How to reconcile American pride and drug tests

[Dave Hartwick]

Originally Posted by Ethilrist

Interestingly enough, most of the contracts I worked on that required a drug test were governmental.

Maybe it's state or city government. US Federal government employees apparently are still tested under one of Reagan's Executive Orders.

[elucidator]

First off, you got your culture wars bullshit. Drug testing is about pot. Pretty much all there is to it. Heroin addicts don't put in a lot of job applications, their schedule doesn't permit it. Cocaine users are already spending a buttload of money every day, by whatever means, but they ain't getting it working in the mail room.

Given the conditions under which these tests are applied, anyone who can't figure out how to a get a clean sample into the right jar isn't smart enough to smoke pot, its a waste of perfectly good weed. I've done it at least half a dozen times, and believe me, I ain't James Bond.

Its a shuck, and a cash cow for the people who own the companies that do the testing. Like the Governor of Florida, signing the law to test all the welfare recipients. Oh, wait, no, its his wife that owns the stock in the company that the State of Florida is giving all that money to. Very different.

Trying to keep pot users from being employed is just plain silly. Its not even an outrage, its too silly for that. One time in a thousand, maybe, they stop a smack junkie from getting a job he wouldn't show up for anyway. Alcoholics get a pass, pot heads get an IQ test. The pee labs get paid. And that's all that happens.

[ExcitedIdiot]

Originally Posted by Yllaria

If you're going to be added to their insurance plan, they're going to do the testing and paperwork necessary to keep the group qualified for lower rates.

Employers could save massive amounts of money by disqualifying employees who are overweight. In fact they should disqualify anyone who has had a heart attack, anyone who has diabetes. Or disqualify anyone who eats at McDonalds.

Here in Massachusetts, marijuana is decriminalized, basically equivalent to a parking ticket. There is a lot of evidence to say that smoking cigarettes is a bigger health risk than smoking marijuana. If this is about saving money on insurance, why don't these places test for tobacco use?
.

[Mgalindo13]

Originally Posted by ExcitedIdiot

There is a lot of evidence to say that smoking cigarettes is a bigger health risk than smoking marijuana. If this is about saving money on insurance, why don't these places test for tobacco use?
.

There are companies that do: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870458/...fired-smoking/

I think that's kind of the point, it boils down to choice. As it's been said before, companies are free to ask potential employees to jump through hoops and employees are free to tell them to take a walk.

I myself have had to take drug tests, IQ tests, personality tests, submit to background checks and provide credit reports to employers.

Sometimes it's not a choice people want to make, but it's still a choice.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Like the Governor of Florida, signing the law to test all the welfare recipients. Oh, wait, no, its his wife that owns the stock in the company that the State of Florida is giving all that money to. Very different.

I think there are 20 states currently planning or passing similar legislation. Are all of their governors also married to stock owners in drug testing concerns?

I'm not a fan of the idea, but my objections arise from the fact that it will likely cost more money than it would save.

I might be persuaded to reconsider my opposition if the bills were amended to also require each member of the state legislature in question, and the governor and lieutenant governor, to take and pass the same test. Not because I expect mass failures, but because they seem to think it's a legitimate condition of getting government money... and since they're also recipients of government money, I wonder if that might change their minds about about it feels to pee in a cup before you can pay the rent that month.

[ExcitedIdiot]

Originally Posted by Mgalindo13

I think that's kind of the point, it boils down to choice. As it's been said before, companies are free to ask potential employees to jump through hoops and employees are free to tell them to take a walk.

There has to be some limit on what hoops they can make you jump through. What if an employer wants to know who you've slept with? What if they want to search your house? Read your personal email? Record your personal calls?

I realize this is a slippery slope argument, but you are saying that businesses have a right to require anything of a perspective employee.

If something is legal, an employer shouldn't have a right to dictate you don't it, as long as it's on personal time. My right to privacy should extend to what is in my urine.

[Smapti]

I really don't see how an employer's desire not to hire people who routinely engage in illegal activity is an attack on "freedom", since my understanding was always that freedom does not entail a right to break the law.

As someone who used to manage a burger place, I was happy when the higher-ups decided to start doing drug-testing - i'd worked in a place before where several employees (including the manager!) were users of various substances, and it reflected in the work environment, the store's margins, and the quality of the product we produced.

[shiftless]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I might be persuaded to reconsider my opposition if the bills were amended to also require each member of the state legislature in question, and the governor and lieutenant governor, to take and pass the same test. Not because I expect mass failures, but because they seem to think it's a legitimate condition of getting government money... and since they're also recipients of government money, I wonder if that might change their minds about about it feels to pee in a cup before you can pay the rent that month.

I like that idea but, as you know, it ain't ever going to happen. What might be passable is that everyone else who receives money from the government has to take the test. The farmer who takes subsidies - he might be smoking pot! That university asking for a research grant - how do we know they aren't crackheads or even a meth lab?

If we are willing to spend the money to drug test welfare recipients over the few hundred dollars they get in a month then it is critical that we test those receiving millions and billions of dollars. I, for one, would like to be assured that none of my tax dollars are being used to buy cocaine for corporate executives. If that involves them having to piss into a cup once a month while someone watches, that's a sacrifice they should be willing to make to continue getting tax dollars.

[Mgalindo13]

Originally Posted by ExcitedIdiot

There has to be some limit on what hoops they can make you jump through. What if an employer wants to know who you've slept with? What if they want to search your house? Read your personal email? Record your personal calls?

I realize this is a slippery slope argument, but you are saying that businesses have a right to require anything of a perspective employee.

If something is legal, an employer shouldn't have a right to dictate you don't it, as long as it's on personal time. My right to privacy should extend to what is in my urine.

I think the limit is what the general public will tolerate. Most people will tolerate a drug test, but if enough people balk and refuse the company won't be able to hire enough staff and will have to change their policy.

I don't particularly like taking drug tests (or other tests I have had to take), but I won't let that stand in my way of a good job offer. If they ask to search my house? Then I'll tell them to shove it.

People don't get hired, or even fired, all the time for personal choices like smoking cigarettes (see above post/cite). I know people that have lost out on opportunities because of tattoos, piercings, clothing choices or odd mannerisms. Why should refusing a drug test be any different?

There's this case too: Bud distributor worker fired for drinking Coors - This guy just drank the wrong brand of beer.

[Dave Hartwick]

Originally Posted by Smapti

I really don't see how an employer's desire not to hire people who routinely engage in illegal activity is an attack on "freedom", since my understanding was always that freedom does not entail a right to break the law.

How far is OK with you? This has been asked a few times now of those who argue that breaking the law in an way that may be completely unrelated to your work should exclude you from that job, but no answers other than to point out that it's a slippery slope. I suppose it is, but I'd like to know how far down the slope drug test supporters think is OK.

The following are all for a generic job in an office. Assume a zero tolerance policy, please. I'm not really expecting a reply from Smapti here, I think his or her post was of the two cent variety.

Would it be OK for the employer to require employees to install software on their home computer that reported the employee's browsing history in order identify those who violate copyright laws or access illegal child pornography?

Would it be OK for the employer to require employees to install a speed monitor and GPS on their personal vehicles to ensure that speed laws are never broken?

Would it be OK for the employer to require employees to wear an ankle monitor at all times to ensure that if an employee is on the scene of a reported crime that they will be identified?

Would it be OK for the employer to hire private detectives to randomly search the homes of employees in order to ensure that employees do not possess illegal weapons or harboring terrorists?

If any one of the above was found to have a positive effect on productivity, would you support widespread adoption of the practice? How about if one was proven to slightly reduce crime rates? Are there any scenarios that would never be acceptable?

[Mgalindo13]

Originally Posted by Dave Hartwick

How far is OK with you? This has been asked a few times now of those who argue that breaking the law in an way that may be completely unrelated to your work should exclude you from that job, but no answers other than to point out that it's a slippery slope. I suppose it is, but I'd like to know how far down the slope drug test supporters think is OK.

The following are all for a generic job in an office. Assume a zero tolerance policy, please. I'm not really expecting a reply from Smapti here, I think his or her post was of the two cent variety.

Would it be OK for the employer to require employees to install software on their home computer that reported the employee's browsing history in order identify those who violate copyright laws or access illegal child pornography?

Would it be OK for the employer to require employees to install a speed monitor and GPS on their personal vehicles to ensure that speed laws are never broken?

Would it be OK for the employer to require employees to wear an ankle monitor at all times to ensure that if an employee is on the scene of a reported crime that they will be identified?

Would it be OK for the employer to hire private detectives to randomly search the homes of employees in order to ensure that employees do not possess illegal weapons or harboring terrorists?

If any one of the above was found to have a positive effect on productivity, would you support widespread adoption of the practice? How about if one was proven to slightly reduce crime rates? Are there any scenarios that would never be acceptable?

I'm not really a fan of "slippery slope" debates because the logic starts to spin out of control. This can be seen in anti-gay marriage posters who say things like "If we allow gay marriage then eventually people will be marrying children and horses! It's a slippery slope!"

I don't think that any poster has said that anyone, who breaks any law, ever in their lifetime, should be excluded from being able to work. What most posters are saying is that it's not entirely unreasonable for employers to require drug testing for applicants.

In direct response to your questions, do I think any of them would be ok? No. But there is a very big difference in your proposed scenarios and that drug screening.

Your scenarios are a continual invasion of privacy during the term of employment, versus a drug test which is most primarily only a one time occurrence during the application process.

[Dave Hartwick]

Originally Posted by Mgalindo13

Your scenarios are a continual invasion of privacy during the term of employment, versus a drug test which is most primarily only a one time occurrence during the application process.

Not necessarily. Some companies have random testing. Others, and I worked at one of these, have mandatory tests whenever an accident requiring a visit to a doctor or ER (which I read as "would qualify for an insurance claim") occurred regardless of whether or not the employee was at fault.

Anyway, let's make those one time events, Mgalindo. The applicant only has to provide the browsing history once, allow a single search, or be monitored during a probationary period. Are you OK with those infringements on your privacy? What if it didn't affect you directly? You didn't have to give up your privacy but some of your fellow citizens did? OK or not OK?

I don't think that any poster has said that anyone, who breaks any law, ever in their lifetime, should be excluded from being able to work. What most posters are saying is that it's not entirely unreasonable for employers to require drug testing for applicants.

The post I was replying to contained the following: "I really don't see how an employer's desire not to hire people who routinely engage in illegal activity is an attack on "freedom", since my understanding was always that freedom does not entail a right to break the law."

The freedom in question is the freedom of privacy and it's not primarily lawbreakers who have that freedom invaded. Seeing how it is the opinion of many, apparently, that weeding out those who routinely break the law makes it worthwhile to invade the privacy of those who do not, I'm wondering where the cut off point might be. It seems off to me that posters on this message board are apparently A-OK with an employer wanting them to urinate in a jar while somebody watches but would tell the same employer "no" if they were asked for their Facebook password (not necessarily the exact same posters). One of the employers in that thread's OP was a correctional facility that wanted to weed out applicants with gang affiliations. Sounds pretty "reasonable", right?

In some case, I think drug testing is justified, like if the employee appears to be under the influence while at work or drugs are turning up missing, say, from a hospital pharmacy. However, I'm glad I no longer live in a country where random drug tests and screenings, which I consider unjust, are common and considered reasonable.

[Mgalindo13]

Originally Posted by Dave Hartwick

Not necessarily. Some companies have random testing.

Of the last ten employers I've had, not one required random or regular testing. Nor have I known anyone subjected to regular testing whose job didn't provide a particular need for it.

I realize this happens, but I would venture a guess it's a small minority. I would prefer to keep the debate to what is the norm since the OP posited that citizens are regularly "violated in a degrading fashion."

Originally Posted by Dave Hartwick

Others, and I worked at one of these, have mandatory tests whenever an accident requiring a visit to a doctor or ER (which I read as "would qualify for an insurance claim") occurred regardless of whether or not the employee was at fault.

Often the tests are taken well before any fault is assigned and are a part of the investigation process. I'm sure if someone you care about was injured, or killed, in an accident you would want to know if someone involved was intoxicated at the time.

Originally Posted by Dave Hartwick

Anyway, let's make those one time events, Mgalindo. The applicant only has to provide the browsing history once, allow a single search, or be monitored during a probationary period. Are you OK with those infringements on your privacy?

The other difference in your scenarios, that I should have mentioned in my response, is that your suggestions open up privacy issues far beyond what they can be ascertained from a urine sample. Someone searching my house is not just going to see my "illegal activities" but also my rather embarrassing (if not impressive) toenail collection.

Analyzing my urine doesn't magically show my employer my high school yearbook photo. It also doesn't provide any protected class information that would be found if my home was searched or my web browsing records were viewed.

Originally Posted by Dave Hartwick

What if it didn't affect you directly? You didn't have to give up your privacy but some of your fellow citizens did? OK or not OK?

I really don't like the implication that I think that something is fine for others and not me. I don't think I've implied anywhere in my posts that I think rules shouldn't apply to me.

Originally Posted by Dave Hartwick

The post I was replying to contained the following: "I really don't see how an employer's desire not to hire people who routinely engage in illegal activity is an attack on "freedom", since my understanding was always that freedom does not entail a right to break the law."

The freedom in question is the freedom of privacy and it's not primarily lawbreakers who have that freedom invaded. Seeing how it is the opinion of many, apparently, that weeding out those who routinely break the law makes it worthwhile to invade the privacy of those who do not, I'm wondering where the cut off point might be.

I'm not going to speculate on the intentions of any single poster, but I doubt the intention was "weed out all people who have ever broken any law, ever."

Further, I don't see how one poster translates to "the opinion of many".

Originally Posted by Dave Hartwick

It seems off to me that posters on this message board are apparently A-OK with an employer wanting them to urinate in a jar while somebody watches but would tell the same employer "no" if they were asked for their Facebook password (not necessarily the exact same posters). One of the employers in that thread's OP was a correctional facility that wanted to weed out applicants with gang affiliations. Sounds pretty "reasonable", right?

No, it doesn't sound reasonable and it's a bad analogy. As posters in that thread have already noted, social media profiles often contain protected information.

From what I've read, most HR experts advise employers to avoid the temptation to even look at public profiles because it could inadvertently expose them to protected information.

[WhyNot]

Does anyone have any studies showing which fields or salary levels or in any other way accounts for how many employers, and which ones, require drug testing? There seems to be a lot of posters taking their own experiences as "the normal way of doing things," but obviously we have a wide range of experiences.

So let's step back a second: anyone know what percentage of jobs require a drug screen, and which jobs those tend to be?

If all we have is anecdotes, here's mine:
Minimum wage waitress/cashier: pee test before hire, subject to random and for cause pee tests in the future.
Blockbuster Video: hair strand test before hire, subject to random and for cause pee tests in the future. (they dropped the hair strand and went to all pee tests few years later because it was too expensive; I know for a fact it didn't catch all the users, either.)
Slightly better than minimum wage teen dance club counter girl: pee test before hire, subject to random and for cause pee tests in the future.
Privately run alt medicine clinic/private college administrator, $30,000 a year: no drug test - also the only job I've ever had w/ health insurance.
Nursing student: 9 panel pee test every semester, results submitted to each clinical site, subject to random and for cause pee tests in the future.
RN, home health care agency: pee test before employment, subject to random and for cause urine or hair tests in the future.
In amongst all that, a lot of time babysitting/nannying/running children's events and birthday parties privately. No one has ever asked me to pee in a cup before watching their kids.

[Mgalindo13]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

Does anyone have any studies showing which fields or salary levels or in any other way accounts for how many employers, and which ones, require drug testing? There seems to be a lot of posters taking their own experiences as "the normal way of doing things," but obviously we have a wide range of experiences.

So let's step back a second: anyone know what percentage of jobs require a drug screen, and which jobs those tend to be?

From TheLedger.com:

A 2006 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management found that 84 percent of employers required new hires to pass drug screenings, and 39 percent randomly tested employees after they were hired. In addition, 73 percent tested workers when drug use was suspected and 58 percent required testing after accidents on the job.


I wouldn't argue with these numbers, except that I think the 39% are companies who say they randomly test employees. I'm not sure that random testing is standard operating procedure within that 39%.

Of course certain fields are going to have different standards, nursing obviously appears to be an industry that tests more rigorously and frequently than others. Personally, I think nurses - who have access to a plethora of pharmaceuticals and are responsible for the well being of thousands of people per year - should be held to a higher standard.

[kayaker]

As the owner of a small business, I do not care what my employees do on their time off. I have never considered drug testing. If someone does not do their job to my standards, well then they get fired. Regardless of why.

The last job I had before becoming self employed, I was hired via a headhunter. A week after hire, I found out that a pee test was required because of a government contract stipulation. The day this was mentioned, I went home. I would have never taken the job if I had been told up front about the drug test. After much back and forth, a "work around" was devised. If you are important enough to your employer, there are always "work arounds".

[Mgalindo13]

Question for those vehemently oppose to drug testing. What specifically is your objection to the process?

Is it:

a) I don't want to hand over a cup of my urine (the physical act of doing so)

b) I don't like my prospective employer not trusting me enough to hire me based on the information I provide

c) My employer shouldn't care if I do drugs on my own time as long as I perform at my job.

d) I don't want to stop doing drugs while looking for a job

e) other

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by Mgalindo13

Question for those vehemently oppose to drug testing. What specifically is your objection to the process?

Is it:

a) I don't want to hand over a cup of my urine (the physical act of doing so)

b) I don't like my prospective employer not trusting me enough to hire me based on the information I provide

c) My employer shouldn't care if I do drugs on my own time as long as I perform at my job.

d) I don't want to stop doing drugs while looking for a job

e) other

b,c, d, with a helping of "e. innocent until proven guilty and protection against self-incrimination should apply to more than just the government; they should be social rights, too."

Obviously, I got over it enough to quit smoking, but that doesn't mean I think it's okay. It just means I wanted the career more than the weed.

And thanks for finding that study. So it looks as though drug tests - or at least reserving the right to drug test - are indeed very widespread, and my experiences are not an anomaly.

As you mention nurses specifically, I'll state that I think it's important that nurses be monitored for diversion of drugs (painkillers, usually) and that any nurse who steals her patient's pain meds should have her license suspended, put into a treatment program and then not allowed to work with pain meds unsupervised for a very, very long time. But I absolutely do not see the harm in recreational pot smoking, off hours, as long as you're not on call. I'd rather see that happening than what happens now, which is a horrifying number of alcoholic nurses.

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by Mgalindo13

Question for those vehemently oppose to drug testing. What specifically is your objection to the process?

c) My employer shouldn't care if I do drugs on my own time as long as I perform at my job.

Actually, more "what I do when not on the clock is none of my employers business".

[shiftless]

Originally Posted by Mgalindo13

Question for those vehemently oppose to drug testing. What specifically is your objection to the process?

Is it:

a) I don't want to hand over a cup of my urine (the physical act of doing so)

b) I don't like my prospective employer not trusting me enough to hire me based on the information I provide

c) My employer shouldn't care if I do drugs on my own time as long as I perform at my job.

d) I don't want to stop doing drugs while looking for a job

e) other

I wouldn't call my opposition "vehement" but

All of the above PLUS:
f) The tests are not 100% accurate or foolproof yet employers use them as if they were. In the end, I think they are used to filter undesirables. If the black guy (just as an example) fails he is out, with good evidence. If the white guy fails we can work around that or retest next week.

g) The things they test for are not just drugs that impair function, they test for drugs that are illegal. Is that really the job of employers? It's their right to do it I guess but they aren't stopping alcohol or prescription drug use on the job and those two problems are way bigger than pot smokers and a few crackheads on the job.

[Mgalindo13]

Originally Posted by kayaker

Actually, more "what I do when not on the clock is none of my employers business".

What about criminal background checks? Most crimes are committed on someone's own time. Would you hire a rapist, murderer or thief simply because they were "not on the clock" at the time of the act?

BTW - I'm NOT comparing using marijuana use to rape or murder. And I'm actually for legalization.

I'm just wondering how far the theory goes that what you do on your own time is your own business.

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by Mgalindo13

What about criminal background checks? Most crimes are committed on someone's own time. Would you hire a rapist, murderer or thief simply because they were "not on the clock" at the time of the act?

I've never done a criminal background check on a job applicant. No, I would not want to hire a rapist, murderer, or thief. As far as I know I never have. But I certainly would hire someone who occasionally jaywalked, blasphemed, or smoked a joint.

[Emtar KronJonDerSohn]

Been there, done that, taken quite a few breathalyzer tests. If you don't have an obvious impairment and never get injured or involved in an accident you still get pulled for randoms. If you blow .000 you work, if you blow anything else you get dropped off at home. .04 (the legal limit with a CDL) or higher, you get fired.

Originally Posted by shiftless

I knew some guys who drove trucks for a beer distributor. They had to take drug tests (required for truck drivers) but they delivered a product that was mind altering, proven to cause acidents and yet was never tested for. If the idea was to prevent acidents while driving then they would have tested for alcohol.

[Theobroma]

I work in a government hospital pharmacy, where it really is the business of our employers to know whether new hires might be likely to make off with the stock. Every single person here, from top to bottom, was required to take a urine drug test at hire. Our director of pharmacy did it too. It's expected and has been for decades, and I haven't heard anyone complain about it.

However, no further drug or alcohol tests were ever required or requested unless there was real suspicion, with evidence, of narcotic theft or obvious impairment.

One fellow showed up for his first day of work blazing drunk. When he denied it (we could all smell it on him) he was offered the chance to take a blood test, which was drawn on the spot, and which he spectacularly failed. He was escorted off the grounds by security.

Did we violate his right to be drunk at work, or did he violate his work contract by showing up that way?