Because yeah, we all want private employers to be the enforcers of personal morality and behavior 24/7. Because the government can’t do it, being trammelled by, you know, Supreme Court decisions upholding the right to privacy, and the Fourth Amendment, and other such nonsense.
They know his work, what more do they have a right to know? I mean beyond obviously essential things like where he lives, whether he’s married, etc. Corporate libertarians always amuse me by saying, the company is free to institute whatever rules it wants, and the employee is free to leave, but that notion rests on the idea that employment is a business transaction between equals, which it is not. The very fact that we are willing to accept restrictions on off-hours behavior, when such would be unimaginable in an ordinary seller-buyer relationship, demonstrates that employment can’t be viewed in the same light.
Bullshit. :rolleyes:
Whether or not the employee knows about a random drug pol
If they say to him, “You can’t work here if you test positive for drugs” despite the fact that he can suck down a pound of crack (or whatever) and still do his job well, then he has to go.
FTR, I work for a hospital in the insurance billing department. I NEVER come into direct contact with patients or equipment more dangerous than a crappy PC. In fact, I don’t even work on the hospital campus and yet I am subject to a random drug test.
It hasn’t happened yet and with over 5000 employees, the odds are good it won’t happen anytime soon. When the time comes, I’ll pee in the cup.
But you said that they need to test him “to make sure what [he does] doesn’t affect [his] work”. If they already know that it doesn’t affect his work, it raises the question of why they need to test him. Because they can?
I worked at an aerospace company that was also a huge Govt. contractor. The FAA mandated drug testing for certain jobs, and some of the Govt. contracts required it, so we had ramdom testing. I worked there along with about 4449 other employees for 20 years and was never called for a test. My current company also has a random testing policy. I’ve been here 4 years and haven’t been called.
Both companies stated up front that they conduct random testing, so it doesn’t bother me. I agree, if it really did bother me, I could always go look for another job.
But then reality comes rushing in like shoppers at a blue light special and I think, who the fuck is going to hire a 56 year old Toad, give him a cushy management position, and pay him six figures? Nobody in the Phoenix area, that’s for sure.
Anyway, it’s too damn hot in Arizona, so if anyone is hiring, (cushy magmt, six figures, testing or not) let me know.
We have pre-employment testing at my company, and, I think, testing for cause; for instance if the work of a veteran employee showed a sharp decline in quality, or if s/he exhibits other concrete symptoms of substance abuse, then that person would be tested. I don’t really have much of an issue with that; if it’s for cause, then it’s reasonable to me.
Pretty close. I did know about the policy beforehand, and I actually did give it some thought. I thought it was rotten. Yes, the truly principled thing to do would have been to turn them down and keep looking. But I needed a job, so I lumped it. I placed my economic interests above my personal philosophy, although I didn’t like doing it. If anyone thinks this means I’m a hypocrite or have no credibility, well, do you like every corporate policy where you work?
“I just felt that my interests would be better served if I explored career options outside of my company.” Answering this particular question with utter frankness will rarely help in an interview situation, and most expert advice I’ve seen says it should be answered vaguely.
I’m not sure what it would take to change it. I think it would require less than complete revolt though - merely something that affected the bottom line.
I refuse to sell my labor to any company that would make me take a piss test.
In fact, I think it should be illegal to do drug tests for any job that doesn’t involve operating dangerous machinery. Otherwise, you should be judged purely on your job performance and not on any, shall we say, extracurricular activities.
Thank you, Blalron for sticking with your beliefs of personal privacy, as it is people like you which make the job market that much easier for me, a person who does not consume illegal substances and thus has no problem proving they are absent in my system.
Every person like you that walks away from a potential job on the basis that, through guilty concience or otherwise, they do not wish to succumb to a drug test, improves my own chances employment by a little bit more.
Its a rough job market out there, but it is made a little bit easier by folks like you
I am not ashamed of my body. I do not dance naked in front of the open window. I have nothing to hide when I use the restroom, but I still shut the door. I do not rape women in my bedroom, but I would not authorize a camera placed in there to prove it.
If my performance at work does not meet my employer’s satisfaction, he is free to discharge me for any reason he chooses. Until then: back the fuck off.
Ditto. Never in my life have I done an illegal substance, and I would never allow my company to test me for drugs unless I was involved in an on-the-job accident (and needed to file for worker’s comp).
I do have something to hide. I smoke pot. I do not think smoking pot should cause me to lose my job, unless I’m smoking so much pot that I can’t do my job. But if that’s the case, then they don’t need to drug test me to fire me, they can just fire me for not doing my job.
I believe it was Bill Hicks who said, “If I’m doing drugs at work, and you can’t tell… then I win.” What I do in my spare time is none of my employer’s business, and they have no right to check up on me like that. Even if I didn’t smoke pot, the principle is still disgusting no matter how you slice it.
Thankfully, my boss also smokes pot. Which is nice: gives us something to talk about during lunch.
