Employer drug testing

Great Debates
1

I oppose all employer drug testing that does not measure current levels of intoxication/influence. Current drug tests measure the presence of a drug anywhere from 2 days to almost 2 months after use depending on the drug.

The pre-employment drug testing performed by many companies is comparable to searches without cause. I can understand the desire to test practitioners of certain professions such as drivers, pilots, or machine operators. But should even these professions be subject to testing for activities that occurred when they were not on the job?

If it was a question of performing your job while impaired then why is an alcohol hangover condoned? Companies are taking advantage of the current political climate to examine parts of our lives that are none of their business.

I hope this is not in the wrong forum. I started this thread after reading Ask the Recreational Drug User! and it’s offshoot Parental responsibility?. When you respond, if you are employed by someone other than yourself, I think it would be interesting if you would post whether you had to pass a drug test to be hired and if you have been tested since.

2

There are a lot of reasons for drug testing. Some valid, some that border on invasion of privacy. The most valid, from my standpoint, is the matter of insurance.

some generalizations to follow**
Those who use illegal intoxicants tend to be less careful. Many, though certainly not all, tend to be less than honest. Those who abuse substances have higher absenteeism and tardiness. And they tend to be sick more often. And they are subject to arrest and prosecution. (possesion is a crime)

So drug testing can be seen as a way to reduce:

  1. workplace accidents
  2. employee theft
  3. lost man hours
  4. benefit costs

And lets not forget that an intoxicated employee could cause an employer a myriad of legal hassles.

Many of the people who use the drugs that the tests were designed to find do not use them responsibly. They are in such numbers as to constitute a major social problem. I understand that some people can use certain drugs only on weekends and not experience ill-effects but they seem to be a minority.

I was drug tested on my current job 3 times. At my first hire, when I left and was rehired, and when the company was bought by another. I’m saying that I support drug testing (mixed feelings), but I can understand it.

3

The company I work for is a “Drug Free Workplace.” I put that in quotes because I don’t believe it really is. But in order to qualify for a lower workman’s comp insurance premiums, many places comply to the minimum standards required to be called a Drug Free Workplace. My company does not test before hiring. They have it in the employee handbook that they have a right to test if they believe you are using, and that apparently satisfies the requirement, along with a statement that drug use is not tolerated. My former employer instituted the Drug Free Workplace standards more strictly. They test before hiring and reserve the right to test if they think you are using. I was never tested because I was hired before they instituted the policy and they didn’t test existing employees. I think a lot of companies test purely for the purpose of getting that lower workman’s comp insurance premiums.

4

bullshit.

generalizations based upon what?? stereotypes?? propoganda??

the most widely abused substance is alcohol. the two drugs with the greatest “cost to society” are alcohol and nicotine.

drug use is not the problem. hysterical response to them is.

5

Drug use is not a problem? I don’t think that statement will hold up, what with the whole ‘war on drugs’ and all. I am a recovering addict. Used daily for 12 years. Been clean for 13 years. I have met literally thousands of addicts in that time, both recovering and still using. I based my statements (admittedly generalized) on my experience. But I’m sure that if you search the web, you’ll find many sites about substance abuse (hundreds).

Yes, alcohol and nicotine are socially costly. But does that lessen the impact of amphetamines, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, new synthetic drugs, and abused presciption medications? No.

6

Forgot to post a link. Here’s one.
http://www.ncadd.org/workplac.html

7

My employer has had drug testing for the past 10+ years. I was in support of it for our agency. We work with ex offenders.

For us to request drug samples from our clients, so that they were held accountable, and not be accountable ourselves, I felt would be wrong. I also support our employer’s policy against alcohol USE during work hours. I shouldn’t be reeking of beer while attempting to counsel someone about abstaining from alcohol. makes it a tad, hmm, inconsistent?

For positions where the employee is operating machinery or vehicles, I feel the employer AND society as a whole, have an overriding interest in maintaining safety. The employer will be held responsible for the employee’s actions, and if their response time would be shortened due to alcohol or drugs, I feel that is pertinant. I would INCLUDE legally used prescription drugs in this - that is, if you must be on drugs with the warning lable “use caution when driving or operating machinery” than you probably shouldn’t be doing those things at work, either. If that means a job change so be it.

I would be in favor of devising a test where ** current ** influence was tested vs. use in the past. Especially for mj, which can stay detectable for up to a month. I don’t think it’s relevant that you smoked dope last August. I do think it may be relevant if you smoked last night.

We have rights, freedoms here. But so do the employers, and so do the rest of us. I’m pretty happy that pilots are required to submit to testing and are prohibited from flying withing 12 hours of drinking at all (IIRC).

There are certain occupations where drug testing seems necessary for the safety of us all. Law enforcement and transportation (drivers, pilots etc) seem to be two, IMHO. Yes, I think it’s perfectly fine to require that the cop who’ll be enforcing the law remains drug free. So, if you don’t want to be tested, don’t go for an occupation that will require it. Don’t go to an employer who will require it, there are employers who don’t require it.

Your rights do NOT include working for every single employer out there. If you are not willing to comply with the workplace rules, don’t work there.

8

I believe that random and non-causal employer drug testing is absolutely wrong. What I do on my own time is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. End of discussion.

I will not work for an employer that requires these sorts of drug tests. While this used to be relatively easy, it has become more and more difficult over time as this requirement has become more commonplace. So the whole ‘if you don’t like it, don’t work there’ argument is becoming less and less realistic. If there are NO employers that don’t drug test, then I have NO options in employment. (ACLU says drug testing increased by 277% between 1987 & 1997 - that doesn’t count the increase in testing through the first years of the War on American Citizens. http://www.aclu.org/library/pbr5.html) I’ve actually seen higher numbers, but I found this first & don’t have time to search all day.

On the other hand, my employer is also operating under the Drug Free Workplace rules. I have no objection to this because (1) they were blackmailed into it; and (2) they merely require a statement that says I will not use/possess/sell/buy/etc drugs or paraphernalia while I am at work. I absolutely agree that my employer has a vested interest in and right to control my behavior WHILE I AM AT WORK. That’s what they pay me for.

I don’t care much for occupation-related drug testing (i.e., pilots, drivers, etc.) because I don’t believe it’s the most effective way to resolve the problem. Again, in these situations where reflexes, coordination, reactions, etc. are imperative, I absolutely agree that for safety reasons, employers have the right to make sure their employees are capable of working safely. However, since drug testing doesn’t really do that, I don’t see it as a valid system. For example, who would you rather have drive your bus - a guy who smoked a joint three weeks ago or someone who was up all night with a bad cold and is dosed to the gills on Benadryl?

Please note that there ARE tests available that would actually increase safety rather than punish people for their personal lives - it’s just that no one is using them.

Employee drug testing is NOT an issue of workplace safety nor of employee productivity. It is an issue of politics and greed.
spooje -

as dixiechiq stated, you’re full of it.

Yes, there are lots of people with drug abuse problems. There are also lots of people that use drugs without any problems. Can’t find statistics on them? Gosh, maybe that’s because they’re quietly living, working, rearing families, and all the rest. Damn sure most of 'em aren’t going to stick their necks out by proclaiming their drug use publicly, just so they can become casualties of the War on Drugs.

As far as your assertions about the need for workplace drug testing - read this and then we’ll talk: http://www.aclu.org/issues/worker/drugtesting1999.pdf

There’s several other similar reports out, I just didn’t have time to search them up.
wring -

I will agree that there are some exceptions.

Since cops are enforcing the laws, they should not break them. They are in a unique job situation.

If you work in a job that requires enforcing drug testing, etc., I agree that you should live by the same rules. I admire your integrity in supporting your employer in this. Again, it is a unique job situation.

I would agree that drug counselors, who are advising/helping people stop using, should not be on drugs. Actually, most programs require them to be ex-users, so anyone who never did drugs wouldn’t qualify either. Again, unique job qualifications.

In other words, I would not say that there is NEVER any reason for an employer to make this a requirement. But when 99% of employers requiring drug testing do so for NO REAL REASON AT ALL, there is a problem, people.

9

redtail 23 - if you look back, I was also in agreement that some one on ** legally prescribed ** meds that negatively impact their ability to operate machinery should be included. And, that I want to get rid of the MJ tests that go back for weeks.

You do seem to agree that the employer is due some interest in your activities on the job. What of the person who shoots up/snorts up JUST before work? It’s on their off time.

10

Let’s not forget how very many employers actually supply certain drugs to all workers on company time and at company expense. They even have an area (sometimes even an entire room!) designated for this purpose complete with all necessary paraphernalia.

(I’m talking about caffeine, in case you couldn’t figure it out.) :slight_smile:

11

spooje, I wasn’t aware of the lower workmans comp premiums for ‘Drug Free Workplaces’ but as TroubleAgain points out, testing is not required. Congratulations on your 13 years of being clean. I certainly have respect for anyone that can overcome an addiction. I don’t want to single you out but I’m curious. What effect did your drug use have on your employer? Were you caught on the job? If so was it through testing or through performance?

wring, When you bring up the case of someone who shoots up/snorts up JUST before work you’re pushing the line. If employers could test current ability then that situation would be addressed. But what about someone who is sleep deprived, on cold medication, or emotionally diswrought? There are some things we do and some things that happen to us outside of work that affect our job performance. Employers have always recognized this and have dealt with it in different ways.

In case you are curious pilots may not act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft:
a) Within 8 hours of alcohol consumption.
b) While under the infulence of alcohol.
c) While using any drug that affects the person’s faculties in any way contrary to safety.
d) While having a .04% blood alcohol level.
FAR 91.17

I recently passed my test to become a Private Pilot. To obtain my medical certificate I had to submit a urine sample but I was not informed what it was used for. I have to assume I was tested for drugs. A Private Pilot is specifically forbidden to act as a pilot for compensation. To obtain that rating I would be subject to more training and more stringent medical standards. I have not yet been tested in the workplace but I believe that my chances of avoiding it are steadily decresing.

I have relatives that work for Airborne and Federal Express. They were subject to pre-employment drug testing but only the workers subject to DOT (Department of Transportation) regulations are subject to random drug and alcohol testing. If your name comes up while you are on vacation, your name is held and you are tested upon your return. This is invasion pure and simple. Only the alcohol test measures current effects.

12

As I am in the Air National Guard, and since my civilian job is a contractor’s position working for the Air National Guard, and since my job requires a Top Secret security clearance, I can definitely say that I’ve been tested. Even if the laws were reversed today and every drug were made 100% legal I would have to stay away from them to keep my clearance. I don’t really mind that these are their policies since they are perfectly up front about it. Folks not willing to play can get a job elsewhere.

13

yah, wring, I saw your comments on prescribed drugs. You also commented on the other thread that you wouldn’t consider as acceptable any tests that did NOT measure drug use; you just don’t like the time frames they use in the current tests. So, in other words, you are ACTIVELY FOR employee drug testing, if they change their rules a tiny bit to suit you. That’s fine as your opinion, but I still don’t agree with you.

Believe it or not, there are OTHER REASONS besides drugs that make it unsafe for people to engage in activities like driving, flying, etc. Lack of sleep is a primary component in many traffic accidents - but no one is checking semi-truck drivers for fatigue toxins.

As far as drug use just before work - I said in my first post on this thread that I opposed NON-CAUSAL drug testing. I said in the other thread linked above that I did NOT OPPOSE drug testing if and only if the employer can SHOW CAUSE to believe that the employee is under the influence of drugs on the job. Do you get this point now, or do I need to repeat myself again?

I understand employer problems with employee drug use ON THE JOB. I understand employer problems with the effects of employee drug use.

The fact is, random drug testing is an invasion of privacy that DOES NO GOOD. Did you bother to even look at any of my previous links?

I am aware that you think employers can make any requirements they want and employees have no rights other than to leave. I don’t agree with that concept. My rights as a human being and a citizen do not cease to exist just because I work for someone else.
So, when employers start requiring cholesteral tests, body fat tests, blood sugar tests, and make hiring/firing decisions based on ‘health’, will all of you go merrily along with that, too? (Don’t laugh - it has already started.)

14

If I am injured at work by another employees actions I can make a claim against my employer.
If that employee has taken drugs and is either high or down on his knees I do not want to be working around them.
I have, in the past, worked on HV switchgear where simple forgetfulness over mislaid tools could cause a disaster.I do not want anyone round me whose mind is in a syringe.
BTW extend that drug user to include the drunk as well.

Do serious drug users take more time off work ? I think it is very likely but have no evidence.Why should I carry the workload of another because they have a habit ?
Why should the employer pay sick money to such a person ?

As a prison employee I have no objection to being tested although it is not done at the moment.A drug user could be compromised by prisoners and become a security risk.I really don’t want a gun held to my throat because such a person was forced to smuggle one in to keep their habit secret.There is the issue of being seen to set an example in prison.

Why should the state care what you do in your personal life ?- Easy to answer, so long as it is legal it doesn’t.

15

If I am injured at work by another employees actions I can make a claim against my employer.
If that employee has taken drugs and is either high or down on his knees I do not want to be working around them.
I have, in the past, worked on HV switchgear where simple forgetfulness over mislaid tools could cause a disaster.I do not want anyone round me whose mind is in a syringe.
BTW extend that drug user to include the drunk as well.

Do serious drug users take more time off work ? I think it is very likely but have no evidence.Why should I carry the workload of another because they have a habit ?
Why should the employer pay sick money to such a person ?

As a prison employee I have no objection to being tested although it is not done at the moment.A drug user could be compromised by prisoners and become a security risk.I really don’t want a gun held to my throat because such a person was forced to smuggle one in to keep their habit secret.There is the issue of being seen to set an example in prison.

Why should the state care what you do in your personal life ?- Easy to answer, so long as it is legal it doesn’t.

16

Oh poo!!!

Sorry 'bout the double post - everthing seemed to just stop working and…

17

You believe serious drug users take more time off work but that is just your belief. If you read the report http://www.aclu.org/issues/worker/drugtesting1999.pdf posted by redtail23 the people compiling the statistics couldn’t prove or disprove it. If it was that significant you would think they could find something more concrete. And drug testing affects casual users that may not be impaired or compromised any more than if you didn’t get a good night’s sleep.

We’re not specifically talking about the state here. We’re talking about employers. Computer Associates has a policy in the employee handbook stating (paraphrased) that it is grounds for dismissal for any employee to smoke cigarettes on CA property or any area specifically set aside for CA employees. Meaning I couldn’t go out in the parking lot during lunch hour get in my car and have a smoke. Illegal? There’s more to it than that. They are trying to regulate our lives outside of work.

18

Because the person has earned those sick days. It’s not really anybody’s business why they are sick, is it? If you’ve got the sick days, you are entitled to use them.

Incidentally, I work for a company that does random testing. I personally don’t think it’s “right”, but then again I need this income so I can’t afford to be too picky. In a situation like casdave mentions (prison) ok, I can understand it. But the company I work for has none of those types of situations. Basically, 99% of the place are desk jockeys. I really don’t think it’s any of Mr Head of the Privately Owned Corporation’s darn business what I do on my weekends or Friday nights.

19

Tiglon

How would you feel if you knew that the person with whom you were working was the worse for wear and your life was in their hands ?
It could be something mundane like a bus driver or it might be someone like me (mundane also) come to repair or maintain your fire alarms, electrical system/plant or even just holding the foot of a ladder steady whilst you were at the top ?
Maybe then you’d want someone whom you could absolutely rely on.

Missy2U

I hear what you are saying but it is the employers generosity and system of rewarding loyalty that gets those sick days. Making yourself ill through an illegal activity and then expecting to be paid for it is not what I’d call loyalty, anyway the point is probably moot given what Tiglon said.

20

*Originally posted by casdave *

Exactly the point. So it’s OK with you if they’re “the worse for wear” due to illness, fatigue, emotional stress, prescription or OTC drug use, or any number of other reasons that people make mistakes…just as long as it’s not due to <gasp> illegal drugs! :rolleyes:

BWAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
Employer’s generosity?!?!!!? HOHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
Sorry, I’ll try to get myself under control.

Not any employer I’ve ever worked for!

Employers provide benefits, which include leave time, to enable them to hire and retain better employees. They do not do this out of some sense of kindness, they do it for practical monetary reasons. Ask your employer - they’re probably honest enough to admit this, since it’s no big secret.

Once I’ve earned leave time (my employer does not distinguish between ‘sick leave’ and ‘vacation leave’), it is MINE. If I leave their employ, they must pay me for it. It is not their concern what I do with my time when on leave. [Sidenote: back in the days when I partook of chemical entertainment, I NEVER REPEAT NEVER missed a day of work due to any type of hangover. On the rare occasions that the situation arose, I considered it my personal penance for stupidity. :D]

Not to mention, none of y’all have come up with any evidence showing that drug testing makes any reduction in sick leave taken.