104 replies to this topic

[NapisaurusRex]

I don't know what the rest of the world is like, but over here in the United States you have to get drug tested sometimes when you get hired. If you fail, then you don't have a job anymore. Most companies have some kind of waiver stating that if you get injured on the job, then you may be subject to drug testing.

So I was at Taco Bell a little while ago waiting for the (obviously, obnoxiously) stoned people to quit screwing up my order and make it right. Back when I was not sober, I thought drug testing was a total invasion of privacy and there wasn't anything wrong with doing drugs or alcohol at work, off work, whenever. (Even after I cut off the tip of my thumb pilled out at work one time on the bell pepper machine.) Now that I'm sober though and looking around at people, I'm wondering if the invasion of privacy is worth the amount of time and money employees, customers, and companies waste with people who aren't sober.

Do you think drug testing prior to hire is an acceptable practice?
Should it be used for ALL occupations? None of them? Just some jobs?
And why/why not, obviously.

[Hydrogen]

I feel it's more of an issue of profiling than anything else. There is information that you must give up when being hired that is a lot more sensitive than whether or not you do drugs.

Having said that, it really depends on the type of drugs being used, and the requirements of the job. Obviously, if someone is driving heavy machinery, they should be staying away from hallucinogens as much as possible .

The company sets the type of environment that they want to build. Their employees are the ones who will actually build that environment. So long as the company is fair with their policy of requiring a drug test across the board of people who apply, then the actual issue of requiring the drug test before being hired is not so much of any issue anymore.

[Bone]

I thought drug testing was a total invasion of privacy and there wasn't anything wrong with doing drugs or alcohol at work, off work, whenever.

Those are entirely different things. It would be callous to treat them the same...

Obviously being drunk, stoned, or otherwise intoxicated at work is generally unwise. As Hydro said, however, being concerned with what potential employees are doing outside of work essentially comes down to profiling.

[NapisaurusRex]

Those are entirely different things. It would be callous to treat them the same...

Obviously being drunk, stoned, or otherwise intoxicated at work is generally unwise. As Hydro said, however, being concerned with what potential employees are doing outside of work essentially comes down to profiling.

The reason I had them together is because I was under the impression a drug test didn't tell the tester when the drugs were taken. For all the employer knows, I am at work high. Does anyone get a benefit of the doubt that they're doing it after work? It's unfathomable to me, but there are people who can't tell when other people are high just by looking.

[Bone]

The reason I had them together is because I was under the impression a drug test didn't tell the tester when the drugs were taken. For all the employer knows, I am at work high. Does anyone get a benefit of the doubt that they're doing it after work? It's unfathomable to me, but there are people who can't tell when other people are high just by looking.

I don't think it's rational to assume that someone is doping during work just because there is evidence they have done it in time frame that can span months. 99% (fabricated statistics ftw) of people who drink don't get smashed when they're at work.

[NapisaurusRex]

I don't think it's rational to assume that someone is doping during work just because there is evidence they have done it in time frame that can span months. 99% (fabricated statistics ftw) of people who drink don't get smashed when they're at work.

If people are mething out in their spare time though, it will (more likely than not) affect their productivity and accuracy at work. I don't consider that profiling people, because it directly affects the company and other employees.

[Ladida]

I lecture at a University, and to give me my contract, they said I must have a full medical checkup + blood test + urine test done, facilitated by the University. Not just that, I had to be perfectly healthy in all respects in order for them to hire me. I found this utterly intrusive, not to mention absolutely stupid. Part of the checkup was to have me run up and down 3 flights of stairs and then take my pulse. What??? I'm fucking LECTURING, not doing hard labour! They got my height, weight, bodily measurements, eye test, chest x-ray, tested my blood for who knows what all, and even asked me if I had any major scarring or tattoos. That is, among other very pointless things which I can't be bothered to type out. I wasted two days on this because I had to sit and wait at the hospital for so long, waiting for them to do all those tests.

I'd say it depends on the job. But really, people get carried away and force you to do all sorts of tests you don't even need, or are completely irrelevant.

Edited by Ladida, 11 April 2012 - 05:45 PM.

[Yung]

99% (fabricated statistics ftw) of people who drink don't get smashed when they're at work.

Besides of course cute bar tenders... they tend to get trashed at work. lol

[Bone]

If people are mething out in their spare time though, it will (more likely than not) affect their productivity and accuracy at work. I don't consider that profiling people, because it directly affects the company and other employees.

You could say the same thing about race or sexuality, like:

"Blacks are more likely to be incarcerated, and replacing employees is inefficient and this directly affects the company, so an employer has the right to only hire whites."

Is that okay?

[NapisaurusRex]

You could say the same thing about race or sexuality, like:

"Blacks are more likely to be incarcerated, and replacing employees is inefficient and this directly affects the company, so an employer has the right to only hire whites."

Is that okay?

No, that's illegal. Drug testing is not.

[Bone]

No, that's illegal. Drug testing is not.

Racial profiling is illegal for a reason, don't you think?

[NapisaurusRex]

Racial profiling is illegal for a reason, don't you think?

You think being black is the same as doing crack cocaine?? Shame on you, lol

Black incarceration is not the same. While it is inefficient to hire and replace, it is dangerous to other employees and to customer to have someone not in the right state of mind working. Being black isn't anymore dangerous in itself than being any other race.

I lecture at a University, and to give me my contract, they said I must have a full medical checkup + blood test + urine test done, facilitated by the University. Not just that, I had to be perfectly healthy in all respects in order for them to hire me. I found this utterly intrusive, not to mention absolutely stupid. Part of the checkup was to have me run up and down 3 flights of stairs and then take my pulse. What??? I'm fucking LECTURING, not doing hard labour! They got my height, weight, bodily measurements, eye test, chest x-ray, tested my blood for who knows what all, and even asked me if I had any major scarring or tattoos. That is, among other very pointless things which I can't be bothered to type out. I wasted two days on this because I had to sit and wait at the hospital for so long, waiting for them to do all those tests.

I'd say it depends on the job. But really, people get carried away and force you to do all sorts of tests you don't even need, or are completely irrelevant.

Craziness. I wonder why... Did they tell you what they needed all that for?

Edited by Napiform, 11 April 2012 - 06:22 PM.

[Jakerz]

Interesting to see this topic just as we happen to have a huge problem with this where I'm working at the moment. I think it's alright for a company to drug test every new employee that is hired. What I don't think is alright, which is happening with the general contractor where I'm working, is they take a urine test when something happens. For example, someone sent a 'note' saying they saw someone smoking weed, so they gave him a urine test. Another example which happened yesterday was a guy dropped something from 20 ft in the air and they wanted to give him a urine test aswell. They all said no, and got laid off, which imo is bs because for all they know they couldve been smoking weed at home

[Ladida]

Craziness. I wonder why... Did they tell you what they needed all that for?

Nope, they just said it was their procedure and everyone has to do it. That's the result of what happens when organizations decide that they want to do allllll the tests, without bothering to check to see which ones would be relevant. They paid for it, so at least I know for a fact that there's nothing wrong with me, and I didn't have to pay for it

[Bone]

You think being black is the same as doing crack cocaine?? Shame on you, lol

Black incarceration is not the same. While it is inefficient to hire and replace, it is dangerous to other employees and to customer to have someone not in the right state of mind working. Being black isn't anymore dangerous in itself than being any other race.

Nobody equated the two. Anyways, if someone's personal drug use was a serious problem, it would be evident in their employment history, interview behavior, etc. Your argument is based on the presumption that all drug users are dangerous people who cannot work efficiently.

[NapisaurusRex]

Nobody equated the two. Anyways, if someone's personal drug use was a serious problem, it would be evident in their employment history, interview behavior, etc. Your argument is based on the presumption that all drug users are dangerous people who cannot work efficiently.

No, I believe that some of them are. But you don't know what drugs people are doing without testing them for it. So are you saying that if you suspect people are doing drugs, it shouldn't get as far as the drug testing process? You should just eliminate them after the interview or application process based on whether you think they might do drugs?

[Trichomes]

No, I believe that some of them are. But you don't know what drugs people are doing without testing them for it. So are you saying that if you suspect people are doing drugs, it shouldn't get as far as the drug testing process? You should just eliminate them after the interview or application process based on whether you think they might do drugs?

No, if someone is doing something at work that warrants suspicion that they're using drugs, they should be held accountable for their actions, not drug tested. There are plenty of valued members of society who use recreational drugs that would be without jobs if we were to drug test every prospective employee.

[Bone]

No, I believe that some of them are. But you don't know what drugs people are doing without testing them for it. So are you saying that if you suspect people are doing drugs, it shouldn't get as far as the drug testing process? You should just eliminate them after the interview or application process based on whether you think they might do drugs?

...no. I'm saying that it shouldn't be involved in job applications at all. If you suspect someone does drugs, but they're qualified for the job, there's no reason to turn down the application. It would be discriminatory to deny someone a job based on a characteristic that is not cogent to their job performance. It's presumptuous to assert that drug users are filthy people who are incapable of working, and drug usage should not be basis for 'elimination'.

No, if someone is doing something at work that warrants suspicion that they're using drugs, they should be held accountable for their actions, not drug tested. There are plenty of valued members of society who use recreational drugs that would be without jobs if we were to drug test every prospective employee.

You have no right to speak, you filthy addict!

[Yung]

Anytime I've ever been a supervisor I've always made one thing clear to my subordinates... What they do in their personal time is their own business but if ever they came to work drunk or high they were done. Period. All it takes is one person deciding to show up that way to reaffirm for everyone else that I mean what I said.

[NapisaurusRex]

...no. I'm saying that it shouldn't be involved in job applications at all. If you suspect someone does drugs, but they're qualified for the job, there's no reason to turn down the application. It would be discriminatory to deny someone a job based on a characteristic that is not cogent to their job performance. It's presumptuous to assert that drug users are filthy people who are incapable of working, and drug usage should not be basis for 'elimination'.

You have no right to speak, you filthy addict!

So what about when something happens that would have otherwise been prevented with a drug or alcohol test?

Edited by Napiform, 11 April 2012 - 06:57 PM.

[Bone]

So what about when something happens that would have otherwise been prevented with a drug or alcohol test?

I'm failing to think of anything that would be prevented by a drug or alcohol test...especially since they only reveal extremely limited information on one's personal habits, not their future workplace behavior.

[NapisaurusRex]

I'm failing to think of anything that would be prevented by a drug or alcohol test...especially since they only reveal extremely limited information on one's personal habits, not their future workplace behavior.

It's not limited. Drugs alter the way people are, that's the whole purpose of them.

[Bone]

It's not limited. Drugs alter the way people are, that's the whole purpose of them.

Not really. Even if a change in state of consciousness is involved, there are no grounds to assume a person is a certain way based on their drug usage.

In any case, a drug test cannot accurately indicate the frequency of drug usage. Should someone be denied a job because they smoked a joint a week ago?

[NapisaurusRex]

Not really. Even if a change in state of consciousness is involved, there are no grounds to assume a person is a certain way based on their drug usage.

I don't believe this and it would take a LOT to get me to.

In any case, a drug test cannot accurately indicate the frequency of drug usage. Should someone be denied a job because they smoked a joint a week ago?

If they knew the had a job interview and wanted the job, is it that much of a hardship to not do something that (what you believe) is such a limited piece of their personal life? Is a joint worth not getting a job to put food on the table? Not to me it isn't.

[Bone]

I don't believe this and it would take a LOT to get me to.

Okay. The millions of casual drug users who do their jobs just fine would say otherwise.

By the way, I'm not one of them.

If they knew the had a job interview and wanted the job, is it that much of a hardship to not do something that (what you believe) is such a limited piece of their personal life? Is a joint worth not getting a job to put food on the table? Not to me it isn't.

People shouldn't have to choose between discrimination and changing their lifestyles without justification.