Do you favor employers being able do random searches of employees' homes?

[UdoKier]

Do you favor employers being able do random searches of employees' homes?


Because random drug testing is exactly the same as their having the right to search our homes...


It's especially offensive because we are all presumed guilty...


It blows my mind that even progressives often accept this intrusion and overreach of employer power. Why are we such sheep?



BTW, I am not a drug user. I could pass any drug test easily, but I very much object to being treated as suspect, and having my bodily fluids taken and scrutinized.

And yes, this is a thoroughly biased poll.

[demnan]

1. I' very opposed to this

I'm even more opposed to the ordeal they make you go through to qualify for a high-level government clearance. They try to get into your head to find out if there's anything about you that could be used for blackmail.

Both these things came about during the Reagan administration. Unfortunately we are stuck with them.

[UdoKier]

5. Well, it seems to make more sense for a high government clearance.

I also would make exceptions for jobs like airline pilot or an operator of heavy equipment. A substance abuser would be very dangerous in some positions.

But a recreational weekend pot smoker operating a cash register doesn't seem like much of a threat...

[K-W]

35. That isnt a good argument either really.

There are many many ways that an irresponsible person could inhibit thier performance in a dangerous job, the solution is proper screening and monitering of the people in the job. The problem isnt that a pilot does drugs, its that he makes the decision to use it before working.

What if that same irresponsible pilot had instead chosen to stay up all night partying. His lack of sleep hinders his flying and he crashes. Meanwhile a much more responsible pilot who likes to smoke a joint with some of his old college friends when he has time off got fired because of a drug test.

[tsuki]

110. Then why don't elected government officials have to take them? Before

they run. GA tried to implement a drug test and it was struck down by the GA courts as unconstitutional.

[theorist]

156. On exceptions "for a high government clearance".

What happens when only devout mormons can be CIA analysts? 9/11.

[Silverhair]

88. That long predates the Reagan administration.

I had a Top Secrect security clearance in the Army in the 60's, and they did the same stuff back then. It didn't start with Reagan. And I hope the people with high level clearances ARE checked out very rigirously. It would be naive in the extreme not to do so.

[IrateCitizen]

2. I agree 100%, UdoKier!

Of course, those of the libertarian persuasion will argue that nobody is FORCING these folks to submit their bodily fluids to examination. But I find that reasoning to be a bunch of hooey.

[Bluzmann57]

9. Well in reality, where I work we are forced to test

I work with heavy equipment and there is a company wide policy, which does include management, of random testing. The Union goes along with it. I am not a drug user, but I don't like it either. So anyway, the Libertarian theory is shot right in the ass at certain employers. If a person refuses to take a drug test, he or she is immediately terminated. If they pee dirty, they are forced to go into rehab once. If they pee dirty again, termination. As I said, it sucks but the Union goes along with it, as do most Labor Unions, especially in the heavy equipment and railroad related Unions.

[IrateCitizen]

13. I actually was offered a position with a company w/ same policy...

I'm an engineer, and was offered an engineering position, but the company policy was to drug test due to their construction division.

I refused the job offer. I had to deal with the insult of random urinalysis enough while an officer in the Army Reserve, I wasn't about to deal with it in my civilian life.

The funny thing about the random testing in the military is that you could be an outstanding soldier in every sense of the word -- but come up hot on a piss test, and you'd be gone quickly. However, you could be a regular dirtbag, but come up clean on piss tests, and it was next-to-impossible to get rid of you. It's a conundrum I used to just shake my head at.

[ieoeja]

58. Libertarians have a narrower definition of "force".

By their definition you are not being "forced" to take the test because nobody is forcing you to work for that company. They believe that good employees can always get a better job. Accordingly, a company with an invasive drug testing policy will lose their good employees to a rival company with no such policy. This transfer of competence to their rival will cause the first company to ultimately fail.

Libertarians believe that the government is the only power that can "force" you to do something against your will. However, as long as a country is willing to let you leave (as most are), then their logic regarding your right to change jobs should apply equally to your right to change countries.

Libertarianism is a greal idea. Unfortunately, reality gets in the way. Which may explain why they also believe in legalizing all forms of controlled substances.

[davidinalameda]

3. apples and oranges

but you already said you were biased so it doesn't matter what I say

[UdoKier]

7. Wow, that line of reasoning has totally change my mind!

I'm gonna go out and register republican right now! And the first thing I'll do is bring some piss to the manager of the right-wing-owned Home Despot!

No, I don't work there, or even want to, but I'm sure they wouldn't want any druggie customers. I'll just present the cup to customer service and have them call a manager to check it for me.

[elehhhhna]

40. LOL!

[jmowreader]

86. We don't mind druggie customers

Well, except for the fuckin' crackhead we caught last Sunday. Oh, you'll love this guy.

Apparently crack addiction is not an inexpensive hobby. And since most reputable employers are hesitant to hire someone who likes to use crack, your crackhead has to resort to other ways of getting money.

This gentleman drove our delivery truck under the portico and started loading pallet after pallet of fence pickets onto it. Our delivery truck is a Freightliner with a 40-foot flatbed trailer.

It took four of us to get him into custody.

Home Depot's piss test policy: you pee under the following circumstances--

* as one of the final steps in the hiring decision--these tests are expensive so we only run them on people we know we want to hire
* for promotion
* after a serious incident occurs. In my store, the only serious incidents we piss you for are forklift accidents and major injuries

My store doesn't do random testing. There's no need for it. Some stores might, but it's not a company policy.

[K-W]

41. Apples and oranges are both fruit.

And searchng a home and issuing a drug test are both searches.

Care to share which difference between the two is saliant in this discussion?

[pnb]

73. Presumably the reasoning behind the two is different

Their no-smoking rule is for insurance reasons. Fair or not, there is a certain logic process behind it...try to keep insurance premiums at a certain point.

The home search obviously serves no possible purpose like that. That's why it is apples and oranges.

[eternalburn]

4. Legal prescribed drugs turn up on those tests too (nt)

[thatgemguy]

28. I have a condition which requires me to take prescribed narcotics.

If I were to take a drug test as a condition of employment, I would be forced to divulge my medical condition and history. This despite current laws which are supposed to "protect" me, my medical privacy, and my disability status. I'm sure that it would cause me to undergo increased scrutiny and probably be denied employment.

At the present time, I have to agree to random drug screening as a condition of my medical treatment. While I object and do not approve, I understand that my doctor, who prescribes the narcotics, is being watched by the DEA and has to justify his treatment of me in order to protect his license.

While I might agree with testing for some sensitive occupations, I would prefer that it be "impairment" testing. I've seen many instances of people showing up for work hung over, still under the influence of alcohol, who get a pass, while a person who smokes a joint over the weekend or on his day off, can be singled out.

[The Doctor.]

6. I could care less if my employees were using drugs on their

own time.

So long as;

a)they don't bring it too work.
b)it doesn't affect their job performance.
c)it doesn't create other problems. (Stealing, dealers showing up looking for money, police, etc.)

It really is that simple - If they do a good job, and I don't notice aberrant behavoir... who cares?

[UdoKier]

8. I'd prefer my employees not use drugs, but an employer is not a nanny...

or a cop.

Also, I don't think recreational drug use necessarily means someone is a thief. I'm quite sure Ken Lay and Dennis Kozlowsky are not druggies...

[Bunny]

16. Do you actually have employees? n/t

[The Doctor.]

23. I would argue that Ken and Dennis have had the priveledge

to partake in whatever they wanted.

I would be surprised if they were not recreational users.

[hedgehog]

66. Absolutely - the only person I ever saw get hurt on the job was

using legally prescribed tranquilizers. I've also worked with people who'd been up for 48 hours straight before they got to work. Let employers test reflexes or responses all they want. The only drug I use is caffeine (2 cups of tea a day is my limit) but it's no one's business what drugs anyone uses as long as they can do the job safely.

[flvegan]

10. I worry that drug testing could also

turn up other health issues that big corp. America might be willing to fire someone over, as they might be a drain on the ole health plan funds.

[UdoKier]

11. Aren't most companies slashing their health coverage anyway?

And don't most employees have to pay like half of their health premiums these days?

[flvegan]

15. Most and most...probably, but for those that do have something

Relating to a health plan, I see this as an issue.

[jus_the_facts]

12. NO....I'll never pee for another job.....

...it's a violation of my RIGHT to my *persuit o' happiness*....my motto is...WHEN *ush TAKES A PISS TEST...I'LL TAKE ONE! :nopity:

I've been screwed for giving one in the past...the *doctor* who was in charge of the CDU at a hospital where I once worked was an *ex user* still unable to prescribe narcotics to this day...was my family doctor for years...he became the cheif o'staff of the CDU and I'd gone thru rehab once...then later became employed for this hospital...I was never once written up for any job related problems...but didn't show up for work ONE TIME and had told another employee that I was goin' out that night and was forced to either quit or go thru rehab again to save my 3.35 and hour job...with payroll deductions to pay for it....so I did...when this *doctor who was playin' GOD with peoples lives* decided since I didn't have any insurance ordered a urinalysis on me and ordered it in a higher unit of measure than the previous tests that I'd had taken...made it look as if I'd smoked dope when I hadn't...I'd gotten a print out of the results that showed he ordered it differently than the previous tests as well beyond any shadow of doubt...I was FIRED immediately and then they tried to deny me my RIGHT to see my medical records...and unemployment benefits...had to get an attorney to threaten the hospital with a lawsuit...took me over a month to view my medical records...where inside the LEGAL printout of my lab work..was a piece of scratch pad paper from the LAB in handwriting that stated it was a CLERICAL error....then the very day of the hearing for my unemployment benefits...they dropped out and said I could have my measly 45 dollars a week.

One of my biggest regrets is that I didn't SUE THEIR ASSES OFF...as my mother had also worked there for 20yrs. and I didn't want to put her job in jeopardy...which she ended up quitin' too a year later because they were expandin' her duties without a raise...SIGH! :(

[MemphisTiger]

14. I don't mind random drug test for occupations that have

the lives of others at risk (pilots, EMT's, truck drivers)

As long as the drug test is during work hours okay, but to invade a persons home, that is crazy.

[IrateCitizen]

17. But therein lies the problem...

Drug testing doesn't tell whether a person is under the influence or not. It tells whether that person has used a substance within a certain time frame.

As I understand it, cocaine and heroin are detectable for up to 3-4 days after use. Marijuana, OTOH -- because THC is fat-soluable -- can remain detectable for weeks after use.

Therefore, someone who smoked a joint on their day off two weeks ago can fail a drug test, even if they have NEVER come to work under the influence.

That's the whole argument for drug screening being a violation of the 4th amendment. It allows employers to essentially poke their nose into what an employee does on their spare time, even when it does not overlap in any way, shape or form with what that employee does on the job.

[MemphisTiger]

21. I see your point, just suppose the employee was impaired

would you then approve of testing to confirm or deny after people were hurt or property was damaged? That is the current system if I'm not mistanken at most companies.

[IrateCitizen]

25. Absolutely! That's probable cause.

The crux of this issue is that it is a search WITHOUT probable cause, which is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. If the employer has probable cause, then there's no reason the employee should not have to submit to a test.

[MemphisTiger]

27. Agree 110%, I can't believe that a company would even try

this. What drugs are they on? Maybe the drugs from the searches go to their own little executive "fun" room.

[Cuban_Liberal]

29. The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to this situation.

It only applies to the power of the state or federal government, and in a criminal situation.

[IrateCitizen]

36. So, you're saying corporations are above the law?

Because that's what it sounds like to me.

[K-W]

44. The law wasnt written to cover this situation.

The law doesnt seem to invision a situation where private organizations are acting in very governmental fashion.

[Silverhair]

90. Private organizations have been doing that for a loooong time.

It isn't that the law doesn't think it could happen. It is that the lawmakers at the time of the constitution didn't consider it their business.

Try this on for size. I once read an old job description from the 19th century, for store clerk, and it required Sunday church attendance. The idea was to prove the moral fiber of the store's employees, and thereby the store itself.

[Cuban_Liberal]

56. I said what I said. n/t

[UdoKier]

37. On this point you're correct.

It's not a constitutional issue, but it's still a privacy issue and a labor rights issue.

Unfortunately, American workers still have woefully few rights, and employers are all-powerful.

And as more and more small businesses disappear and are absorbed into the mega-conglomerates that are more likely to test, the less likely a person will be able to choose a workplace where drug testing isn't done. So corporate America will eventually be the de facto police enforcing the drug laws on the wage slaves that make up most of America's working population. Of course, the filthy rich and the growing ranks of the homeless and destitute will remain exempt...

[K-W]

43. I disagree.

If corporations want to have authority over such things, they too must conform to the constitution. If they want to be in the business of governing, they can obey the law.

Although the deeper issue of why we let private organizations run our economy when we are supposed to be a democracy is probably more important than trying to fit our economy to a constitution not designed to handle it.

[TahitiNut]

45. Corporations are becoming agents/owners of the State.

Their very existence is based in laws and granted by public license. Until and unless we prohibit such intrusions under the thin cover of corporatism, we'll lose every civil liberty generations have died to attain and protect.

[ultraist]

48. Employees agree to drug tests when they ACCEPT the job

Employees don't have to take the job, do they? It is NOT illegal search and seizure. The employee agrees to this.

As an employer, we have to consider liability issues. If one of my employees is wasted and injures himself on the job, he can sue me! This is why we have a policy that states, NO MOOD ALTERING SUBSTANCES are allowed during the work day. Smoking a few joints at lunch can put us at risk.

We are a small business with only 15 employees and do not to drug testing for a number of reasons, one being that we do not want to pay for it. But, if an employee of ours is wasted on the job, he is terminated. I had an employee that reaked of pot every day after lunch for weeks and I canned him. His judgement, cognitive and physical abilities were obviously compromised when he was stoned.

People who are under the influence on the job, generally are higher risk employees. Why take unnecessary risks by allowing employees to party while working? Get real. I have no interest to pay someone to do a half assed job.

Would any of you want to take the chance of your employee being wasted and injuring himself or others while under the influence that put you at risk to get sued? Not to mention, each time our workman's comp filed on, our rates go up.

[K-W]

52. Since when can I choose to not work?

The idea that working is voluntary is laughable, especially considering our current administrations stance on social spending.

The private organizations that control the flow of resources cannot use that control to coerce people into giving up thier privacy in order to participate in our economy.

It is our economy, it doesnt belong to employers.

[ultraist]

53. No one said "choose not to work,"

I said, you can choose not work work for a company that does drug testing. BIG difference. Not all companies drug test. Most small businesses don't because it is costly.

In response to this remark, "It is our economy, it doesnt belong to employers." You do not own my company, I do. You do not own the other private companies. That simply makes no sense and defies the meaning of capitalism, a free market. The "public" does not own the economy.

[sweetheart]

71. Wrong, the public DOES own the economy

Your company would not exist were it not for "money", the legal system,
the patent system, the transport system and the education system that
permits all the services your business connects with to exist.

You are using citizens as help in your company, and by making this
agreement have assumed responsibilities as to their well being. I'm not
suggesting that you're wrong not to let someone go for being impaired
on the job... that is the litmus test. Frankly, were i the employer
in that situation, i would have asked the person to either accept
treatment and make a generous offer to help with that, or to terminate.
That is fair. Obviously that person did not have the self control not
to keep his drugs usage from affecting his work, and needed help.

As an employer, i loathe being put in the seat of "bad cop" as firing
people is really no fun, nor is threatening to... so my single litmus
test for employees is that they perform their jobs impeccably and for
that i am willing to overlook flexible hours arrangements, family and
time needs, dress codes and all sorts of stuff. If the employees take
advantage, i start with dress codes, as a message to keep professional.

Its a hard situation, and i admire that you don't use testing,
holding poeple simply to keeping functional.

[Dunedain]

80. Well said

Unfortunately, the principles you have elucidated seem to be in short supply these days.

[ieoeja]

60. And you can choose not to live in the United States.

So I guess it is okay for the government to ignore my rights since I CHOOSE to stay in this country.

[SmokingJacket]

64. It's a labor rights issue, and exploitative.

Because your someone's employer doesn't give you the right to OWN their lives.

If employers are free to do random drug testing, why shouldn't they be allowed to install cameras and make sure you don't beat your children? Because if you beat your children you might go to jail and THEN the company would lose money!

People should not have to choose between their right to privacy and a job.

A line must be drawn that protects workers rights to live a fully HUMAN life and not be pawns of corporations. Don't give me this "you agreed when you applied for the job" crap: people don't have a choice about whether to work or not; labor laws must take this into consideration.

[TreeHuggingLiberal]

113. But the point is not surrounding the employees being stoned at work.

The way that I see this is that if I smoke a joint on Saturday, and I am ordered to take a random test on Thursday. I will test positive. I wasn't stoned at work. I was no more a liability than someone that had a beer on the weekend, but I will still lose my job. All because I smoked a freaking joint during the little amount of free time that the American worker currently enjoys.

[fishwax]

126. Noone said employees should be allowed to party at work

Drug testing doesn't test whether you're partying at work, it tests if you've used substances at all within the lest several days or even weeks.

I don't blame you for firing someone who was wasted on the job. To me that's a no-brainer. But barring interference with the function of my job, the company has no more right to know what I do on Friday night than they have the right to monitor my TV viewing habits.

[ultraist]

49. delete

sorry for the double post!

[kslib]

24. I agree that it poses problems

but do you want your nurse giving you IV drugs, or cleaning a wound when (s)he's on cocaine, or even pot at work? You can't test someone because you "suspect" they are high at work. You must SEE them ingest the substance, or have 3 unrealated reports of impaired performance (then you can't test, but you can send them home for the day).

I don't. It's an imperfect system, but in certain jobs, a necessary one. I don't care what they do on their free time, and I really don't care if the cashier at Urban Outfitters is stoned or high at work, but I don't want my pilot or nurse or EMT stoned or high while taking my life in their hands.

I think the system needs fixed, but how? :shrug:

[K-W]

47. What is the problem exactly?

People being incompetent or incapable in vital positions can have serious consequences.

Of course. Which is exactly why those positions should be well regulated, monitered, and great care should be taken to make safety the number one priority.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with drugs, which are just some of the infinate amount of things in this world that could hypothetically be related to a person messing up their job.

[kslib]

68. I believe I was refering

to the drugs being detectable for a while after their effects have worn off, therefore you are, essentially, testing their private use of substances, even though they may not be using at work.

I'm not really sure where I fall on this, because I do not use recreational drugs. I know people who smoke pot occasionally, and I would trust them with my life--when they aren't high, so I don't know about pot testing. However, where do you draw the line? A coke addict (or heroin, etc.) shouldn't be a health professional, or a pilot, etc. There are too many side effects and distractions when coming down, or when you need a fix, and your shift runs long. So, the easiest benchmark is to test for illegal substances. Whether you agree with it or not, they are illegal. However, DTs and other severe addiction-related side effects happen with alcoholics as well, and alcohol is legal. However, alcoholics can be fired from a job such as discussed above. What are your thoughts?

By the way, did you read the rest of my post concerning when a person can be fired/tested "on the spot" (when suspected of using on the job)? Thoughts on this?

On edit: I was replying to IrateCitizen's post above, not to the OP (to clear up any confusion)

[phylny]

117. I agree with you.

My husband works for a large corporation, and they have a well-known zero tolerance for drug use. There is no preliminary test to be hired, but you accept employment knowing that every employee, from the top down, is subject to testing, and employees from the top down ARE randomly tested. The corporation deals with very dangerous commodities and it is vital to have employees who are sharp and clear and able to follow safety rules. Part of the agreement for employment means that you will willingly submit to these tests.

Years ago, during a random drug test, an employee of my husband's was found to have used cocaine. He was offered company-funded treatment, which he took, and went through the program. He knew that part of this program meant that he was more likely to be called up for another test, which he was 1.5 years later. Cocaine was found again, and he was terminated. My husband was heartbroken, because he truly liked this employee, as did I.

If it were possible to ONLY test for drug use that might compromise you ONLY during work hours, then that would be the ideal. Since such tests don't appear to be available, I think that this is the next best thing. It is flawed, but for now it's the best we have.

If an employee comes to work and is somehow debilitated, and does something to hurt my husband or someone else, it would be devastating. I don't want my pilot, the truck driver next to me on the interstate, or the teachers in my kids' classrooms to be impaired. I have been fingerprinted and have had at least two drug tests in different states before being permitted to work with school systems or hospitals. I have never objected.

FYI, employees who appear to be impaired on the job due to fatigue, OTC medicine, or other factors can be sent home to protect everyone else.

[liberal N proud]

18. Not only NO but Hell NO, FUCK NO! NEVER!

What I do away from work is nobodys business.

[dinmo]

74. I agree 110%

:thumbsup: the only drugs I do is beer and thats none of their bussiness, I don't drink on the job nor do I go to work drunk.:beer:

[LynnTheDem]

19. Our HOMES???? An EMPLOYER allowed to SEARCH our HOMES???

I DON'T THINK SO!!! As in over my dead f*cking body!!!

THIS bitch's home, UNLIKE IRAQ, is bloody well SOVEREIGN and ARMED.

[Bunny]

26. Do you think the OP might have just a little bit of hyperbole?

Maybe just a tad?

[LynnTheDem]

30. I always ignore that aspect; I only respond to the actual poll questions

I don't bother with whether the questions are hyperbole or silly or etc. I just respond to the questions themselves. :)

[Bunny]

31. Whew! Okay, you scared me there for a minute!

;)

[LynnTheDem]

32. LOL!

:D

[underseasurveyor]

78. uuuuuummm

YEP:mad: you know it:thumbsup:

[Cleita]

20. I also believe that employers have no right to demand employees

not smoke or drink except when they are at work or need to show up to work sober. But they have no business telling employees they can't smoke or drink on their own time.

[Sparkle]

22. I oppose that. If they searched my home they'll find quite a few

ball point pens that I have accidently brought home over the years.:-)

[yellowcanine]

33. It depends on the job. I sure as heck want airline pilots to undergo

random drug tests. And also random alcohol tests just before they climb into the cockpit.

[Katidid]

34. We are all presumed guilty...

According to the Supreme Court yesterday 6-2 decision ..

Court OKs Dog Sniff During Traffic Stop
By Associated Press
January 24, 2005, 11:43 AM EST

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court gave police broader search powers Monday during traffic stops, ruling that drug-sniffing dogs can be used to check out motorists even if officers have no reason to suspect they may be carrying narcotics.

In a 6-2 decision, the court sided with Illinois police who stopped Roy Caballes in 1998 along Interstate 80 for driving 6 miles over the speed limit. Although Caballes lawfully produced his driver's license, troopers brought over a drug dog after Caballes seemed nervous.

Read on .... Link: http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-scotus-drug-dogs,0,4143074.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[Bridget Burke]

38. Many companies are forced into "Zero Tolerance"

It's a PR thing.

A friend of mine lost a job because he was tested the day after his band had practiced. Yes, he'd smoked some grass. (Although even being in the same room with smokers can cause a positive result.)

His position? Graphic artist.

[Paranoid_Portlander]

39. Will employers be doing blood draws in the future?...

... in the workplace? This is a serious question. It's a lot more invasive than urine testing or hair samples, but I'm sure some employers would have no objection. I doubt if the law would stop them. How likely is this to happen in the future?

[elehhhhna]

42. FYI _ 25 yrs. ago the pre-employment physical included a Pregnancy test

for female applicants --not that we were told so--

Current drug testing requires you to tell the testing co. every drug you take--and I can assure you that although this is allegedly super-secret info, SOME of the labs will tell the prospective employer everything--anti-depressants, cholesterol-lowering drugs, whatever.

I've worked in staffing for years and know these to be facts.

[sierrajim]

46. Well if you drive a Semi-Truck

you are bound by federal law to random drug testing.

[Nikia]

50. I agree with your analogy

Randomn drug testing is an invasion of privacy.
I used that example in my confidential letter discouraging the company from randomn testing. My company is rather small, under 100 employees. No one was randomnly tested.
I have applied to other jobs recently. The unfortunate thing is that sometimes companies are not upfront about their testing policy and I haven't thought of ways to ask without drawing suspicion to myself. It is too bad that there isn't a comprehensive list. Drug tests have made me nervouse since I had my preemployment drug test for the job that I have now and I almost tested positive for methamphetamines which I have never used or knowingly been around. Even though blood tests are more accurate, I have passed out from blood draws and refuse to have them for any non medically necessary reason.

[ultraist]

51. It's not an invasion of privacy if you agree to it

An invasion of privacy is an intrusion that you do not allow, such as the cops searching your home without a warrant. If you consent, it is not an invasion.

Some companies require personality tests to screen for nutcases. Again, if one gives consent to undergoe the testing, it is not an invasion.

An invasion means it is done without permission or the proper legal warrants.

[Nikia]

54. They should be upfront about this

The companies that aren't upfront about this probably want to prevent people from using cleansing products or heaven forbid, quitting when they apply for work at the particuliar company. It puts one in an awkward spot when one isn't informed about the pre employment drug test until the end of the interview or randomn testing until one accepts the offer. There is no easy way to ask without drawing suspicion to yourself and making them less likely to hire you even if you do turn up clean.

[ultraist]

57. I agree they should be upfront

We inform our employees of all of our policies prior to them accepting the position. We have a manual that clearly states what days are paid vacation days, how many sick days, drug/alcohol use on the job, hate language on the job, etc. (We do not allow hate language as it creates a hostile environment and offends many of our clients).

I would not accept a job before I saw the employee manual.

That said, I also think there are too few corporate responsibility/accountablity regulations and too few taxes on corps and higher income earners. Not to mention, far too many corporate welfare payments.

In order for a free market to work (one that does not create a corporatacracy), proper checks and balances need to be in place.

[Poppyseedman]

55. Employers cannot do searches of your home without a warrant or consent

Random drug testing is not the same as random house searches.

Drug testing is a pre-requisite to an offer of employment and continued employment. It is a verbal or in many cases written agreement between the employee and employer that you are drug free and will continue to be so. Drug testing is a safety, quality control and insurance issue.

When you sign an employment application form you are agreeing that if hired you are qualified for the bear minimum job requirements. In almost all cases that means you are drug free.

Searching you home is an entirely different animal. The fourth amendment guarantees that your abode is your castle unless the GOVERNMENT, NOT YOUR EMPLOYER thinks illegal activities are occurring.

The GOVERNMENT still needs a judge to review why GOVERNMENT agency can supersede the forth amendment.

Apples and oranges legally speaking

[GreenArrow]

59. Mandatory drugs tests have NO place

in a Free society.

[hughee99]

61. I think it was Florida...

where some county or city was refusing to hire smokers, even those who only smoke when not working, because of the added health care costs they may incur down the line. This seems wrong to me too.

[TNMOM]

62. Most employers tell you what they're policy on drug is

So, honestly if they prohibit drugs, and I do drugs, I know that's the not the place for me. If, on the other hand, I accept the job knowing they prohibit drugs and will enforce it with tests - I can't complain. By taking the job, I've granted consent to following their rules.

In general, I'm pretty much in favor of banning drugs from the workplace, particularly places that have jobs that require maximum alertness and brain productivity.

[UdoKier]

79. You seem confused.

Banning drugs in the workplace is completely different from drug testing. I think it's fine for companies to ban drugs, smoking, whatever. I just don't think they should be entitled to make blood or urine tests a condition of employment, unless it can be demonstrated that the job in question has enough safety concerns to warrant it.

I don't do drugs. I object to the "innocent until proven guilty" implication of drug testing. If I do my job well and don't appear impaired, why the hell am I suspect?

[Mabus]

63. yes, only because

the only other employee is my husband and I need to find out if he's holding out on me AND we work out of the house.

:shrug:

But actually, my vote is no. I think it is going way too far. It is intrusive and, quite frankly, it is akin to a witch hunt. They could use the excuse to search the house to try to find out other things, like if they smoke cigarettes, what kind of movies they have and how clean they keep their house. It is something that could be too easily abused.

[mitchum]

65. They're welcome to DRINK my piss in order to check for drugs

anything else is offlimits

[hedgehog]

67. Here's where drug tests take us -

I'm so straight arrow the last drink I had was a sip of champagne t my wedding in 1977 but I passed on my mom's poppy seed cookies at Christmas because I'm looking for work and didn't want a false positive to turn up. How's that for an example of the absurdity of our drug policies in action?

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

69. absence of workers rights is an early sign of fascism. n/t

[unpossibles]

70. a strong Hell No on both

I have had a job that started doing random testing (I don't have as big a problem with on hire testing, although it's still invasive and depending on the job, doesn't matter).

They had some marketing suit come in to a room of engineers, a large number of whom do not do drugs (including drinking). At one point they said:

"48% of all workplace accidents are substance-related"

then later they said, "if you are abusing, you are more likely to cause an accident."

Well, not being one of the sheeple, I raised my hand and pointed out that according to their own statistics, you are slightly more likely to be involved in an accident if you are sober. And that since the probability is so close to 50%, there is no provable causality whatsoever.

All of the engineers turned around, looked at me, and everyone started clapping. I guess I just found it insulting that I had a glowing, well above average review every quarter, and yet they did not trust me.

If I am fucking up, or responsible for people's lives, then go ahead and test me. If I am doing a great job (in their own words), then fuck off. And frankly, as long as we're not coming in to work messed up on something, fuck off. We are not owned by our companies.

Once again, this is all rooted in greed - the testing companies make a BUNDLE of $$$$$$$$ with this anti-drug attitude by selling the idea and the people who buy it get an insurance break. Fucking greed-heads piss me off... It's as bad as some country selling arms all over the world, then being surprised when they are used against them, not that I'm saying anything...

[Silverhair]

91. You get an F in statistics.

The problem with your logic is that far fewer than 48% of the employees are on drugs. I can't guess at what the actual percentage is, but you have a situation where a very small portion of the workers are causing almost half the accidents.

[unpossibles]

116. I disagree

"The problem with your logic is that far fewer than 48% of the employees are on drugs. I can't guess at what the actual percentage is, but you have a situation where a very small portion of the workers are causing almost half the accidents."

true, but you would also have to consider the number of employees on drugs who do not cause accidents to get a true percentage.

If 48% of accidents are from people who are impaired and 52% are caused by people who are not impaired, how does this show that impairment is more likely to cause an accident? I am not defending anyone going to work high or drunk at all, but there are so many more potential causes from being tired to depression to just general distraction.

And to your own argument, you essentially have a very small proportion of the workers causing all of the accidents, correct?

Perhaps I do not understand your point, but I do not see how you can know the likelihood without knowing how many are impaired and do not cause an accident as well as the number of people who test positive without being actively impaired (as some substances stay in the body longer than others,sometimes up to a month).

[tsuki]

111. It is not only greed. Employees always think it is greed. You don't know

how employers are pressured to implement it. First comes the honey, we'll give you 2% of your premium back. Then the persuasion, oh so-and-so is testing and his production is up. Then the veiled threats, I don't know how long insurance companies will cover your workers or if I can find a company. All of a sudden, your workplace and worker safety meetings that have been rated superior are now deficient. More money for safety.

The insurance companies want it. With it, they can zero out any claims for any workers on illegal or legal substances.

How long can I hold out? I don't know. Maybe I'll retire.

[DistantWind88]

72. If companies cannot give their employees random drug tests

Then no one should be allowed to sue companies for damages inflicted upon them by one of the company's drugged out employees IF said employee was not exhibiting signs of drug use in an outwardly observable manner. And, yes, my company has random drug testing.

That said, I think there needs to be a clear interest in public safety before a company can require its employees to submit to random drug testing.

[depakid]

75. Slippery, slippery slope

Be careful what's in your Kool Aid.

[DistantWind88]

82. What part don't you agree with?

Or are you just the type to spout out the current faddish slogan?

[depakid]

100. I disagree with your premise

and therefore all the logic that flows from it.

No one should be forced to provide the most personal and private information about themselves absent at the very least some reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

To say otherwise puts you square in the camp of the Reaganites who started all of this back in the 80's.

Once you justify breaking the principle for "public saftey" or whatever other reason you can conjure up- you'll end up arguing over whether your very DNA is (or should be) protected.

[DistantWind88]

101. You miss my point

If an employer is not allowed to test for drugs, he should not be liable for the drug related misadventures of his drug-using employees (UNLESS he had some other way of knowing his employees were using drugs). that's my point

[depakid]

105. I see your point

however, you're missing mine.

You're breaking the principle of reasonable suspicion- in your case, for liability purposes. And tht will inevitably lead to unininteded consequences. It already has.

What you're trying to say is that under established common law notions of negligence, if an employer tests his employees for drugs, he's dischrged his duty to protect the public from any harm caused thereby. No breach of duty- no liability. We can argue over whether drug testing without reasonable suspicion is due dilligence or not- andif it is- what other things necessarily constitute due diligence

But that's not the only way negligence works under common law.

An employer "stands in the stead" of his employee. It's called "respondeat superior" - vicarious liability.

The employer (master) answers for the negligence of his or her employee (servant). So it doesn't matter whether the employer tests for drugs or not. So long as the employee is acting in the course and scope of the employer's interests- the employer has to answer. If the employee runs a light and hits someone while driving to a work related meeting, then the employer is on the hook- just the same as the employee is.

The fact that the employer did drug testing is irrelevant.

[DistantWind88]

106. Sigh

The fact he DID the test means he would have CAUGHT the employee and discharged him BEFORE the accident.

If he had the appropriate measures in place, it would be LESS likely a damaged party would be awarded compensation if the employer was not negligent. Drug use is NOT negligence, it is willful behavior.

[Misunderestimator]

99. LMAO

Oh hell, never mind

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

107. Being in labor law, let me assure you

Companies use drug tests to get off the hook for injuries even when they cannot prove that the person was under the effects of the drug AT THE TIME of the injury. They mostly don't get away with it because of people like me who FORCE them to prove it, but they do use it to fire people for filing work comp claims and get around wrongful termination clauses which preclude them from firing someone who files a claim. Drug testing laws, frankly, have not resulted in less injuries. Also, they are administered unequally since CEO's and management are not subject to as many random tests as rank and file workers are.

Frankly, if we are going to have them, then every time there's an injury..the employee and management should BOTH have to take drug tests...then we can determine (or allege as the case may be) whether the injury was caused by the willful neglect of the employee or the willful neglect of the employer :D

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

114. People who are NOT on drugs cause damage too.

I fail to see your point. If an employee does something stupid, what difference does it make whether he was under the influence at some other time? Why would the absence of drug testing make the company any less sueable? (Is that a word?)

[cags]

76. I 100% agree with drug testing. Here's why

I know someone who is an aircraft mechanic, he also did drugs and was an alcholic.

When he was looking for a job he had to take a drug test, and lo and behold he tested positive. Now if he was dumb enough to do drugs before a drug test, do you really want this guy working on the airplanes you fly in. I certainly don't, I don't want to die in a plane crash because this guy forgot to replace a screw or something because he was high.

I think if you are doing a job were the publics safety is a concern, drug testing is perfectly acceptable. People are not perfect, they screw up sometimes, I don't want to be the casualty because of someones elses screw up. Do you?

[unpossibles]

77. well, obviously in certain situations, yes

mechanic, pilot, bus driver, etc. And I agree that if someone's performance is bad or if they are using heavy machinery, etc. than I do not have a problem with it. However for someone who has glowing reviews from bosses and peers, it is insulting.

I sit in a cube farm and use PhotoShop. Hard to hurt someone with PhotoShop, myself included.

Also, consider the fact that different drugs stay in your system for different periods of time, and that it has been documented that lack of sleep, depression, or other distractions can be as debilitating or worse than drugs, and just as dangerous, but not show up on any drug test.

A competency/skills/reaction time test would make much more sense for the above scenarios and for drug use.

[cags]

125. I don't see the necessity for it in your type of job unless

you work for a company that does do service for the public or have heavy machinery operators, and they are just trying to be fair by making all employees do it.

If your entire company is just a "cube farm" and nothing else there really is no reason for it.

[sweetheart]

81. How about the person's ability to do the job

Rather in my interview, i'd present the person with an aircraft with
several misadjusted or worn components and ask that he/she do a routine
check.... and i would assess their capability to do the job based on
a valid test of their capability. I don't care what the heck is in
their blood if they can do a crack job.

I think many presume that people automatically become negligent with
drugs use. I become more negligent when i can't sleep at night because
i'm too stressed from my job. If i have a smoke in the evening, i'm
much better rested and able to do a job more focused. Your premises
are wrong, and your argument is wrong from the root.

[DistantWind88]

83. Fine, don't drug test

The employer is also not liable when the mechanic with cocaine in his system installs a flight control rod backward resulting in an aircraft accident--would you agree?

[sweetheart]

84. Liabel and trust

I have zero tolerance for not doing your job impeccably. This is
quite different than the drugs issue, to be frank. Recall the last
time you had too much to drink and how you felt the next morning.
Had you been in at work that morning, how would be your performance?
Have you ever had a really heated domestic fight and gone in to work
and been very absent minded? So many things can affect work performance
and the ultimate question is whether or not the person is a professional.

I do not make mistakes like that in my profession. It is a matter of
professional impeccability and you pay me in my field, much as a brain
surgeion in his/her field, to do a job without error... no matter how
i feel, what domestic argument's i've had, or what i've been up to
in my private time. If you have a mechanic who puts control rods in
backwards, then that is a serious dereliction of duty and you should
relieve him/her... no matter about drugs.

I find that professional trust and confidence is the best way to inspire
people to do "perfect" work. Trust and goodwill are much more powerful
motivators than the threat of a drugs test. I've never had a problem
when running engineering teams with people failing to be impeccable,
it is a reflection of the management.

A bad mechanic will always have an excuse as to why he/she put the
rod in backwards. A good one will simply do the job right, and
never make an excuse no matter what the conditions. Conditioning
a good employee, is never achieved with the stick/carrot.. rather
pay incentives are designed around perfect performance, and work is
double checked as a matter of quality verification, that everyone is
able to trust that they look out for each other, that the whole
operation works spoot on.

My operation will get the mechanics who hate being drugs testted even
if they are not using drugs.... i'll get the smart ones who hate
being invaded, who'd rather be trusted as professionals... you
discount this major factor in your liability analysis.

[DistantWind88]

85. Here's the problem

The mechanic DOESN'T EVER make a mistake until the one time he installs the control rod backward causing the small plane to crash, killing the pilot and 5 people on the ground. When tested after the fact, he tests positive for cocaine. Is the mechanic's company liable? I say no if they were not permitted to do routine drug testing. What say you?

[sweetheart]

89. Ok, if thats the legal requirement

Business is always constrained by the legal and regulatory frame
that a culture imposes... and if that's the minimum that such a company
MUST achieve to comply with regulatory best practice, then ok, but
in such a regard, i would implement this standard to the minimum
possible. Trust is the forgotten reality that builds great companies.
People who feel good about themselves and their work siatuations are
less likely to need to be on drugs... the whole thing is circular.

If by the law i must test, then c'est la vie but rather i would
prefer to implement a 100% quality regimen of double verification by
all staff of each other's work... and provide the mechanics a pool
bonus that they all get a big christmas bonus if they, as a group
achieve a 100% quality standard for the year. Rather it seems most
such problems with air maintenance, are not drugged mechanics, but
drugged pilots, or air maintenance operations that cut corners due to
cost, leaving old parts to fatigue that should be replaced, and
hiring less capable employees for less wages. There comes a point
in this race towards the bottom of the cheap labour curve, where you
cheat your business of competence... and that is a much more insideious
crime than drugs taking by staff.

You can always bring up a statistical liability paradigm like you
say... but the fact is, my company is never in that courtroom to
start with. It is possible to be impeccable, despite the mediocre
expectations of our slovenly culture.

[DistantWind88]

96. The law doesn't require one to test

I'd think that mere prudence would require it in this case.

[cags]

123. I'm sorry I'm not buying it

Most people do become more negligent with drug use. If your an exception then so what. Its not your right to have that job. You don't need illegal drugs to fix your sleeping problems, there are plenty of legal ways to do that.

The company has an obligation to the public to provide safety. How many of the customers do you think would say that it was OK with them that the mechanics use drugs as long they can do thier job OK. I most certainly would not fly with a company that allowed that.

If its so important to you to be able to do illegal drugs, then you have to accept the fact that there are some jobs that you just can't do. Because the public does not want to rely on your insistance that you can do your job just fine.

[Silverhair]

87. Wrong. It has to do with the place where the test occurs.

An employer has no right to come to my house and search it. However, if I want to go on HIS premises, he has the right to set conditions for my entry. He can require a drug test as a condition. You can then refuse to enter his premises. The rights balance.

Of course, that would mean quitting the job. But you can look for other jobs that are more lenient to drug abusers. Since your ex-employer is having to recruit workers from a smaller working pool, he will have to pay a higher wage - simple supply & demand. And since you are placing a demand on potential employers to accept a possible work issue, you will have to accept a lower pay for position where drug abuse would not be considered a problem.

You said that you aren't a drug abuser, but you ARE placing yourself in the position of one who wants to have the ability to abuse drugs and that has a cost.

Remember, YOU are not the only one who has rights. The employeer has rights too.

[Q]

92. Too bad the Founders aren't with us. You could explain to them...

...how it is that a business has 'rights'. They would wonder what YOU were smoking.

The Bill of Rights protects individuals against illegal searches. A corporation has no rights within the framework of the 'rule of law' to conduct searches...legal or otherwise.

This drug testing scam is simply another way the corporations have come up with to discriminate and deny insurance, employment, promotion and benefits. Some companies use it to get rid of 'trouble' employees that have something on them or are about to retire.

You call it 'drug abuse'. But what about the cost of drug USE? One can use drugs without abusing them in the traditional sense of the word. What is the 'cost' of using drugs and who should exact the penalty?

Drug laws in America allow racists and bigots to control the work force and discriminate against those simply trying to make a living.

[Ian David]

93. If my boss said he wanted to test my urine, he'd find it in his coffee cup

eom

[Silverhair]

95. So you would not work there, and he wouldn't want you to.

So you would both be in agreement.

[Ian David]

97. Yep. Pretty much.

[Silverhair]

94. Try looking at some of the things employers required in the 18th century.

Now since the founding fathers wrote the constitution back then, I would conclude that they were aware of what businessmen were requiring of their employees. And they didn't address those matter in the consititution as they considered it to be a private matter.

How would you like to be required to attend church on Sundays to be a store clerk?

[DistantWind88]

98. The BOR

protects people for the Government's illegal searches and seizures. If a company wants to drug test you, and you won't let them, they don't have to hire you.

[iverglas]

109. whatever happened to equality and non-discrimination?

That analysis isn't "liberal", it's loonytarian.

However, if I want to go on HIS premises, he has the right to set conditions for my entry. He can require a drug test as a condition. You can then refuse to enter his premises.

Yes, and the employer could undoubtedly set the condition that you not be black, or female. After all, it's "his" premises.

Not much you could do about being black or female, of course, in order to meet his conditions.

How 'bout Christian? Can an employer set the condition that the prospective employee not be a Christian? After all, it's easy enough to change one's religion. How 'bout Democratic? Just rip up that party membership card, and the job's yours.


The rights balance.

The rights don't balance. That's kind of the whole thing. That's kind of the whole basis of what's called "liberalism" in the US: that sometimes the imbalance of rights places some people in a position that is unacceptable: unable to find employment, unable to find housing, that sort of thing.

They've got the right not to work for employers who discriminate, but they might not actually have a job. And some people -- commonly called "liberals" -- think that it's just not right to leave people without jobs for no fault of their own.


But you can look for other jobs that are more lenient to drug abusers. Since your ex-employer is having to recruit workers from a smaller working pool, he will have to pay a higher wage - simple supply & demand. And since you are placing a demand on potential employers to accept a possible work issue, you will have to accept a lower pay for position where drug abuse would not be considered a problem.

... or where being a Christian isn't a problem. Or more to the point, perhaps, where being a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu or a Zoroastrian or an atheist isn't a problem. Who cares if you have to accept lower pay than a Christian?


Remember, YOU are not the only one who has rights. The employeer has rights too.

Yeah. Employers have the right to dismiss employees who do not perform the duties of their jobs or who harm the employer's business. They have the right not to hire employees if they have genuine reasons for not hiring them -- like, they're not qualified to do the job, or some personal characteristic of the potential employee makes him/her actually unable to do the job -- and NOT if they have only prejudices against hiring them.

Not all people of colour are lazy; not all people with disabilities are incompetent; not all Democrats will refuse to carry out the employer's orders; not all women will just leave next year to have babies. And not all people who test positive for drug/alcohol use will rob the employer blind.

You might want to read my post about the Canadian rules if you want to see how a society that genuinely subscribes to "liberal" values addresses this issue.

[Silverhair]

158. Drug abuse is a choice. Race, sex, etc isn't.

If a person's religious observances cause job problems, they can be a cause for non employment. How would you like it if your entire airline crew, including pilots & flight engineer, had to stop what they were doing and bow to Mecca at 40,000 ft? Or what about the case of the Islamic woman that didn't want to be photographed for her driver's liscense?

Our laws protect minorities that a person may be in without chosing to be in, and they should. But don't make a choice and then try to claim victim status because of the choice you made.

[ArkDem]

102. Terrible analogy

[UdoKier]

115. Terrible argument.

[Bettie]

103. Drug Testing really bothers me.

When I worked (I am a stay at home mom now), I hated the drug testing.

The first job I needed to have it done in was a bank. They took a hair sample. I talked to the HR people about it and made a strong statement that I thought that this was an invasion of my privacy.

Head of HR finally talked to me and said that if I wanted the job, I had to do it. So, I submitted, after I wrote a statement on the "consent" form about how I was submitting to it under duress and that this was an invasion of my rights.

I had two other jobs where I needed to have a drug test and I was disgusted that people are so complacent about this. The "well, you only object to a drug test if you have something to hide" attitude just bugs me. I have nothing to hide, but prefer to keep my privacy.

In both other situations where I needed the job and had to submit to a drug test, I made sure that I spoke to the person in charge of HR and made my opinions known and wrote my disclaimer on my consent form. I doubt it made any difference, but at least I did something.

Bettie.

[spanone]

104. You're kidding right? Fuck NO.

What I do away from work is nobodys business but mine.

[iverglas]

108. Some might be interested in the Canadian rules

Canadians may NOT be subjected to the kind of drug testing that employers in the US routinely impose.

I'll just reproduce some of what I posted in what used to be the "Justice/Public Safety" forum, where someone had reported being required to submit to drug testing as a condition of hiring.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=91757


Here's what the Canadian Human Rights Commission (which is responsible for applying the Canadian Human Rights Act, the non-constitutional legislation governing private sector employment in areas under federal jurisdiction, e.g. banking, shipping, railways, broadcasting) has to say about the practice in Canada:

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/legislation_policies/alcohol_drug_testing-en.asp#Executive
- Summary (italics/underlining mine; boldface in original):

Because they cannot be established as bona fide occupational requirements, the following types of testing are not acceptable:

- Pre-employment drug testing

- Pre-employment alcohol testing

- Random drug testing

- Random alcohol testing of employees in non-safety-sensitive positions.

The following types of testing may be included in a workplace drug- and alcohol-testing program, but only if an employer can demonstrate that they are bona fide occupational requirements:

- Random alcohol testing of employees in safety sensitive positions. Alcohol testing has been found to be a reasonable requirement because alcohol testing can indicate actual impairment of ability to perform or fulfill the essential duties or requirements of the job. Random drug testing is prohibited because, given its technical limitations, drug testing can only detect the presence of drugs and not if or when an employee may have been impaired by drug use.

- Drug or alcohol testing for "reasonable cause" or "post-accident," e.g. where there are reasonable grounds to believe there is an underlying problem of substance abuse or where an accident has occurred due to impairment from drugs or alcohol, provided that testing is a part of a broader program of medical assessment, monitoring and support.

- Periodic or random testing following disclosure of a current drug or alcohol dependency or abuse problem may be acceptable if tailored to individual circumstances and as part of a broader program of monitoring and support. Usually, a designated rehabilitation provider will determine whether follow-up testing is necessary for a particular individual.

- Mandatory disclosure of present or past drug or alcohol dependency or abuse may be permissible for employees holding safety-sensitive positions, within certain limits, and in concert with accommodation measures. Generally, employees not in safety-sensitive positions
should not be required to disclose past alcohol or drug problems.

In the limited circumstances where testing is justified, employees who test positive must be accommodated to the point of undue hardship. ...

There is NO provision for an employer requiring employees to submit to drug testing to protect the employer's property interests, i.e. to weed out employees regarded as likely to steal. Employers' property interests do not outweigh individuals' right against discrimination. (Just as an employer's concern about losing customers if it hires people of colour would not outweigh individuals' right against discrimination.)

Hell, even the Human Rights Commission of Alberta (Neoconland North) says this:

http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/publications/Inform...

Based on current human rights case law, the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (the Commission) takes the following position on drug and alcohol testing:

1. Drug and alcohol testing are only allowable in certain circumstances.

2. It is discriminatory to test potential or existing employees for drug and alcohol use if the testing is not reasonable and justifiable.

3. There is a duty to accommodate persons with disabilities in the workplace, up to the point of undue hardship. Drug and alcohol dependency, whether perceived or real, fall within the meaning of disability under the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. For more information about accommodation, see the Commission’s interpretive bulletin Duty to accommodate.

There are of course many nuances to these positions, and the courts will examine individual cases based on their own facts and context.

This reflects the overall Canadian approach to individuals' rights and freedoms: that equality may not be denied, privacy not invaded, liberty impaired, etc., without demonstrated justification.

If private-sector non-discrimination legislation (federal or provincial) permitted discrimination on an unjustified ground (by failing to prohibit it), that legislation itself (i.e. the offending part of it, the part that failed to protect against discrimination) would be struck down by the courts as a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution) (or the necessary anti-discrimination provision would be "read into" the legislation).

[theboss]

112. Depends on the job doesn't it?

If health and safety are at stake, perhaps. Police officers, fireman, pilots, etc. Otherwise, no.

[phylny]

118. Well, where do we draw the line?

Let's not only look at the "danger" factor, but what about the productivity factor?

Say I work in a small book store, and I am supposed to start working at 4:30 p.m. until the store closes. I have to leave at 4 p.m. to get there on time. At 2 p.m., a friend brings over some pot. In the past, I've always come "down" and have been able to function realy well about one hour or so after smoking, so I partake. Since the "quality" or potency of the pot can vary (after all, it's not a prescription drug where I know the effects might last for a certain period of time), I'm taking a gamble, but I know myself pretty well, and I think I have plenty of time to spare before I have to drive into work.

Well, my friend has brought over some pretty great stuff, and I find that when I need to leave for work, I'm still a bit buzzed.

I have some options:

- Call in late and go when I can - I can't drive this way. Of course, I may be inconveniencing someone else who was supposed to go home and can't. Oh, and my boss who has counted on me may be one employee late, but I can't drive and I can't go in high.

- Call off - I'm too tired, and I'll be too late. I've just left my boss and my coworkers in a lurch.

- Drive in even though I'm not quite feeling like "myself" - risking possible injury to myself or others as I drive.

- Drive in - have a safe trip - but be less than clear-headed, less than productive for a while after I get to work. My boss expects a certain quality of work that I cannot deliver.

So, here's a job that's not really crucial - no heavy machinery, no people to fly around in the air, no criminals to capture - but my decision may possibly have an effect on someone.

So, where do we draw the line?

[theboss]

119. Well, wouldn't you just get fired?

If I had an employee show up late repeatedly and who came to work high, I would fire them. If they showed up, did their job, and I didn't notice, they would stay. But I don't think there is any employer that wouldn't have the right to fire an employee who showed up high.

I think the line for drug-testing is pretty clear. If your actions affect the health and safety of the public, you can be tested. I also think it can be included in a CBO.

[phylny]

120. I was responding to your contention that if health and safety are

not a factor, then there would be no reason to test.

I've provided a scenario where being impaired on a seemingly innocuous job could still affect others.

[theboss]

122. Yes, but just being a dick would affect others in the same exact way

You would get fired for not showing up, not for being high.

[phylny]

131. When they have a test for being a dick

we'll discuss that :)

[theboss]

136. I have such a test

I supervise people and I can figure out who is a dick in about five hours. And if they fail that test, they are usually gone within the week.

[phylny]

142. Box it up, sell it, and you'll make millions! ;) n/t

[UdoKier]

121. The same argument can be made against alcohol.

And there is such a thing as common sense. Anybody who gets high 2 hours before work is an idiot.

[theboss]

124. Eventually that person will get fired anyway

But he won't be risking anyone's life in the meantime. I've worked in crap jobs with people who had drug problems. Eventually they are found out and either get help or are let go. When I was cleaning streets, it never really bothered me.

But with police officers, firemen, EMTs, emergency room doctors, etc, I would want to know right away.

[iverglas]

129. what a bucket o' fruit

Call in late and go when I can - I can't drive this way. Of course, I may be inconveniencing someone else who was supposed to go home and can't. Oh, and my boss who has counted on me may be one employee late, but I can't drive and I can't go in high.

And the employer can take appropriate disciplinary action if your excuse is regarded as inappropriate. Oral warning, to written warning, to dismissal.

In what sense is this any different from someone who just doesn't bloody feel like going to work today? How is the reason for the behaviour relevant?


Call off - I'm too tired, and I'll be too late. I've just left my boss and my coworkers in a lurch.

Ditto. And you've done exactly the same thing as someone who decides to stay in Florida for an extra day, or stay in bed for an extra 6 hours, or go shopping.

Are there blood/urine tests to determine who's most likely to do these things?


Drive in even though I'm not quite feeling like "myself" - risking possible injury to myself or others as I drive.

And this is related to your employer-employee relationship ... how?


Drive in - have a safe trip - but be less than clear-headed, less than productive for a while after I get to work. My boss expects a certain quality of work that I cannot deliver.

And ... wait for it ... if your boss is not satisfied with the work and is not satisfied with whatever explanation you offer for your unsatisfactory performance: appropriate disciplinary action.

And ... again ... this differs from how things would be if you had stayed up all night watching horror flicks ... how?


So, where do we draw the line?

Where the employer has an employment-related reason for knowing whether its employees are using drugs or alcohol and for not offering / terminating employment in the event that they are.

And where the reasons offered by the employer are bona fide, and do not amount to prejudice.

You might want to read about where the line is drawn in Canada (my earlier post), if it isn't clear.

[phylny]

132. We don't have a test for:

1) being late for work,
2) staying in Florida for an extra day,
3) staying up late for the horror flick,

and I don't live in Canada, but thanks for your information.

I'm not trying to be difficult, just pointing out that it's hard to draw the line between what jobs may be affected by drug use and what jobs wouldn't.

If you ARE sending a bucket of fruit, I don't like grapefruit :)

[iverglas]

137. close that mind tight, now

and toss around a few more herrings.

We don't have a test for:
1) being late for work,
2) staying in Florida for an extra day,
3) staying up late for the horror flick,

(But surely you could attach some sort of monitor to the subject's ankle or something ...)

Excellent job of, uh, missing the point. I congratulate you.


and I don't live in Canada, but thanks for your information.

Funny how I kinda didn't think you did, which would probably be why I offered the information. People who don't occasionally climb up and look over the walls erected around their societies often lose out on the good ideas kicking around on the other side.

[phylny]

141. There's no reason to be snarky, right?

Right?

You've missed my point entirely, but I'm not about to toss missiles in your direction.

It's unneighborly, dontchathink?

[Freebird12004]

127. next step "thought police"

oh wait - they are already here !
Just look at all of the things that we can't *say* or *do* or *draw*.

[unpossibles]

128. shhh!

we're not allowed to point that out any more.

[Freebird12004]

134. see - another thing I can't do

next I won't be allowed to drink coffee while driving.

[merh]

130. NO VOTE -- Stupid poll

Random drug testing of employees has nothing to do with random searching of employee homes.

Apple and oranges.

Random drug testing of employees is needed to protect the employer from all sorts of liabilities and helps ensure that the employer is getting an employee that is capable of doing the job.

Stupid poll - NO VOTE

[candle_bright]

133. Well said

Understanding the employer's perspective is important.

[merh]

135. Oh, it's not just the employer's perspective, but it is the rights

of the other employees. Do I want a stoned, drunk or flying employee working next to me, or sleeping next to me or zinging off the walls while I am trying to work. Do I want to be anywhere near a loaded or high fork lift driver?

What about the consumer? As a consumer, do you want to buy a car that some drunk or high employee forgot to tighten a bolt or add a part?

It goes beyond the employer/employee relationship in so many ways.

[candle_bright]

138. Correct

I agree on all points. What I meant was that the employer is responsible for his/her employees' safety, as well as the safety of consumers. In that vein, if a drugged out employee causes harm to another employee or a consumer that individual is hurt and the employer is liable.

[UdoKier]

139. Your argument has nothing to do with invasive random drug tests.

Nobody wants to work someone who is high.

Drug tests are not about that. They detect whether a person has used within the last several weeks, not hours. IE they are trying to control employee behavior on the employee's private time.

And these tests do nothing to detect drunks.

I believe the subjective observations of supervisors and co-workers are a much better way of weeding out problem employees than invasive drug tests that accuse EVERYONE of being a druggie. They are offensive beyond belief.

You would do well to read the other posts in this thread. There are some very good points as to why this is WRONG in jobs that do not affect public safety.

[merh]

144. Not in my experience.

The tests are to detect the presence of illegal drugs. If the employee has a prescription for drugs, that is taken into account when the test results are reviewed. The employee has the opportunity to advise the testers that he/she "went out and got drunk" last night and if the percentage of alcohol is below the legal limit, that is taken into account. If it is above the legal limit, then apparently the employee came to work drunk, which is a violation of most companies' policies.

It is not wrong in any job - the employer has a fidicuriary duty to the owner or the stockholders or himself. He has the right to expect the employees to come to work able to function.

I did read the other posts and I do not agree with them.

You would do well to not allow your social use of alcohol or narcotics to impede the rights of others. You have the right to have fun, I won't take it from you, but you don't have a right to have fun at the expense of the employer, your fellow employees, the consumers, the customers, etc.

[UdoKier]

146. As I stated clearly in the OP, I do not use drugs.

All the more reason to object to being treated like a criminal for no reason.

That being said, I don' think it is the job of the employer to enforce the drug laws, which is basically what they are doing by checking whether a person has used within the last several weeks or months. They have a right to expect their employees to come to their job sober. They should NOT have the right to fire someone for smoking a harmless joint when they were on a 2 week vacation.

Your line of reasoning is not only personally insulting, it's totally specious.


You've yet to demonstrate how a test that detects drug use weeks or even months in the past can ensure that an employee will "come to work able to function."

This policy weeds out people who use marijuana responsibly, but those who come in drunk or hung over are likely to get away with it, since alcohol disappears from your system so quickly.

[merh]

147. It is obvious that you have never owned your own business and

tried to squeak out a living at the same time as pay for the employees health care, workers comp, etc.

If ever you find yourself in that position, where you have to be responsible to yourself, your family, your employees, then maybe you will sing a different tune.

[UdoKier]

148. Yet again you fail to make a cogent argument.

But thanks for all the personal attacks and wild presumptions about who I am and what I do.

[merh]

149. Not wild attacks - just assumptions based on your faulty reasoning.

If you ever found yourself in the position of having to operate a business then you would know that this is not a "civl rights" issue, but a public safety and a fiduciary issue.

[UdoKier]

150. You've yet to demonstrate that either.

I see it as a control issue. Employers controlling employees' personal lives to an extent they should not be entitled to do.

I've allowed that pilots, bus drivers, people operating heavy machinery should be tested. The public safety issue wins out in those cases.

Your reasoning for testing people in other kinds of occupations isn't faulty - it's non-existent.


But since you just presume that I'm some stoner who's never balanced a checkbook, I'll just presume that you are some stuffed-shirt billionaire bigot who has never worked a day in his life. How's that suit you?

[merh]

151. Oh, so high bank tellers are okay?

How about the kid with the fries, its okay for him to be high or stoned? Accountants? Guess you don't have a problem with a stoned accountant doing your taxes? The city clerk, who cares if they make mistakes filing those city documents or sending out tax notices or accidently tossing out registrations, that's okay, no sweat! High meter readers, so maybe they get the numbers wrong every now and then. Data processors, well damn, so it takes a high one a little longer to type the data, prepare that document.

"Drug and alcohol abuses continue rising across the nation. Seventy-one percent of all drug users over the age of 18-more than 10 million workers-are employed full or part time, according to the Department of Labor. Drug abuse affects such financial areas as sick leave, medical costs and workers' compensation costs. Substance abusers file three to five times more workers' compensation claims than the average employee and account for 38 percent to 50 percent of all claims. "Employed drug abusers cost their employers about twice as much in medical and workers' compensation claims as their drug-free coworkers," according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. In addition, substance abuse leads to higher rates of violence and contributes to the increasing problem of violence in the workplace. It is important for policymakers to enact legislation that balances the need for safe and productive workplaces with upholding individuals' rights to privacy."

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/employ/drugtest.htm

Employer's costs are paid by consumers. Simple matter of fiscal responsibility and fiduciary duties.

There are states that allow random testing of all employees. Having written drug policies for counties and large employers, we try to not limit the testing to "certain employees" but require that all employees follow the "drug free" work place policy, therefore, no one's civil rights are violated because they are held to a higher standard than their fellow workers.

Here are some laws that you might find informative. The saying ignorance is bliss is not true - it leads one to a false sense of security in their limited world views.

SEC. 71-7-5. Conduct of testing generally; authorized types of tests.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in Section 71-7-27, all drug and alcohol testing conducted by employers shall be in conformity with the standards established in this section, other applicable provisions of this chapter, and all applicable regulations promulgated pursuant to this chapter.

(2) An employer is authorized to conduct the following types of drug and alcohol tests:

(a) Employers may require job applicants to submit to a drug and alcohol test as a condition of the employment application and may use a refusal to submit to a test or positive confirmed test result as a basis for refusal to hire.

(b) An employer may require all employees to submit to reasonable suspicion drug and alcohol testing. There is created a rebuttable presumption that the employer had reasonable suspicion to test for drugs if the specimen provided by the employee tested positive for drugs in a confirmatory drug test.

(c) An employer may require all employees to submit to neutral selection drug and alcohol testing pursuant to Section 71-7-9.

SOURCES: Laws, 1991, ch. 610, Sec. 3; reenacted and codified, 1994, ch. 323, Sec. 3, eff from and after passage (approved March 14, 1994)

SEC. 71-7-9. Collection, storage and transportation of specimens; time of testing; rights of employees upon receipt of positive results; discharge, discipline, etc., of employees generally; payment of costs of testing.

(1) The collection of specimens shall be performed under reasonable and sanitary conditions. Individual dignity shall be preserved to the extent practicable.

(2) Specimens shall be collected in a manner reasonably calculated to prevent substitution of specimens and interference with the collection or testing of specimens.

(3) Specimen collection shall be documented, and the documentation procedures shall include:

(a) Labeling of specimen containers so as to reasonably preclude the likelihood of erroneous identification of test results; and

(b) An opportunity for the employee or applicant to provide any information that he considers relevant to the test, including identification of currently or recently used prescription or nonprescription drugs, or other relevant medical information. The provision of this information shall not preclude the administration of the drug and alcohol test, but shall be taken into account in interpreting any positive confirmed results.

(4) Specimen collection, storage and transportation to the testing site will be performed in a manner which will reasonably preclude specimen contamination or adulteration, and specimen testing for drugs shall conform to scientifically accepted analytical methods and procedures.

(5) Each confirmation test conducted under this chapter, not including the taking or collecting of a specimen to be tested, shall be conducted by a * * * laboratory.

(6) A specimen for a drug and alcohol test may be taken or collected by any of the following persons:

(a) A physician, a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse;

(b) A qualified person employed by a * * * laboratory; or

(c) Any person deemed qualified by the State Board of Health.

* * *

(7) A person who collects or takes a specimen for a drug and alcohol test conducted pursuant to this chapter shall collect an amount sufficient for at least two (2) drug and alcohol tests as defined by federal statutes and regulations.

(8) Any drug and alcohol testing conducted or requested by an employer shall occur during or immediately after the regular work period of current employees, and shall be deemed to be performed during work time for purposes of determining compensation and benefits for current employees.

(9) Every specimen that produces a positive confirmed result shall be preserved in a frozen state by the * * * laboratory that conducts the confirmation test for a period of ninety (90) days from the time the results of the positive confirmed test are mailed or otherwise delivered to the employer. During this period, the employee who has provided the specimen shall be permitted by the employer to have a portion of the specimen retested, at the employee's expense, at a * * * laboratory chosen by the employee. The * * * laboratory that has performed the test for the employer shall be responsible for the transfer of the portion of the specimen to be retested, and for the integrity of the chain of custody during such transfer.

(10) Within five (5) working days after receipt of a positive confirmed test result report from the * * * laboratory that conducted the test, an employer shall, in writing, inform an employee of such positive test result and inform the employee in writing of the consequences of such a report and the options available to him.

(11) An employee may request and receive from the employer a copy of the test result report.

(12) Within ten (10) working days after receiving notice of a positive confirmed test result, the employee may submit information to an employer explaining the test results, and why the results do not constitute a violation of the employer's policy. If an employee's explanation of the positive test results is not satisfactory to the employer, a written explanation submitted by the employer as to why the employee's explanation is unsatisfactory, along with the report of positive results, shall be made a part of the employee's medical and personnel records.

(13) Except as otherwise provided in Section 71-7-13(10), an employer may not discharge, discipline, refuse to hire, discriminate against, or request or require rehabilitation of an employee on the basis of a positive test result that has not been verified by a confirmatory test.

(14) An employer may not discharge, discipline, discriminate against or request or require rehabilitation of an employee on the basis of medical history information revealed to the employer pursuant to this chapter unless the employee had an affirmative obligation to provide such information before, upon or after hire.

(15) An employer who performs on-site drug and alcohol tests or specimen collection shall establish chain-of-custody procedures to ensure proper record keeping, handling, labeling and identification of all specimens to be tested.

(16) The employer shall pay the costs of all drug and alcohol tests to which he requires, or requests, an employee or job applicant to submit. The employee or job applicant shall pay the costs of any additional drug and alcohol tests requested by the employee or job applicant.

SOURCES: Laws, 1991, ch. 610, Sec. 5; reenacted and codified, 1994, ch. 323, Sec. 5; Laws, 2002, ch. 432, § 3, HB 905, eff from and after July 1, 2002.

PREVIOUS VERSIONS: Pre-2002.

http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/71/007/0009.htm

[UdoKier]

154. Jesus Christ, it's like talking to a brick wall!

Drug tests do not detect whether a person is high or not!

Of course being high at work is unacceptable!

What substances are you taking that that distinction keeps whizzing right over your head?

And why do you equate any person who ever has a joint with a "drug abuser"?

[merh]

159. Drug tests detect alcohol and unlawful substances

(go back and read the law I provided above). It is not a privacy issue, it is an issue of public safety and fiduciary responsibily. Again, costs of the employer are passed on to the consumer. Do you just ignore statistics or only statistics that don't go along with your faulty reasoning?

[merh]

152. I would suggest that you educate yourself on what random tests

do and what they detect before you post statements such as this.

[UdoKier]

155. They do not detect intoxication.

They detect exposure to narcotics going back weeks.

[unpossibles]

140. I agree on some level

however I have worked with those people, and I have worked with straight-laced completely incompetent people, and I have worked with people who smoked pot and were very competent. is it the drug or the person?

Again, I'd rather they test reaction speed, reflex, and competence, not drugs.

[noamnety]

143. I agree, stupid poll

A urine test tests only for substances in your blood stream.

A house search covers extensive lifestyle issues - your employer doesn't have a reason to look through your underwear drawer, to browse your medicine chest to see what you are taking medicine for, to check what kind of birth control products you use, to check out what books are on your bookshelves, or to see if you are sharing a house with a male or female. Furthermore, if you do share a living space with somebody, their privacy is being invaded at that point, as well as the employee's. Unless they've consented to a search, you have a separate legal obstacle. And there is no way to tell what is the employee's or their roommate's belongings.

Definitely apples to oranges.

The biggest problem I have with the urinalysis is the privacy issue. In the army, we had to pee in the cup with a witness (a coworker, not a doctor) standing two feet in front of us, facing us, watching. I can't think of any other job where they put you in that situation, I found it offensive.

As a contractor, I also had to do a drug test - this time in a clinic which was in a bad part of town (I'm sure to save them a few dollars). The set up was also memorably awful - You had your own private bathroom to give a specimen, but there was some weird device wired up in the toilet with no explanation, so I don't know if it was a camera taking a photo of my backside for their records, to ensure it was my own specimen, or what - I'm definitely not comfortable with that. Then when I went to wash my hands afterwards - no water! It was shut off. So I had to use my unwashed hands to grab the doorknob - knowing that every other person had used their unwashed hands after peeing to grab that same doorknob. It was just filthy and disgusting.

So just as a matter of privacy, I wish employees were given a choice off a urinalysis or a blood test - I'd rather donate a vial of blood than have someone stare at me while I pee in a dixie cup.

[iverglas]

153. apples to oranges ...

only if you've identified relevant differences.

After all, apples and oranges do both grow on trees, have seeds and skin and flesh, and make excellent juice.

You have done an exhaustive review of all the possible differences between blood/urine tests and premises searches, without demonstrating the relevance of any of those differences to the issue.


So just as a matter of privacy, I wish employees were given a choice off a urinalysis or a blood test - I'd rather donate a vial of blood than have someone stare at me while I pee in a dixie cup.

You can call it "donate" if you want, but that isn't what it is. It's coerced donating.

Yes, I know, and I generally agree, that only the state can actually "coerce" people to do things. But we liberals/progressives/etc. generally agree that there are certain basic things that people are entitled to -- like something to eat and a place to sleep. And being made unable to meet those needs unless one complies with arbitrary conditions can, colloquially, be called coercion. We ain't loonytarians here.


I'd rather donate a vial of blood than have someone stare at me while I pee in a dixie cup.

And you were the one who objected to stupid polls! And here you are making me quote Firesign Theatre again ... Which would you rather do: hit that little old Jew over the head with this bag of shit, or beat out that rhythm on a drum?

I'd rather DO NEITHER.

[noamnety]

157. I'm not asking you to choose between the two

I would also rather do neither - but having gone through the one, and having had the other threatened (me being in the roommate position, not the employee position), I see a huge difference between the two. As the roommate, I didn't agree to take any job contingent on having my belongings searched, and I didn't gain any benefit from agreeing to it. I actually refused to let them in, on the grounds that as far as I was concerned, I was putting myself in danger by having a man I don't know alone with me in my apartment - I phrased it as a potential rape situation, and they backed off quickly.

And also a seperate point - the largest invasion of privacy in the drug test was not the question of whether I did or didn't do drugs, but whether I had to undress and pee while a coworker was staring at me.

That's a privacy issue that the poll didn't address. So for both those reasons, I think it's a stupid poll.

[okieinpain]

145. what's wrong with random drug test. the only thing I would hate

about it is the exec's don't have to take one. other then that, don't want to take one, start you're own business.

[unpossibles]

160. in theory this is great

but as more and more companies drug test (as they are) that "choice" disappears. Also, many companies which use freelancers and contractors also require it, so starting your own business is not an easy solution either.

I suppose the easy solution would be to legalize pot. How many people's lives are ruined more by the illegality than the substance? This does not mean I condone going to work high at all.

Most responsible pot smokers I know also do not believe in it, and most are not what anyone could easily identify as "stoners" and are hard-working members of society, contrary to stereotype.