated business, you rely on technological means rather than face-to-face interaction between employees and supervisors to monitor your workplace?

I'm sorry, something about this just doesn't compute.

[democratreformed]

106. Yeah,

there are many things about this place that just don't compute. I no longer have any involvement in what goes on. The only way I am able to be here is strictly as an employee just like everyone else (big family mess). They do lots of things that really bother me.

[babzilla]

115. so how do you feel about the family business policy/attitude

about not firing employees that test positive for marijuana?

[democratreformed]

118. I'm not sure

On the one hand, I think that it is a relatively good idea b/c I don't think marijuana is as dangerous a drug as some of the others (unless the guy lifting me 100' in the air with a crane has just smoked some).
On the other hand, I think it might get them into trouble legally.
They may have changed that policy. I'm not sure.

[democratreformed]

116. So, I went to pick my son up at school,

and thought about this some more. This business used to be like one big family. Maybe I have it just backwards. Maybe the use of technology is really a means of forcing us to be more like a big business - impersonal. You think so?

[playahata1]

114. Drug Testing In Schools

There was a segment on HBO's "Real Sports" a couple of years ago about a small-town high school that forced its students to submit to drug tests if they wanted to participate in sports, band, etc. Turned out that there was no real probable cause for drug testing, as the school did not have a drug problem. Furthermore, it was revealed that THE reason the principal decided to implement drug testing was that schools that had drug-testing programs were promised more government money.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

117. money money money

money is the reason you will continue to the use of drug tests rise. as long as people can make a buck on something they will try to convnice others that they need their product. money trumps truth. same for the war on drugs, many people in many different situatinos rely on the money that is poured into the war on drugs. why would they want to see things change? it might cost them their job or a big bonus.

[democratreformed]

120. Yeah, my daughter's school did that too.

As a parent, I was FORCED to sign a consent form or else my daughter could no longer participate in cheerleading. When I researched the issue, I found that one court ruled that it was legal b/c "when our kids are at school, they are not ours - they belong to the government". I'm sure thost are not the exact words - but that was the gist of their ruling.

[babzilla]

134. what if your husband had slipped your daughter some meth

unknowingly (like he did to you).

Should she be able to participate in cheerleading?

What if the school principal had never had done drugs and needed the help of drug testing to determine who was doing harm to the pep squad?

[democratreformed]

140. I have gotten your point, babzilla

I now understand what you were debating me over. Not enough sleep for a couple of nights tends to fog my brain - tax day, you know.

Anyways, I agree that drug testing is not right. For one, it sort of makes the test results responsible for a person's behavior instead of the person or the employer/principal (whomever). Does that make any sense?

The men in my family are weenies. When a guy does not perform up to par, they tell him he's "laid off". They think that's better than "you're fired". Many times, the poor guy calls for weeks to see when he can come back to work before he gets the picture. That's plum sorry isn't it? If I let myself dwell on all the things they do at work that bother me, I would scream. I'm not sure about my brother, but my dad was a big Republican. (He's kinda irritated this time, though, and I think he might vote Dem).

Sorry I didn't get your point earlier. I was defending my husband b/c I thought you were saying he was a low down dirty person and could do that to anyone. I completely missed the point about an innocent person losing something (job, cheerleading) b/c of what someone else had done to them.

[Guava Jelly]

119. nope What i do on my own time is my business

dhh

[West Coast Democrat]

128. Only if the job involves lots of driving, flying....

or work with heavy machinery--just for safety purposes.