Drug testing in the workplace. What do we think about it?

[devilgrrl]

This morning I found out that one of my coworkers was let go because he didn't meet "hiring requirements." I don't know what those requirements were but I assume he wasn't hired because he failed the drug test. If you are in a position of operating motor vehicles or performing surgeries I can see why some professions test people. However, on the whole, I find the drug testing business to be a bunch of bullshit, not there to prevent but to exclude.

What do you all think? You tell me.

[sniffa]

1. i dunno

i'm comforted knowing that the person giving me my video rentaL at bLockbuster, has passed a drug test.

[mark414]

2. dumbest thing ever

let's say i want to smoke a joint on a friday night. just one, never come to work stoned, only do it on the weekends, etc. i'd fail the drug test. meanwhile the office alcoholic can drink as much as he wants every night and nothing will show up in HIS test.

and who would you rather have working for you?

[JitterbugPerfume]

5. Drug testing

is just one more way Big Brother watches us


for our own good---of course

[MadisonProgressive]

11. Maybe they don't like criminals working for them.

I say that as an avid criminal smoker.

[Melodybe]

39. Well congress thinks that it can screen your children for mental illness

WITHOUT your permission, why should your work place be any different.

New Freedom Commission, a BIG FUCKING DEAL!

Here is a link for more explanation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1566848

[wuushew]

3. It should be illegal

activities that are done outside the work environment are no business of the employer.

I fail to see how the effort to save money via reduced liability threats differs from similar efforts to bar people based on race, sex or religious preferences.

[Karmageddon]

4. I'm all for it. Depending on what kind I get to test.

[meganmonkey]

8. Hee hee

:smoke:

[donco6]

6. They're hypocritical.

Mainly because of the alcohol discrimination mentioned by another poster. Going on weekend benders is OK, but smoke a joint once or twice in a month and a test will reveal it. Sad.

[longship]

7. Not a good thing

Tests are somewhat inaccurate but are read as perfect. If somebody flunks the test, whether it is correct or not, they are let go. There is no recourse, no chance to defend oneself. Drug tests don't work.

[Der Blaue Engel]

9. Definitely bullshit

It seems to me that if someone is performing poorly, then you should be able to deal with that, regardless of WHY you think they're screwing up. If they aren't performing poorly, then what is the deal?

Doesn't that seem simple? It baffles me how many rights we're willing to give up in this country. I will NEVER take a drug test for any employer, regardless of the fact that I don't even take drugs. I was outraged when it first started (to my knowledge) in the 80s, and equally outraged that everyone just climbed into the cattle car with a shrug.

[eternalburn]

10. Could lead to other things....

....

For example, drug tests show not only illegal drug use but legal prescription drug use.

Do you want your employer to know about medical problems you may be suffering from? Is this a way for the workplace to weed out those who might be a drain on employee medical insurance? or maybe a way to weed out those with undesirable diseases such as HIV?

Just some thoughts.

[DBoon]

14. or if you are injured on the job

all the sudden the test results become one way they can deny you worker's comp

[DS9Voy]

23. Yup

I know with one employer I worked with the drug testing company sent ALL documents the applicant filled out which included whatever prescription drugs they were taking. I believe anyone taking a drug like paxil or other drugs that might "tell you about someone" were not hired.

[Horse with no Name]

30. Then they should sue

because that isn't legal under the HIPAA laws.
MOST places that do drug tests nowadays do NOT ask what medications you are taking (privacy reasons) unless something is flagged in the test and then they will contact you and ask what prescription meds you are on. At that point, you will have to provide them a legit prescription so that they can rule it out as an illegitimate substance.
With that being said, as a nurse I fully understand why I am drug tested. However, I do find it very hard to understand why the person at Blockbuster is tested. The only rational argument would be that if a person had an extreme drug habit, then it is possible they would steal to support that habit.
I still don't agree with it.:shrug:

[Big Kahuna]

12. Isn't drug testing mandatory for all federal employees?

I'd like to see *'s test results.

[sbj405]

32. Not all. Though for those with clearance, yes.

Were he not s-elected he probably wouldn't have gotten a security clearance.

[Sandpiper]

13. Depends on the type of work

But generally speaking, I share your feelings about drug testing. It's a way for employers to pry into what you do on your own time, which really is none of their business.

But even if you are working a job operating heavy machinery or something physically hazardous, what difference does it make if you light up a joint after work? The only real danger is from people who come to work intoxicated, and most drug tests have no way of showing if you did drugs an hour ago or a week ago.

[TX-RAT]

15. Is it the employers or the insurance comps?

[anarch]

16. taking drugs at work seems ok, unless you are a driver...

or operate machinery or something.

oh, wait. You said drug *testing*. Well, that's just wrong and invasive.

And let's not forget that it's possible to fail a drug test after eating poppy seed bagels and such.

If someone is visibly intoxicated and it is affecting their performance, it's one thing, but drug testing in general seems stupid.

[killbotfactory]

17. It's never seemed to stop all the drug users i've worked with

They just skip the drugs until they are employed.

[Deep13]

18. Bosses aren't cops.

Even cops need a search warrant first. Why does the manager at Walmart have a right to make you prove your innocence when the state does not even have that power?

[Nay]

21. Nothing prevents bosses from drug testing, because they are not

subject to the search and seizure clause of the Constitution. That's why cops (government) have to get a warrant and bosses (private company) don't. Of course, the way things are going, pretty soon the cops won't need warrants, either. Just any old asshole will be able to demand our papers, our pee, whatever.

[Deep13]

27. The Constitution protects against govt. abuse, ...

...and the state is suposed to enact statutes to protect from private/corporate abuse. (Hard to call a company like Walmart "private".) The state has been asleep at the switch for awhile. I figure if the state who has a legitimate interest in law enforcement cannot demand random or universal testing, a corporation should not be able to either.

Here's a thought. Corporations are creatures of state law. They are not people but entities created by corporate charter pursuant to statute. I'd argue that the state cannot make an entity that can do what it cannot.

[Warpy]

19. I think if somebody's suddenly screwing up on the job

and making mistakes, having more absenteeism, coming in late and leaving early, and trying to get coworkers to cover for him/her, that a drug test might be a good idea. That's only if the company in question wants to keep an employee and has a health plan that covers treatment, or course.

I worked in healthcare where access to drugs, even with DEA controls and nightmarish paperwork, made for a lot of temptation for overtired, overstressed and overworked professionals. This is how it was handled there, and employees caught with dirty urine who agreed to treatment were allowed to continue their employment with spot urine checks and sometimes a loss of narcotic privileges.

Random urine checks "just because we can" are a direct violation of the fourth amendment. No court will uphold that, though. The fucking drug war is just too popular in the suburbs.

[KansDem]

31. "direct violation of the fourth amendment"

I agree. I've been fortunate to have had jobs that didn't require peeing in a jar for someone, but I have gone to job interviews where I've learned that, if hired, I would have to pee on demand.

I refused those jobs and accepted the ones that didn't require urine analysis, but was usually a bit miffed because I went to all the trouble to prepare and travel to the interview with no knowledge of the drug test requirement until after the interview. And asking beforehand, like during the setting up of the interview time and date, if drug testing is required always sounded a little "suspicious." I wondered if doing so would dilute my chances of getting the job.

That's why I believe a small number "4" inside a red circle with a red line drawn diagonally through it is in order for all job announcements of employers who drug-tested. It could appear somewhere in the help-wanted ad as the international symbol for "no fourth amendment" and alert all potential job applicants that drug testing is required for employment. Then you could decide if you wanted to apply.

[Jokerman]

20. Depends on how it is done.

I have no problem with an employer expecting me to be clean WHILE I'M ON THE JOB! As long as they are paying me for my time, it's OK for them to expect me to be in complete control of my faculties.

HOWEVER, what I do on my own time is NONE OF THEIR DAMN BUSINESS.

A drug test that shows if you are currently under the influence is OK but one that shows what I may have done at a party three weeks ago is a violation of my rights.

[Nikia]

22. I had started a thread in the drug policy forum

With my opinion of drug testing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=218&topic_id=31&mesg_id=31

[Journeyman]

24. I oppose such tests because they may not stop at illicit drugs. . .

Once they open you up to testing, what's to stop them for testing to see what prescription drugs you're using, whether or not you're menopausal or pregnant, and delving deeper into your DNA to see what a health risk you may be in the future.

If the tests are only used to determine drug use -- and alcohol abuse is treated the same -- then I've no problem with taking a test at the beginning of employment. After that, deal with me on issues as they arise: If I'm drunk or stoned on the job, fire me because of poor or dangerous work skills. If I'm drinking or drugging at home, on my free hours, focus on the real issue: my free hours, and leave me be.

Is this in accord with some standard of "group think"? Don't know, don't care.

[Blue_In_AK]

25. Only if someone is coming to work obviously impaired...

...and unable to do their job, and even then they should be afforded the opportunity to clean up their act before being fired, IMO. And I think it's completely ridiculous to fire someone on the basis of especially cannabis metabolites in their urine because you stay positive for so long beyond the actual high.

Personally, I'm not a fan of drug-testing in the workplace AT ALL. Keeping or losing a job should be based on performance, period.

[DS9Voy]

28. How long after use does one test positive?

[Blue_In_AK]

29. That's a good question....

I don't know how soon it shows up, but I do know that MJ stays in the system for a couple of weeks generally (absent extraordinary flushing measures), cocaine for about three days, and alcohol is gone overnight. It's ironic that the least dangerous has the potential for causing the most trouble for the employee drug test wise.

[DS9Voy]

26. It's because you're not RICH

You know what I find ironic? The burger flipper at Mcdonalds needs to pass a drug test to flip burgers, but the man who literally can start WW3 and has his finger on the button - a man with a KNOWN drug history - well... it's not so important to test him before he sits down next to the red phone.

How many CEOs get drug tested when all the underlings are?

[dave29]

33. I would be glad to test drugs in the workplace

workplace sanctioned druguse is far overdue

[Igel]

34. I was tested once.

It was for a mfg job for a company housed in a warehouse. Most of the building was occupied by a drug distributor, and if I had tried, I could have easily gotten access to controlled substances.

I guess they figured that if I was already using controlled substances, there was a higher risk that I'd be interested in the distributor's stock.

Once hired, no more testing.

[Mnemosyne]

35. A kid I know (age 26, kid to me),

got a job recently washing cars at a dealership. But only after he passed a drug test. Now you can't even wash cars without passing a test?!!

This is insane. With the legislation that has been passed the last few years, someones on some kind of drugs. Oh yeah, alcohol.

Controlling pricks.

[UdoKier]

36. It's a violation of privacy rights and should be illegal.

Employees are not the police and have no business enforcing the drug laws. Drug tests do not detect intoxication, but rather whether or not a person has used within the last several weeks.

I have no problem with dismissal if a person appears impaired or is not performing their duties (although companies should offer drug treatment for first offenders)

Drug tests are also unfair in that they are most likely to detect marijuana, the least harmful of all drugs including alcohol, but often miss methamphetamines, etc. because they are flushed from the system much quicker.

But of course my main problem is that employers have no business knowing what you did the weekend before last. Their concern should be the workplace and your behavior while in it.


Most companies that random drug test are horrible Nazi companies like Home Depot. I have a policy of not shopping there, anyway.

[NMMNG]

37. Depends

If the person's job duties include being responsible for the safety and well-being of other human beings, then by all means, test for drug use . I do wish the tests were sophisticated enough that they could determine whether the substances were being used during work hours or off-time because I don't think what employees do off hours is the employer's business.

If the employee is not working where they are responsible for human safety there is no legitimate reason to be testing for drug use. It's just more moral fascism at work.

[madeline_con]

38. Here's what gets me

Someone smokes a little weed on their own time, and can lose their job, but if they're all fuc#ed up on Rx pills (way more old ladies like this than most people think), they can terrorize the people in the Walmart parking lot and get away with it!