Why is the assumption that he will fuck up? 
Sorry, that was directed to Mr Blue Sky about Miller.
(rassin’ frassin’ sneakin’ posts in)
I’m sure the belief of the corporation is that, if you use drugs, you’re more likely to fuck up (and I’m sure they will provide stats (legitimate or not) to back themselves up).
Bottom line: you work for someone, they make the rules. You don’t like it, quit.
Well, in that case, let’s not ever talk about it ever again. What a fantastic policy! Racism is also something that not ever going to go away, so no one ever gets to complain about that. War in Iraq? We’ll be there for years. Let’s not talk about that, either. Whoever wins the election this November is going to be there for the next four years, no matter how much anyone complains, so no political threads until at least June, 2007. Congratulations, Mr. Blue Sky! You just invalidated the entire SDMB! You want to e-mail The Reader and tell 'em to pull the plug, or should I?
From GQ I learned that the results of a drug test are not given to the employer, only whether illegal substances were in use. If they detect something, they will check for scripts, in which case of course the employer will hear “no drug use”.
Over-react much?
I said it was unlikely, not impossible.
I don’t have any problems with random drug tests in corporate America. Of course, I don’t use illegal drugs. 
Which changes the innanity of your post not one whit.
Jesus, that was profound. :rolleyes:
Sorry, I’m new here. I didn’t realize all posts had to be profound. :dubious:
Only odd numbered posts. Isn’t that in the user agreement?
So you don’t think that a corporation has a responsibility to itself, its stockholders, and to the public to ensure that it can maintain an environment devoid of drug users and potential drug users? Someone mentioned alcohol, and tobacco. The reason that those are a little less frowned-upon is that they are not illegal. They may be dangerous, etc. But they’re legal.
It’s not a question of morality. It’s a question of, in the words of an old adage, an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure.
If you’re engaging in illegal activity - no matter how insignificant you seem to think it is - it can effect your job performance. And, as a result, a corporation has a right to protect its interests.
If you think that random drug testing is bad - which I get the impression that you do - then I’d suggest that you grow your facial hair out, get a lot of piercing, and apply at your local coffee shop.
The corporation has a right to protect its interests.
Well, I’m not really crazy about the peeing in the cup thing and I think it’s an intrusion, but I understand why some employers do it. I don’t understand why WalMart does it, but places that are related to health care, or where people operate dangerous machinery (or fly planes, drive busses)? Yeah, I think it’s warranted.
I had a job with the government that was health-care related. We were in direct contact with patients, often (usually, actually) alone with patients and completely responsible for their care. Yes, I definitely understood why I was subjected to a pee test before I was hired. The government has too much to lose if something goes wrong.
Families of patients already are sue-happy and have threatened to sue over trumped up or flimsy reasons. Imagine how they would be in an accident (or negligence) occurred and it turned out that the person in charge of the patient’s care was high. Insisting on drug testing at least gives the government the appearance of trying to prevent employee neglect, even though it’s not everything. As others have pointed out, it doesn’t assure that an employee won’t be drunk on the job. But drug testing is better than nothing, and after all, drugs are illegal so the employer has that on their side. “Discriminating” against a potential employee who is willfully breaking the law isn’t going to get a whole lot of people wringing their hands with distress. Because, like, it’s against the law. Boo hoo hoo, you are being discriminated against because you are breaking the law. That’s what a lot of people will think.
But yeah, I can see that it is intrusive. I am very anti-drug and I’ve never tried any drugs, but I balked when I was asked to do an additional pee test, after drugs (okay, pot) were found at the workplace. But I decided to along with it, because after all, it was kind of alarming to find pot at a healthcare workplace, where a staff member is supposed to be looking after the patients. I mean, patients sometimes die while we’re on the job (it never happened with me, Thank God) and to think that the employee in charge was high at the time? Can you imagine the paperwork and lawsuits that would have transpired if that had happened? The government has to cover its butt. I understand.
I also understand that other employers are in a similar vulnerable position (or feel that there is that risk) so I don’t blame them for doing drug testing. But WalMart? Not so much. Don’t understand that.
No, I don’t. Though they might disagree.
I’ve seen an overwhelming number of poor workers. Only a very small fraction (like, 1/N) have ever had poor performance due to drugs. And in that case, it was his performance that cost him his job–just like the others.
My boss pokes fun of a coworker of mine for riding a motorcycle, implying that it is the company’s interest that the coworker in question is not harmed (as that would cost the company money). Of course, it is all a wink wink nudge nudge, my boss doesn’t intend to fire him because of it. This is part of the reason why I like my company. My boss also feels that drugs being illegal is Not Good. This is part of the reason that I like my boss: we agree. He feels responsible for the company running as it should, not for conducting the life of his employees outside of work. Personally, I think such a distinction is paramount lest we live in a plutocracy. YMMV, though I honestly don’t see how.
Why, when the company I work for already respects me as an individual?
So do I.
No, it does not. How many times does that have to be said before it sinks in?
Yeah, we get that they’re illegal. No one is arguing that they’re illegal. The point, on the off hand chance you’ll actually catch it this time, is that it is not the place for a private employer to make sure its employees follow the law when they’re not at work. Since you seem to think that it is their position to do so, you could at least do us all the courtesy of explaining why only drugs, of all the myriad illegal activities in this country, are the ones that are singled out in this way.
Oh, Jesus, this is so dumb. I take it, then, that you have no problem with your place of employment snooping on your private home computer? Sifting your trash? Going through your mail? Following you around? Because any illegal activity, no matter how insignificant, can effect your job performance, and your employer is perfectly within its rights to violate your privacy in what ever way it sees fit to make sure your effiency as a worker is not in the least bit affected by your nefarious activities! Remember: so long as you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to complain!
You know, I really don’t see why being high at work is so bad, because even at my most galactically fucked up, I’m still not half as stupid as you are when you’re stone cold.
Up to a point. And that point is the minute I walk out of my place of work and go home. My boss is my boss, not my liege lord, and his ability to dictate what I do with my life stops the minute I walk out the front door of his business.
I believe this is a lame argument. If we stick to something rather benign, like pot, I can’t see how anyone can believe that the guy who goes home and takes a couple of hits while watching TV, then totters off to bed, is somehow worse than the guy who drinks several beers before bed, then comes in to work grogy and hung over. In fact, I would argue that the drinking is worse. But being hung over is kind of laughed at, while being fresh in the morning (but stoned last night) is somehow hurting the company. I realize this is just arguing from a particular, but I think it shows that the automatic “drugs are eeeevil” attitude is just wrong, at least in some cases.
Of course it does. But I would submit that the corporation should more actively monitor the job performance itself, since that’s all that matters. Poor job performance due to staying up late watching crappy dating shows, or taking several times the perscribed dosage of anti-depressants (like one woman I used to work with, who walked around like a zombie all day), or even using illegal drugs should not be accepted. Nobody is arguing that bad performance should be tollerated, but 1.) illegal drugs do not neccesarily equate to bad performance and 2.) bad performance is not neccesarily due to illegal drug use. Therefor randomly testing for illegal drug use isn’t going to fix performance issues in the company, and isn’t really addressing the problem in any way.
Because the only valid job for a smart, dedicated, employee who happens to use drugs recreationally is at a minimum wage job with no possibility of creative outlet? Fuck. That. I’d rather have smart recreational user on my team than a slacker who thinks “drugs are bad, m’kay?” What my coworker does when he goes home is his own damn business, as long as he gets his shit done.
Note that we’re NOT talking about people who actually use drugs at work. Drug tests catch trace amounts of drugs in the system, so a test on Friday could mark positive from the time you were standing near some pot smokers in the club last weekendand got some second-hand THC. And that affected your productivity how? But when the company fires you it’s ok, because they’re just looking out for the stockholders, right? :dubious:
No. I do not believe that a corporation has any responsibility or right to ensure that people are only using “legal” drugs when the legality of any drug is based solely on the whims of a legislature looking for campaign issues. Since the legality of any given drug is purely arbitrary, there is no reason why corporations should care about which drug is being used (unless you are planning to deputize all the CEOs and have them turn in all employeees who ever violate any law).
Perhaps we should have all corporations validate everyone’s tax returns to catch cheaters? (Cheaters are breaking the law.) Maybe each company should put recording devices on all personal cars and fire and report anyone caught speeding? (Excessive speed is illegal.) I really think that companies should place mini-cams with microphones on the foreheads of all employees, to be worn 24/7, so that any illegal activity can be monitored, identified, and reported to the police along with the employee’s pink slip.
So um, private corporations have no right to make sure that they hire and keep drug free employees?
People taking illegal drugs, or abusing legal ones for that matter, can adversely affect the company in other ways than that their work suffers.
Such as health problems, which costs the company more in insurance.
At any rate, no, the company doesn’t have a “right” to enforce morality, if that’s what you want to call it. But they DO have a right to make sure they have the type of employee that they want. And they do that in a number of ways other than drug tests. Background checks to make sure they’re not hiring a thief or sex offender for one.
Shoot, one of our clients required SF-86s (federal security clearance) on every employee working onthat project.
Jeez, peeing in a cup is NOTHING next to that 10 page bueracratic nightmare.
You know, Miller, I’ve tried to be civil in this issue. However, your defense of illegal activites give one the impression of you being just as hard-headed as I am.
You seem to have just as much trouble grasping MY point as you think I do with yours.
You and I will just have to agree to disagree on the issue. I agree with the perspective of the employer; you don’t. Fine. Big fuckin’ deal.
For the five hundred and fifth fucking time, NO! Criminy! How many times does that need to be explicitly stated before you people stop asking that question?
Better start firing employees who smoke tobacco, then. Or eat Big Macs. Or don’t wear their seatbelt.
And, again, the difference between your example and the OP is the intervention of the lawful authorities. A company is absolutely in its rights to refuse to hire someone who has a drug conviction. It does not have the right to investigate on its own, and terminate employees on suspicion of drug use without the employee ever being charged or convicted of breaking the law. That’s vigilantism, and last I checked, that’s also against the law.
No, I understand your point completely and perfectly. And it’s retarded. I can respect a viewpoint I disagree with, so long as it is cogent, logically consistant, and skillfully argued. Come back and see me when you can fulfill at least one of those criteria, and we’ll see about “agreeing to disagree.”