104 replies to this topic

[Drakonid]

I don't want drooling potheads touching my food.

[NapisaurusRex]

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.

'Fine' and 'great' are two different things. That's like saying my parent's did drugs when I was in utero and I'm fine. 'Fine' and 'not dead' are two different things.

I'm not one of them either... but I used to be. Which is how I know it changes consciousness and how I know it's the whole point of drugs. If that's not the point, then what is?

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

I shouldn't have to have a burrito made over 3 times because some high kid can't remember a 5 ingredient list. If it's not a big deal, and it's such a small thing, then why is it a lifestyle change? Lifestyle change implies huge massive changes. LIFE changes. Not a week change or a three week change.

[Bone]

'Fine' and 'great' are two different things. That's like saying my parent's did drugs when I was in utero and I'm fine. 'Fine' and 'not dead' are two different things.

I'm not one of them either... but I used to be. Which is how I know it changes consciousness and how I know it's the whole point of drugs. If that's not the point, then what is?

Again. That doesn't mean it changes anything else about the person when they aren't on the drug. If it does, it will be evident in their interview/records/etc. We're going in circles here, and personal appeals aren't going to get anyone anywhere.

I shouldn't have to have a burrito made over 3 times because some high kid can't remember a 5 ingredient list. If it's not a big deal, and it's such a small thing, then why is it a lifestyle change? Lifestyle change implies huge massive changes. LIFE changes. Not a week change or a three week change.

Again. We're not talking about intoxication in the workplace.

[NapisaurusRex]

Again. That doesn't mean it changes anything else about the person when they aren't on the drug. If it does, it will be evident in their interview/records/etc. We're going in circles here, and personal appeals aren't going to get anyone anywhere.

Then why did you bring your personal life up?

Again. We're not talking about intoxication in the workplace.

Fine. If you hire someone who doesn't do drugs, which is evident by pre-screening, then you don't have to worry about drugs in the workplace at all.

So do you think that drug testing is inappropriate for all occupations?

Edited by Napiform, 11 April 2012 - 07:40 PM.

[Hydrogen]

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.

It's a bit excessive to have you do all that, but if I were a gambling man, I would put my money on the university trying to avoid paying high costs of insurance for less healthy people joining their work force. Everyone knows all those professors do is sit around and think. When you do that, the fat really builds up .

Every fridge in my office where I work contains some form of alcohol or another. Employees regularly drink while at work. I personally don't drink but that's the culture of the company .

[Yung]

It is illegal here to drink while on the clock in any line of work.

[Bone]

Then why did you bring your personal life up?

I didn't.

Fine. If you hire someone who doesn't do drugs, which is evident by pre-screening, then you don't have to worry about drugs in the workplace at all.

Still doesn't justify unwarranted discrimination and invasion of privacy.

So do you think that drug testing is inappropriate for all occupations?

Yes.

[NapisaurusRex]

I didn't.

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.

Thank you for sharing your opinions with me. I enjoyed hearing them.

It's a bit excessive to have you do all that, but if I were a gambling man, I would put my money on the university trying to avoid paying high costs of insurance for less healthy people joining their work force. Everyone knows all those professors do is sit around and think. When you do that, the fat really builds up .

yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I didn't think about that.

[Bone]

...what. My casual mention that I'm not a drug user wasn't part of my argument, silly.

[Mishatu]

At my company, if someone is thought to be even slightly impaired, by alcohol or other potent drugs, it is grounds for firing.

I work at a chain drugstore, and we frequently sell cigarettes. If someone impaired in any way, whether from constant or recent use of said drug, they could cost the company hundreds of dollars by accidentally selling cigarettes or booze to a minor via fines. Compound this for the thousands of stores across the country, and we're talking about thousands and thousands of dollars these people could be costing the company.

I'm not going to get into the whole "big companies have more money than they should" because that's not the point here. The point is that companies in general are trying to make money, and if people using drugs are going to cost them money, then they want to prevent that as much as possible.

[iargue]

Drug testing is 100% legel, is not discriminatory, and should be mandatory at the point of hiring (Random drug tests are more iffy. Drug tests based upon performance outlined in your contract is acceptable. Stay above a certain point, and they wont drug test you).

Discrimination leads to believe that jobs will only test a certain race, etc. I've never applied or been interviewed for a job that only did it for a certain race, or anything like that. They always tell you before hand that there will be a drug test, and its always voluntary. That's the law. You can't force them to take a drug test, but you can also choose to not higher them if they decline. If any company says only a certain race has to take it, they already violate discrimination laws.

There are two very valid reasons for why drugs tests are acceptable.

1)Responsibility. My experiences with drug users show that there are the two kinds. There are the kinds that only sit around and smoke weed/do other drugs, and the second they get more money, they spend it on more weed, and the second is the kinda that does it occasionally at a party or that does it often, but does it responsibly and only spend a certain amount on it. Because of this its hard to say "All drug users are bad employees" but its safe to say "All employees who fail drug tests are bad employees". It all comes down to responsibility. When you are apply for a job, you KNOW you will get drug tested. Simply stop smoking weed until you get the job, and then you can start again. The responsible ones simply hold off until after the drug test is a simple distinction that separates the responsible users, from the loser. In every company that I have worked for, and every company I have heard of working for. They have always given 60-90 day notice of drug tests. There are still a select few of people who fail the drug test. These people know there will be a test, and yet they continue to use drugs. That's not responsible, and should be seen as a negative mark on their character. Those that are smart enough to think "Drug test? Probably shouldn't do this drugs then" can keep their job.

2)It is illegal. You are hiring a criminal. Simple as that. Employers are allowed to refuse to hire people who have a criminal record, and so are they allowed to not hire people who are breaking the law. The test is completely voluntary, you have to agree to take the test, so you know what you are getting into. They know that you are breaking the law, and because you are willing to break the law openly to them, they can see this as a criminal nature and put you at risk for stealing from the company (To fuel your drug habits, or something else). Whether drugs should be illegal or not is not part of this discussion. Every employer has the right to not hire criminal is that is what they choose. By taking drugs, you are a criminal.

Feel free to flame/harass me for this views. IF you believe I'm wrong on something, feel free to call me out on it. Please provide your reasoning behind it and it might change my view on things.

[WharfRat]

I'll go ahead and offer my opinion on the matter. (I know many of you know my back story, but for those that do not, I was previously addicted to cocaine, methamphetamine, alcohol, and benzodiazepines at various points in my life... They call it polysubstance dependency. I can promise you that I've done more drugs than you have ever even heard of. I've been sober (with the exception of the occasional drink) for around 2-3 years now and currently manage around 50 employees in a call center so I now work with the whole "how to handle drug users at work" - thing.)

Back story out of the way.... I feel that pre-employment drug screenings are an invasion of privacy and I feel that they should be illegal. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence in America? Instead, we are all presumed to be guilty of using drugs and must prove that we are not by submitting a urinalysis. I feel that you can gather as much necessary information regarding a potential employee based upon criminal records and the interview process as would be necessary to determine if someone will be fit for employment. (I know as I hire and fire people on a daily basis as our call center employs growing close to a thousand employees at this time.)

I have also had to deal with my representatives that I KNOW are drug users. Before being a manager, when I was simply a supervisor, I made sure that my team knew and understood that I am a huge believer in the school of thought that your personal time is just that. I do not care what you do on your personal time and it is none of my business what you do in your personal time. If you are suspected to be under the influence at work, you will be submitting a urinalysis that day or tendering your resignation. I have a zero tolerance policy for drug and/or alcohol use while on the job. I do not act on every suspicion, but if you have given me much more than reasonable doubt, you will be asked to submit a UA. These types of reasonable suspicions can only be determined through directly seeing, smelling, or hearing the individual using the substance. Too many other issues (such as anxiety or eating disorders) can give the employee the appearance of a drug user when it is really a psychological problem.

Some will argue that that burden of evidence is too great and that we need be stricter on employees who may be using drugs as it effects performance. This is a very simple thing to overcome. I make performance evaluations on a weekly basis. If you are performing poorly and do not make the necessary changes towards improvement, then I will fire you for that reason -- poor performance.

tl;dr -- Drug testing prior to employment is a violation of privacy and should not be used. Drug testing with a great deal of evidence to indicate drug use on the job is warranted. All other performance related deficiencies should be addressed as performance deficiencies and corrective actions up to and including termination should be implemented.

--Cody

[luvsmyncis]

When you submit to a drug test, they are looking for illegal substances. If you have a prescription for that narcotic they picked up in your piss, you're fine. Places of employment are trying to avoid hiring criminals. Sorry if you enjoy smoking pot on your own time, or doing cocaine after you get off work so you'll stay awake for school, but it's kind of against the law. It's the same when they contact your previous employer to make sure you weren't fired for stealing money from the till or having sex on the clock with an intern. It's nothing personal.

I don't want drooling potheads touching my food.

I agree. I also don't want giant hairy sweaty guys preparing my food either, but you can't have everything.

[iargue]

Back story out of the way.... I feel that pre-employment drug screenings are an invasion of privacy and I feel that they should be illegal. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence in America? Instead, we are all presumed to be guilty of using drugs and must prove that we are not by submitting a urinalysis. I feel that you can gather as much necessary information regarding a potential employee based upon criminal records and the interview process as would be necessary to determine if someone will be fit for employment. (I know as I hire and fire people on a daily basis as our call center employs growing close to a thousand employees at this time.)
--Cody

See my argument. If you cannot pass a test that you know you will be given, how are you a responsible employee? There is nothing responsible at failing a drug test you know you will be given.

[Plunk]

Then why did you bring your personal life up?

I didn't.

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.

Edit: LOVE YOU BONE!

Edited by Plunk, 11 April 2012 - 08:37 PM.

[Drakonid]

I agree. I also don't want giant hairy sweaty guys preparing my food either, but you can't have everything.

Stop eating Mexican food, they might not be giant, but they are certainly hairy and sweaty.

[Bone]

I'd like to clarify that I'm not arguing against drug screening on the job. If an employer has reason to suspect an employee is under the influence of a drug at work and has the means to prove it, they should by all means take appropriate action. I'm not defending the use of drugs on the job, I'm saying job applicants shouldn't be subject to drug tests.

I'd also like to clarify that I'm not condoning this.

Edit: LOVE YOU BONE!

LEARN TO READ THE THREAD BEFORE YOU POST

Just kidding. I love you.

[WharfRat]

See my argument. If you cannot pass a test that you know you will be given, how are you a responsible employee? There is nothing responsible at failing a drug test you know you will be given.

I find it a bit pointless to argue about the potential legalities of the subject matter with someone who can't spell words like "legal" correctly....

But.... Yes, people should obviously be responsible enough to know that they will have to stop smoking temporarily to get a job. This is how it works... That doesn't remove from the equation that we are operating under the presumption of guilt instead of the presumption of innocence.

I suppose you would also support employers requiring you give them access to your Facebook account prior to employment so that they can research you then? After all, you will be a representative for a company that has an image to uphold... and obviously it is crucial to ensure your potential employees don't post moronic and obscene things for the whole world to see, right?

Invasion of privacy on the grounds for employment is absurd. If you have reason to believe someone is using drugs or will be a poor fit for the company either, a) don't hire them or b) test based upon reasonable suspicion that you have gained through their employment. Assuming all are guilty and must prove their innocence is a horrible idea and I think the facebook situation that is currently ongoing further illustrates my point.

Spoiler

Drug testing is 100% legel, is not discriminatory, and should be mandatory at the point of hiring (Random drug tests are more iffy. Drug tests based upon performance outlined in your contract is acceptable. Stay above a certain point, and they wont drug test you).

Discrimination leads to believe that jobs will only test a certain race, etc. I've never applied or been interviewed for a job that only did it for a certain race, or anything like that. They always tell you before hand that there will be a drug test, and its always voluntary. That's the law. You can't force them to take a drug test, but you can also choose to not higher them if they decline. If any company says only a certain race has to take it, they already violate discrimination laws.

There are two very valid reasons for why drugs tests are acceptable.

1)Responsibility. My experiences with drug users show that there are the two kinds. There are the kinds that only sit around and smoke weed/do other drugs, and the second they get more money, they spend it on more weed, and the second is the kinda that does it occasionally at a party or that does it often, but does it responsibly and only spend a certain amount on it. Because of this its hard to say "All drug users are bad employees" but its safe to say "All employees who fail drug tests are bad employees". It all comes down to responsibility. When you are apply for a job, you KNOW you will get drug tested. Simply stop smoking weed until you get the job, and then you can start again. The responsible ones simply hold off until after the drug test is a simple distinction that separates the responsible users, from the loser. In every company that I have worked for, and every company I have heard of working for. They have always given 60-90 day notice of drug tests. There are still a select few of people who fail the drug test. These people know there will be a test, and yet they continue to use drugs. That's not responsible, and should be seen as a negative mark on their character. Those that are smart enough to think "Drug test? Probably shouldn't do this drugs then" can keep their job.

2)It is illegal. You are hiring a criminal. Simple as that. Employers are allowed to refuse to hire people who have a criminal record, and so are they allowed to not hire people who are breaking the law. The test is completely voluntary, you have to agree to take the test, so you know what you are getting into. They know that you are breaking the law, and because you are willing to break the law openly to them, they can see this as a criminal nature and put you at risk for stealing from the company (To fuel your drug habits, or something else). Whether drugs should be illegal or not is not part of this discussion. Every employer has the right to not hire criminal is that is what they choose. By taking drugs, you are a criminal.

Feel free to flame/harass me for this views. IF you believe I'm wrong on something, feel free to call me out on it. Please provide your reasoning behind it and it might change my view on things.

[Yung]

The first :20 seconds of this pretty much summarizes how I feel on this matter.

Kat Williams, Weed:

NSFW

[Drakonid]

I find it a bit pointless to argue about the potential legalities of the subject matter with someone who can't spell words like "legal" correctly....

But.... Yes, people should obviously be responsible enough to know that they will have to stop smoking temporarily to get a job. This is how it works... That doesn't remove from the equation that we are operating under the presumption of guilt instead of the presumption of innocence.

I suppose you would also support employers requiring you give them access to your Facebook account prior to employment so that they can research you then? After all, you will be a representative for a company that has an image to uphold... and obviously it is crucial to ensure your potential employees don't post moronic and obscene things for the whole world to see, right?

Invasion of privacy on the grounds for employment is absurd. If you have reason to believe someone is using drugs or will be a poor fit for the company either, a) don't hire them or b) test based upon reasonable suspicion that you have gained through their employment. Assuming all are guilty and must prove their innocence is a horrible idea and I think the facebook situation that is currently ongoing further illustrates my point.

That only goes for the State...

[WharfRat]

That only goes for the State...

While I understand that is true legally, my argument is on a moral basis. If we claim to be a nation that embodies freedom and believes in the presumption of innocence, why should we not hold the same standard for our employers?

[Sage]

That doesn't remove from the equation that we are operating under the presumption of guilt instead of the presumption of innocence.

I suppose you would also support employers requiring you give them access to your Facebook account prior to employment so that they can research you then? After all, you will be a representative for a company that has an image to uphold... and obviously it is crucial to ensure your potential employees don't post moronic and obscene things for the whole world to see, right?

Invasion of privacy on the grounds for employment is absurd. If you have reason to believe someone is using drugs or will be a poor fit for the company either, a) don't hire them or b) test based upon reasonable suspicion that you have gained through their employment. Assuming all are guilty and must prove their innocence is a horrible idea and I think the facebook situation that is currently ongoing further illustrates my point.

In order, section by section:
It's not a presumption of guilt (or an invasion of privacy) under US law, if they ask it of every applicant and it remains voluntary. As far as my personal opinion on the matter goes, it stops being a matter of privacy when it has the potential to be severely detrimental to others, like your coworkers.

Facebook itself has stated that employers requesting access to an employee (or potential employee's) account is not kosher, although in fairness that was in response to some employers asking for both username and passwords of their employees. Which tends to be against the TOS of just about anything, but has apparently only just been made so in Facebook's.

Why should an employer run the risk of hiring someone who turns out later to have been, I dunno, getting bombed in the copy room every day, which loses the employer money and could (depending on how the employee handles their drug of choice, and how the resulting testing and firing goes) potentially lead to significant legal ramifications (like major profiling lawsuits), when the employer could find out ahead of time whether this person is using? Companies don't like incurring massive liabilities where they can easily avoid them and there's no reason they should have to. It's not that damn hard to not do whatever illegal thing you're doing for long enough to get the job, and if it IS that damn hard to stop, you're unlikely to be a good candidate anyway.

[Drakonid]

While I understand that is true legally, my argument is on a moral basis. If we claim to be a nation that embodies freedom and believes in the presumption of innocence, why should we not hold the same standard for our employers?

morals and business don't go well together...

[iargue]

I find it a bit pointless to argue about the potential legalities of the subject matter with someone who can't spell words like "legal" correctly....

But.... Yes, people should obviously be responsible enough to know that they will have to stop smoking temporarily to get a job. This is how it works... That doesn't remove from the equation that we are operating under the presumption of guilt instead of the presumption of innocence.

I suppose you would also support employers requiring you give them access to your Facebook account prior to employment so that they can research you then? After all, you will be a representative for a company that has an image to uphold... and obviously it is crucial to ensure your potential employees don't post moronic and obscene things for the whole world to see, right?

Invasion of privacy on the grounds for employment is absurd. If you have reason to believe someone is using drugs or will be a poor fit for the company either, a) don't hire them or b) test based upon reasonable suspicion that you have gained through their employment. Assuming all are guilty and must prove their innocence is a horrible idea and I think the facebook situation that is currently ongoing further illustrates my point.

Writers who are paid -millions- of dollars make spelling mistakes.
Scientist who are far smarter then either of us, make spelling mistakes.
Even Einstein made spelling mistakes. Fuck off with a spelling mistake being a reason for an entire persons argument being invalid.

How can you take something as simple as a drug test, to something as absurd as giving away passwords?

A drug test is intended to check for a single thing that is illegal. It does not check for anything else, and it cannot and will not provide you with any information outside of what drugs they are using. Anyone who gives a drug test is trained and tested by the government, and face strict legal penalties if they use anything for something beyond a drug test. Drug use (Coke/meth/etc) can quickly degrade job performance (Even if you want to deny it, there are thousands of studies that show that continued drug use will kill brain cells etc, which makes the excellent employee you hired, turn into shit over time)

Whereas there is no basis for requiring, asking for, or requesting a password to a private matter. For instance, your basis of "potential employees don't post moronic and obscene things for the whole world to see" is invalid, because if you cannot see that information without a password, then neither could the rest of the world. Anything that you can see with password protection, is personal (Hence why its protected with a password). Nothing that you can do on Facebook would show any sign of decreased performance at work (Except for getting on Facebook at work, which can easily be countered/identified WITHOUT the need for a password).

Please leave the fallacies out of this, and focus on the fact.

The only thing that you have shown as even a partially valid excuse is "Innocent until proven guilty". That only applies to the law, and nothing else. No private sector companies are required to follow that (Hundreds of employees are fired upon suspicion only). If we had it where only people we suspected of doing drugs take the test (There are plenty of people I would swear did drugs, who have never touched it) then they would scream discrimination and take a nice fat paycheck. Thus we cannot have "probably cause" be applied in this case (Like it is with all drug screening by law enforcement). I would personally rather take a test and prove I'm not a drug dealer, then be denied 100% on suspicion, as would every single person in the nation who does not do drugs.

[WharfRat]

In order, section by section:
It's not a presumption of guilt (or an invasion of privacy) under US law, if they ask it of every applicant and it remains voluntary. As far as my personal opinion on the matter goes, it stops being a matter of privacy when it has the potential to be severely detrimental to others, like your coworkers.

Facebook itself has stated that employers requesting access to an employee (or potential employee's) account is not kosher, although in fairness that was in response to some employers asking for both username and passwords of their employees. Which tends to be against the TOS of just about anything, but has apparently only just been made so in Facebook's.

Why should an employer run the risk of hiring someone who turns out later to have been, I dunno, getting bombed in the copy room every day, which loses the employer money and could (depending on how the employee handles their drug of choice, and how the resulting testing and firing goes) potentially lead to significant legal ramifications (like major profiling lawsuits), when the employer could find out ahead of time whether this person is using? Companies don't like incurring massive liabilities where they can easily avoid them and there's no reason they should have to. It's not that damn hard to not do whatever illegal thing you're doing for long enough to get the job, and if it IS that damn hard to stop, you're unlikely to be a good candidate anyway.

Once again, my argument is not based upon current U.S. law. It is painstakingly obvious that it is legal in its current form. The problem I have with this argument is that just because someone stops using drugs long enough to take the UA, does not preclude them from using drugs while at work AFTER they pass their drug screening. As a former drug user, I can assure you that I was employed throughout every day of each of those years....