Sofa King, I’m merely stating the company’s reasoning. It is not my opinion that we should drug test. In fact, I’m fairly ambivalent about the whole thing. I don’t believe that we should have double standards for employees dependant on location or any other factor for that matter. But I work for a fairly large company, and many times have to toe a line that I don’t necessarily believe. (Yes, I’m looking for a job - see this thread for more details.)
I do stand by my point that if you’re looking for a job, you should expect to be tested and stay clean for that period, just as you should make sure your hair looks neat and your clothes are in OK shape for an interview. You’re out there to put your best foot forward, and like it or not, employers judge whether to hire you on many superficial criteria, not the least of which is whether or not you use illegal drugs.
You guys have got to be kidding me right? Maybe if we defined the question a little more narrowly it’ll start making more sense to me. The arguments some of you are making for drug using employees being productive are for the most part going on the “weekend pot smoker” model, right? 'Cause I get that. If we’re talking about heroin addicts I think you’re nuts. For me this is more of a problem of a (IMHO) fairly harmless substance (weed) getting productive workers fired. That’s the only problem I have with drug testing.
You make a distinction between pot and heroin. Fair enough, though, as below, the distinction isn’t that strong. Well, guess which drug testing is most likely to uncover? Pot. THC is fat-soluble, and therefore stays in your system (and urine) considerably longer then heroin. The guy who toked two weeks ago is much more likely to be caught by a drug test than the guy who shot up 2 days ago (timing isn’t precise, but you get my point). Compounding this, as Morgainelf noted, her (and I assume other companies) aren’t informed which drug was detected and in what concentration.
Second, don’tcha think that a heroin addict could also be detected by talking to the applicant and checking his/her work history? 'Sides which, 2/3 of opiate users are not dependent.
I don’t think that analogy is valid. The drug-using employee has already displayed some disregard for the law, whereas merely being blonde and buxom does not imply promiscuity. So this analogy doesn’t hold IMO – regardless of wheter one believes that drug use should constitute grounds against employment.
For the record, I’d just like to say that I’m merely razzing you, Morgainelf, and I certainly wouldn’t attribute that point of view to you personally.
However, I did it to make a point. The point is that as soon as urinalysis successfully wormed its way through the courts, our civil liberties began to erode like the darkest corner in a sandstone fortress.
I think one can make an argument that urinalysis has the potential to harm employers as well, because it means that oftentimes the best qualified are being replaced by the most righteous and best connected. That may help create an “illusion of competence,” and urinalysis has the potential to reinforce the illusion of competence at the very times when the best people are really needed.
My wife and I are starting a small business, so this topic is relivent to me. Here’s how I look at it: Nobody is going to convince me that an opiate user is statistically going to be as reliable an employee as a non-user. All I care about is making my wusiness a sucess so my kids eat on a regular basis. I could give a shit less is someone “might be” just as good as a (bad term I know) “normal” employee. If I can LEGALLY discriminate against a group that I believe will be counterproductive to my chances of success, I will. I can’t afford to take the risk. As for the other issues (pregnancy, gambling, etc) I have no legal way to protect my business from that.
If you can’t detect it through work history and a conversation/interview, why would it matter if the person was an addict. If they act no differently that anyone else and are just as qualified what does it matter?
What the hell does “have friends that are deviant” do with anything? In what way are they “deviant”? Do they wear lederhosen with a tutu? Eat sardine and peanut butter sandwiches?
What is “a problem with alcohol use”? It obviously isn’t “drinking frequently” or “[getting] drunk”, since those are already covered.
There’s that deviant word again.
Not much of a study. Corellation is not causation. Maybe smoking marijauna and alcohol abuse are a symptoms of personal problems that these people have.
This looks like propaganda pushing an anti-marijauna agenda, and not much more.
In the Eighties, I worked for a private Engineering company. After I’d been there about eight months, the bigwigs decided they were going to have everyone sign a statement agreeing to random drug testing. There had been no pre-employment drug test when I had been hired.
This is when all the pols were in a fizz, and the “Drug-Free Workplace” was everyone’s mantra.
Even though I was a low-human on the totem pole, I said, “I’m NOT signing.” I was leaned on a bit, told that it was “required” because we were doing contract work for the State. I said, “Gee, that’s nice…when I worked for the State, I was never pee-tested there!” My concern was multi-pronged: Number One, invasion of privacy. Getting a urine specimen from a man is relatively easy, men generally pee in front of some sort of audience all the time. (I’ve even heard of piss contests, for cryin’ out loud!) But for a WOMAN, it’s a different story. A chaperone has to BE IN THE STALL WITH YOU while you fill the cup. No thanks. Although I relinquished all modesty the first time I gave birth, I’m not going to have someone squeeze into the bathroom stall with me and watch me pee.
My second reason is that I’m plagued with migraines, and at times I am taking pain pills like M&Ms. I have to force myself to keep working, because sick leave evaporates fast enough. I’m sure my random number would come up regularly each time I’d battled a headache. Once you’ve been branded, it’s hard to remove the stigma, no matter WHAT your doctor may say.
I told my supervisors: If you have reason to believe I am jeopardizing the safety of myself and others, fine, request a pee test. I’ll sign anything you want me to agreeing to those circumstances. But I’m NOT going to give you permission to violate MY right to privacy, if my job doesn’t depend on it.
Maybe it’s just an irrational bias, but if an employment agency said “We have several qualified applicants who would do a wonderful job.” “Would you prefer an accountant with or without a recreational drug habit?”
My experience, FWIW. I worked as a contract employee for the Feds for 11 years and during my last couple of years was tested on a continuous basis. During that time NO Federal employee with a similar job description was tested even once. In fact, I know of no Federal employee being tested during the entire period I was there.
Also, I did achieve a positive result on one occasion from eating poppy seed bread. The lab tech called me personally prior to releasing the information to my employer, and was apparently convinced from our conversation that morphine derivatives weren’t part of my lifestyle.
Afer being selected for testing from our pool of employees for the third straight time (we were supposed to rotate on a random basis), I balked, and suggested they try another candidate. I was never chosen again.
Employers certainly have the legal right to request drug testing. They shouldn’t be allowed to use that right as a means to harass, nor should they assume the positive result of a test is grounds for termination.
And if they said “Would you prefer an accountant who likes jazz or rock? Caramel corn or cheese corn? Straight or gay? Christian or Muslim? Married or single? Black or white?”
If they broke applicants down into those who participate in oral sex with their spouses and those who don’t, backed up by a chemical test to see exactly who had done it in the past week?
Is there some line between privacy and company business?
I’d just like to point out that the majority of my posts are made from work. Employers may do better to ask potential candidates, “Do you subscribe to any message boards? Any particularly addictive ones, like SDMB perhaps?”
Sofa King…woooooshh… I’m unduly serious lately.
I’ve only been tested once, for a job at EDS. They actually cut out a piece of my hair, close to the scalp at the crown. I had pretty long hair at the time. I’d guess that the hair near the ends was probably 3 years old. So this makes me wonder - could they tell what I was doing three years ago? What exactly does the hair test look for? Is it more “reliable” than urinalysis?
At the time I had never so much as smoked a joint, so felt totally safe. I don’t know that I’d feel so safe if given the same test now. Though I don’t use drugs, I’ve smoked pot maybe 5 times, and didn’t inhale (no kidding, I can’t inhale).
And Sgt J., don’t worry. If you work hard enough, you too can be a successful wussy! I just couldn’t let that one go…
When any of these things becomes illegal, then your comparison may be valid. When any of these things is known to be impairing to the individual, potentially causing danger or loss of productivity while on the job, your comparison may be valid.
No one every overdosed from jazz or rock. One can be white or black at work (or at home) and their judgment and impairment will not be compromised in any way.
Dude, that’s just plain silly. Mr 2001 if you seriously think whether you like caramel corn or cheese corn is just as relevant to potential job performance as drug use…
Never mind, I quit. Anyone who doesn’t think drugs effect your judgement need look no further than that analogy.
posted by Morgainelf
The only thing worse than the fact that I typed that is that my spell checker let it go…
Illegality has already been covered. Is it acceptable to administer a test to screen out applicants who enjoy oral sex in states where oral sex is illegal?
Loss of productivity on the job is quite clear in the cases of marriage and pregnancy - the employer may have to make drastic accomodations when a pregnant employee takes a few months off on maternity leave. Religious belief has a clear impact in some situations; suppose you need someone to come in on Sunday, but his religion (like many religions) forbids him to work on Sunday?
(I am aware that screening employees based on religion and marital status is illegal. My point is that we wouldn’t find it acceptable even if we lived in a country where it was legal.)
Red herring. I have never advocated using drugs at work; in fact, I’ve advocated impairment testing to prevent it.
I seriously don’t think responsible, off-hours drug use has any more of an effect on job performance than off-hours oral sex or religious belief. Care to cite a study showing otherwise?
Apparently you just have a “gut feeling” that drug users must somehow be a liability. The problem with basing policy on your gut feelings is that gut feelings can be wrong. Some of my neighbors might be absolutely, 100% convinced that blacks can’t do as good a job as whites, but in the absence of any evidence to support their position, I am free to write them off as bigots.
Did I say I used drugs, or do you just subscribe to the “you read Marx so you must be a commie” school of thought?
I love it.
