So, let’s get this straight. You show up to work drunk and are incapable of doing your job, but because you are alcoholic, you cannot be fired on the spot. You show up to work having smoked a joint five months ago, and do a great job, but because you fail a drug test, you are fired on the spot.
Or is “drug addiction” also considered a disability by the ADA?
There are many links to what one does at home and job performance: smoking, over-eating, binge drinking, staying up until 4:00 a.m. cruising the net for porn, to name a few. How many of these do you allow the company to test for without evidence that your activity is actually harming job performance? The numbers you provided were for alcohol and drug abuse. I have known a number of people who indulged in marijuana who fastidiously never lit a joint within 24 hours of reporting to work. They were recreational users, not abusers, and they are not part of your statistics (except to the extent that they smoked tobacco or ate Big Macs™). If impairment is actually the issue, then we should be testing people for alcohol in the blood each morning (and after lunch). Alcohol abuse is much more widespread and causes immensely more harm, both directly and indirectly.
Instead, we have put silly laws on the books that demonize drug use, then we use a Catch-22 to harrass drug users:
It impairs performance and raises health costs. (So does alcohol for which we don’t test.)
Oh, well, it is illegal. (So is cheating on taxes, watching porn in some communities, beating one’s spouse, hijacking software, and a number of other rather common activities, none of which are tested by the corporation.)
Companies make a big deal about being “drug free” simply for public image. It is an easy way to pretend that they actually are involved in producing a good product, regardless how many shortcuts or OSHA violations they have on the assembly line or how far away from GAAP and FASB their books may stray. It has nothing to do with genuine performance (otherwise they would require testing for alcohol) and it has nothing to do with quality. It is all image–and I find intrusive corporate behavior simply to support an image to be unethical.
Exactly.
How the hell are people supposed to get behind a policy that is so obviously hypocritical, illogical and arbitrary?
And with the exception of CanvasShoes, who has admitted she used to smoke pot, I think there may be some significance in the fact that some of the most rabid pro-drug testing debators in this thread have never actually done any drugs. I don’t think a lot of them realize how close pot is to alcohol with regards to it’s actual effects on job performance. Pot will actually have less of an effect on your job performance the day after than if you were to have a hangover, which has been mentioned numerous times already. That’s why it’s ridiculous that it’s perfectly okay to kick back a few beers after work, but if you smoked a joint 3 months ago on vacation, you get the boot.
I know this is completely ancetotal and not too well thought out (forgive me, I haven’t had coffee yet) but, I went out for drinks after class last night. I put on a rather nice little buzz. This morning? I feel like ass. Alcohol is not really my substance of choice, pot is. I’m one of those fastidious users tomndeb was talking about, I never smoke w/in 24 hours of reporting to work. But if I did, I’d feel fine this morning. Pot has essentially no after-effects once the THC wears off. So, basically, what I did last night (the effects of which I am definately feeling this morning) is a-ok, but what I usually do on the weekends (the effects which I never feel after I’m intoxicated) can get my ass canned. Even if the last time I did it was 3 months ago.
It just doesn’t make any sense. I cannot stand things that have no logical basis, and for me, drug testing is one of those things. Now, for airline pilots, hospital staff and the like, I can be a little less indignant about it, since there’s a public policy interest that can justify it to a certain extent. But unless the safety of the public is directly in your hands through the course of your employment, I just don’t see the justification.
Of course, I also don’t see the justification in keeping pot illegal, but that’s a whole ‘nother can o’ worms.
And Superdude, the only way Miller could possibly feel bad about your last post is if he’s a mind-reader or otherwise had any possible way of knowing your situation, which I’m pretty sure he’s not and didn’t. Otherwise, your post was just a low and sneaky way of trying to guilt trip a concession out of someone with whom you’ve been debating.
I am genuinely sorry to hear about your situation, however.
[sub]I’m actually wondering about the appropriateness of even posting that last bit, but that type of tactic always rubs me the wrong way. It comes across as sort of “emotional cheating” with regards to debate. If that makes me a heartless cow, than I guess that’s what I am.[/sub]
The HR people I know have always told me that random drug testing lowers workman’s comp. premiums. Preemployment testing lowers them to a certain degree while followup random testing lowers them even further. I would consider that the driving force for testing in the public sector, while the government tests mail carriers just because they can.
I work for one of two large hospital systems in my city. One tests preemployment and afterwards randomly, and the one I work for does neither. The one I work for, that does no testing, performs exceptionally better on patient outcomes, sentinel events and mortality.
Why? IMO the people doing drugs are able to take steps to affect their results. Telling me that I will be tested for drugs during my employment physical allows me time to do whatever I need to do to alter the outcome. AFAIK, drinking a gallon of water before peeing would be enough to dilute my urine sample to the point of it being negative, and would keep me out of trouble during a random test, or at least stall the process long enough for me to take other measures.
As an aside, let me point out that physicians at both hospital chains are not subject to testing.
I have the luxury of working in a field that allows me to get a job anywhere, anytime, anyplace. I’m siding with the OP on this one. If I were to asked to pee in a cup, I’d do it with a smile (refusing implies guilt), and when the negative-for-illegal substance results came in, I’d tell them to cram up their ass so far they could taste it. I don’t let them search my house, my car, my hard drive or my library habits and I’ll be god damned if they think that they will get away with searching my body for no other reason than to knock 10% off of their workman’s comp. premiums.
Maybe because he thinks the law is wrong.
Maybe he believes that only those things should be illegal that are inherently wrong, like murder and robbery, and not things that have been declared wrong by legislative fiat.
Drug use is a highly contentious issue despite your black-and-white view of the matter. In California we have legalized medical use of MJ, by popular vote. We have also mandated treatment instead of prison for conviction of possesion and other nonviolent drug violations. Many people object to prison and other crippling punishments even if they do not support legalization. In today’s climate, I’d say being fired is damn near as crippling as a prison sentence, and many believe it should not be acceptable for an employer to fire you for something that doesn’t affect your job performance.
I didn’t expect this thread to take off so fast - I don’t think I’ll have time today to make the responses that I’d like to. For now I’ll just say that I agree with most of the comments put forth by Miller, sangfroid, tomndebb (and others), and that random drug testing should not exist in workplaces other than those where it might cause safety issues, law enforcement agencies, and certain health care positions.
I haven’t found my gruntle yet, but now that I think about it, I’m pretty sure I set it down by the sliced tomato station at the burger bar.
I’m okay with firing people who use drugs if it impacts their job performance. Obviously, this means that no one will ever be fired specifically for using drugs, but only for poor job performance. It also means you don’t need anyone to piss in a cup, because the contents of the piss aren’t going to be any use in determining whether job performance is up to snuff. You’ll need to do employee evaluations or performance reviews or just plain pay attention to your employees and what they’re doing on the job in order to judge job performance.
Fortunately, I live in a land where virtually nobody has to piss in a cup to keep a job, and you can bet I’ll raise 9 kinds of hell with my MPs or MLAs if companies are ever allowed to insist upon such a thing without cause.
And, for the record, I’ve never used illegal drugs in my life.
My knee-jerk reaction is “no, they should not be able to make those demands,” but I’d need to see the justification for each first, before I could reply with any certainty.
Of course, to make the experience more palatable to everyone, I’m sure they do the “random” selection in a way that everyone can witness, correct? And the owner/CEO/CIO/CFO/AIC all have their names in there too, right?
-Joe
THAT was too fucking funny.
Oh and as for “thousands of litigious one-armed dope fiends”, I call BAND NAME!
-Joe, ears ringing from stuffiness - better fire him!
The HR people are right. My company doesn’t want to do drug testing. We can save up to (I think) 15% off of our BWC premiums if we institute drug testing. Not only that, but the BWC pays for the testing.
My company is very small. We’re talking 15-20 thousand dollars per year savings if we cave. We don’t particularly want to do it since we’re pretty sure at least some of our employees smoke pot.
However, they will not be fired for testing positive. We have to offer counseling (yeah, like anyone will want that).
Testing would be random aside from being mandatory after certain accidents.
So, if anyone thinks that companies are simply out to screw them, remember that it’s your friendly neighborhood government that is pushing these “solutions” at companies.
It seems to me that drug testing by employers is becoming more prevalent in the US for the same reason that you hardly ever see teeter-totters anymore, or lawn darts, or dogs in public buildings–because our society is becoming increasingly litigious, and we are *de facto * losing freedoms due to fears of big lawsuits against anyone with a lot to lose if proven negligent (e.g. companies, governments). Given the environment, it is not surprising that such entities act to protect their own best self-interests by minimizing their potential liabilities.
Having a random drug screening policy in place might, just might, save a company a lot of money if one of its employees is involved in an accident causing injury or damage and it comes out that said employee had an illicit drug in their system at the time. Most likely, anyone sueing for compensation and claiming damages is going to name both the employee and the employee’s employer in the lawsuit. If the company can demonstrate before the court that they had a drug testing policy in place, they might be able to reduce the dollar amount of fines or compensation they are required to pay out.
So in that way, random drug screening is a proxy for insurance to employers. And no, I do not like random drug screening of already-hired employees, on principle.
Which is so idiotic it’s not even funny. Putting aside stupid stuff like rights, privacy, and all that fun stuff, it’s still idiotic.
“I’m suing you because your employee smokes pot and he ran over my foot.”
“Haha! You can’t! We have a random drug testing policy! That employee was never actually tested, but he had a 5% chance per year of actually having to take a piss test!”
You see the logical disconnect there?
-Joe
I can at least understand the reasoning behind this use of drug testing, (covering their asses in case someone was hurt), but it’s still a “guilty until proven innocent” philosophy that I don’t like. But when the job doesn’t involve any risk to others (such as sitting in a cubicle for 8 hours typing data in a computer), there’s no reason whatsoever to do this randomly.
I see your point on this. If I came across as emotionally pandering, I apologize. I like to think of myself as more…organized and thought out in my debates (but not NEARLY enough so to venture into GD).
And, FWIW, I debated on adding that to my last post. The reason I did wasn’t for sympathy, but more of a…“I’m off-kilter, and I owe you a better-reasoned debate, but I can’t at the moment.”
Just want to dispell a little ignorance here just so those particular arguements can be adressed once and for all. Any job falling under[www.twcc.state.tx.us/information/videoresources/stp_usdot_ts.pdf+DOT+on+drug+use&hl=en]](http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:dPRnYFvgiy4J:[url) US DOT regulatory system has mandantory testing. These would include Truckers, and Heavy Equipment Operators and some others. Any falling under the auspices of the [FAA](http://www.air-compliance.com/drug.htm), these would include pilots and airline mechanics, also have mandantory testing. I’ll provide cites if anyone really needs them. I support these. I’m also relatively sure that those involiving public safety such as cops, firemen and paramedics have testing, but those are probabaly covered at the local level, so I can’t say that with any authority, but these I would also support. That takes care of public safety, or does it?
I know of no mandantory testing system for doctors/surgeons, where’s the outrage there? Yet we’re testing broom pushers, desk jockeys, walmartians and receptionist. Insane totally insane.
One of the problems, at least in the situation we’re in, is that all employees are subject to the testing even though some of us work in an office and others work out in the factory.
The list of employees would be sent to the BWC and they would choose who gets tested.
Damn it!!! Stupid drugs! 
* That’ll teach me not to preview, as you can tell I already provided cites, screwed up coding not withstanding.
that was a joke, in case the smiley wasn’t obvious enough
I’ll send you another copy.
Seriously, there sure is a lot of whining in this thread. I’ve worked for companies that wouldn’t let me color my hair or insisted I wear pants. If it was SUCH a big deal to me, I’d look elsewhere, but I manage because they povide me with other rewards and incentives that beat other employment. Sheesh, if ya don’t like it, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.