Could we agree that most jobs have certain physical, emotional, and mental requirements? Could we also agree that current drug use, and possibly the effects of chronic use, can adversely effect an employee’s ability to perform these tasks? However, can we also agree that an employee’s performance could also be impaired by lack of sleep, illness, family problems, financial stress, alcohol use, workplace stress, or any number of other factors?
So, if a company were actually concerned with the safety and performance of its employees, could it not test the individual’s physical and mental alertness, reaction time, memory, dexterity, etc? What would be the objection to imposing such tests either for cause or randomly? And then, if an employee were deficient in one or more areas, the employer could obtain counseling to try to identify and overcome the cause.
Ah, forget it. That would be too much work, and would run the risk of being constructive. Face it. Those big bad drugs are illegal, thus EVIL. They CAN test for them, so they DO, and then they can pat themselves on the back for appearing to be concerned with the health and safety of their employees, the quality of their product, etc.
Certainly other factors could distract a person while performing tasks at work and cause accidents. Gee, I’m distracted by my pending divorce, my kid’s flunking, that troll over on SDMB etc.
** however ** same is true for driving eh? and we certainly don’t seriously suggest that we dispense with the drunk driving laws because it isn’t the ** only ** reason some one might cause an accident.
Same for an employer. They have a vested interest (in the cases where some one will be operating heavy machinery or driving) to insure that the employee is not currently under the influence. WITH THE EXCEPTION of MJ, that’s exactly what is tested. Prescription drugs, OTCs which have warnings about operating machinery, same deal.
So, factories, warehouses, police, health care (if they’re involved in patient care), those who operate machinery as part of their job, those who drive as part of their job, all would have a potential risk for having an incapacitated employee working.
Am I aware that an employer use such tests to screen out, say cocaine users, under the guise of safety, but really 'cause they fear certain drugs, are afraid of work place drug associations, or theft? Yes. Do I think that is ethical? No.
Do I think that we should outlaw the many, varied legitimate uses of these tests because there may be some wrongful uses? Same idea as let’s keep the drunk driving law, and look into if we should outlaw cell phones while driving. I’d rather fix what’s wrong with this (ie develop a test that tests MJ current intoxication, deny access to such testing for occupations that have no inherant risk of accident etc.) than to do away with something that may actually save some folks from getting hurt.
After leaving my last job, I have been in the job search process for about the past two months.
I am in the high-tech (Internet/IT/Networking) industry.
Most places that I have interviewed with cared not about drug testing, and a few have indicated tolerance to certain levels of drugs. Out of about twenty companies I met with (I’m very picky), three of them rephrased their “drugs” question to something like: “Other than posession of marijuana, have you ever been convicted of blah blah” and one asked “Other than marijuana or MDMA…” (MDMA being Ecstasy). Talk about progressive.
Two companies, sadly, that I was interested in, said they require drug tests, and one required a “drug, alcohol and smoking history via blood and hair sample” – Needless to say, I gave them the finger for wasting my time.
I am not a recreational drug user - not anymore, at least - but I do expect a certain level of “stay the hell out of my personal life” from employers, and whether or not they decide it’s their “right” to invade your personal life with a drug test is a good indication of how anal and/or lame the company is going to be.
Why? Because passing a drug test is easy. Back in the day, I had “a friend” that smoked marijuana on a fairly… recreational basis… and also participated in the occasional “roll” with Ecstasy. The day after a roll-and-smoke session this person drank some nasty tasting “test clean” and passed his drug test with flying colors.
He left the company three weeks afterward, because the drug test was very indicative of how the company liked to pry into personal life. Asking about marriage, personal life, sexual orientation, what they do on non company time, etc.
In my opinion, it’s not in the employer’s right to do drug tests on anyone, at ANY time.
If an employee is screwing up, fire him. Does it matter whether or not drugs are involved? No. They screw up, they get fired. On the same hand, my best employees have been the occasional drug or ecstasy users. Do I care? No. If the come in and do the work they’re supposed to do, do it effectively and efficiently, who am I to pry? Who is anyone?
casdave, reread the very first sentence of my OP. “I oppose all employer drug testing that does not measure current levels of intoxication/influence.” Current, not days, weeks, or months ago.
I think a lot of employers use drug testing as a means of avoiding liability to employees who are injured on the job.
At my last job, I turned my ankle on company property as I was coming into work. I had tripped on some landscaping gravel on a sidewalk adjacent to the building. I wasn’t badly hurt, but after working for two hours, the boss saw fit to send me for a drug test, oh, and while you’re at the clinic, you’re going to have the ankle looked at.
I tested clean.
When I returned to work four hours later, six hours after the accident(long wait at the clinic) the gravel was still there, waiting for some little old lady to come along…
and yes, I had reported exactly where the gravel was.
Also, if you’re injured on the job in an accident caused by a co-worker, both of you are going to be drug tested. If it happens that you smoked a joint over the weekend, but your co-worker was merely hung over because he tied one on the previous night, guess which one of you is going to become unemployed, and not receive worker’s comp for the injury?
Actually, in at least some situations (post-accident, showing up for work obviously “under the influence” of something), it’s not uncommon for tests to be done for alcohol and over the counter/prescription drugs (those that say "do not drive"etc) as well as illegal drugs.
The drug policy at your workplace is inconsistant.
If a counselor who uses alcohol responsibly can counsel an alcoholic then why can’t a responsible drug user counsel a drug addict?
casdave:
Are you joking?
Matters of legality are decided by the state.
Do you believe that the government should be allowed to invade your personal life whenever they wish?
That’s the statement you just made.
redtail23 brought up the point that “no one is checking semi-truck drivers for fatigue toxins” despite the safety concerns. Since my old man is a longhauler, this is something that I know about. Truckers are only allowed to drive for 10 hours per day and for no more than 4 hours without a break. This is enforced by requiring them to log their hours in a logbook. The logbook must be available at all times if they are pulled over or inspected at a weigh station and it must be current; however, since most truckers get paid by the mile instead of by the hour this rule is routinely broken and it is quite easy to do so.
[Description of process omitted due to legal concerns for the SDMB.]
I do not now, nor have I ever, take drug tests for an employer.
I believe my medical information is my private possession and they should not be allowed to request it.
Just my 2sense The highway is for gamblers, you better use your sense -Bob Dylan
I’m afraid I may be responsible for the drug testing trend. While I was using (and could still hold down a job), I had some very bad work habits. I’ll discuss one job, in particular. Many of my co-workers, also users, had similar habits. The period I’m refering to is the early to mid-1980’s, before drug testing really caught on. I was working for huge company that made some very tasty soft-drinks. I worked there for 3 years, till the site relocated to a city about 2 hours away.
It was very common for several of us to be loaded on the job. (for me, it was every day) On any given day, half the shop had hang-overs. Although my superiors valued my performance (I was never caught on the job), they did take issue with my tardiness and absences. I was officially written up once for this. While I was there:
I took manydays off, many because I was too hung-over.
I was late at least twice a week.
I had several accidents that caused me to lose time at work.
I stole company property, but was never caught.
And, as I said before, I was, by no means, alone in my
habits. One of my co-workers was also my dealer. I have spoken to thousands of addicts, and my experiences were quite common. My point is this. I was a valued worker (they had offered me a postion at their new site), but my habits did cost the company money, and could possibly have cost them a lot more.
Now I’m not a fan of drug testing, but I see a reason for it. Many of the posters in this thread feel that what they do outside of work in no way affects what they do on the job. I’m not so sure that’s true. Some habits can follow some people into the workplace and sometimes those habits get worse over time. Here are just few stats from the link I posted earlier:
21% of workers reported being injured or put in danger, having to re-do work or to cover for a co-worker, or needing to work harder due to others’ drinking.
Shortfalls in productivity and employment among individuals with alcohol or other drug-related problems cost the American economy $80.9 billion in 1992, of which $66.7 billion is attributed to alcohol and $14.2 billion to other drugs (NIDA and National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse {NIAAA}, “The Economic Cost of Alcohol and Drug Abuse,” 1992 (preprint copy) 5/98, p. 5-1).
Although 70% of all current adult illegal drug users ages 18-49 are employed full-time, use of most illicit drugs is substantially higher among the unemployed (US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration {SAMHSA} news release, 9/8/99
Yes, there are people out there who do some drugs occasionally and suffer no ill effects. How many? I have no idea. But there are enough ‘problem users’ out there to constitute a problem. What’s the best way to deal with the problem? I don’t know.
Hmmm 2Sense - Point #1. When counseling drug/alcohol addicts, the generally accepted goal is for the client to NOT use the substances at all. In the field of addiction, it is generally believed that addicts cannot get to a point of “responsible, controlled use”. I realize some individuals believe to the contrary, but the field is geared towards total abstination for addicts.
Point #2. Beyond that. For a counselor to appear to be under the influence or even smelling of alcohol in session, would be a breach of ethics.
Point #3. Even beyond that: You’re working with some one who has a problem with alcohol. One of the things that would be, oh, say, “NICE” would be if you didn’t **smell ** of the substance they’re trying like hell to avoid. Think of it this way: You’re trying to quit smoking and you go to a Doctor who reeks of cigarettes and lights up in front of you? Nope, I don’t think so.
The idea of the 3 martini lunch may be ok in some fields, it’s inappropriate in mine.
Wring, why limit your exception to pot? Your initial post said “especially” for pot. My understanding is that most drugs stay in the system for some time, tho pot, absorbed in the fat, is one of the longest. And hair tests yield a lot more. Probably the quickest exiting drug is acid. Tho I can imagine many situations where I’d probably rather employ a pothead than an acid freak.
Yeah, it makes sense that in your job you should not be under the influence of alcohol. Your job performance might also be adversely affected if you took bribes, stole, beat up on your SO, were prejudiced … Can they do a blood test for those?
Not sure your drunk driving analogy is spot on. What happens before they administer the breathalyzer? They test your ability to function. And with the exception of roadblocks, they don’t stop a car except for cause. Isn’t that what I proposed? And if they stop you, and you pass the performance tests and the blow, they can still cite you for reckless driving or some such.
Hey spooje, in the law office where I work, I suspect some employees snag some school supplies for the kiddies from the supply room. And that one guy who took a day off sick yesterday? Just between the two of us, I don’t think he was really sick. But I don’t think he was stoned either!
I remain convinced, in many if not most situations, employers test for drugs simply because they can. It certainly gives the IMPRESSION they are concerned with the quality of their product and the health of their employees.
Pot can stay up to 30 days. Pretty much all the rest are gone within 48 hours. I make the exception for pot, since it is absorbed in the fat, it isn’t necessarily a current “high”. If the other drugs are in your bloodstream still, I’d believe there still may be some lingering effects. That’s what the prescription bottles tell me anyhow. My point was that current intoxication or incapcitation was a legitimate concern for an employer or accident reconstructionist. Usage time ago would not be. so hair tests would not be relevant IMHO
**
try again. The point is, yes, you can test for alcohol etc. No, you can’t test for EVERYTHING that might go wrong. But, that doesn’t mean that since you can’t test for everything that you shouldn’t test for ANYTHING. See?
And, in general practice, when attempting to discover what went wrong for an accident to happen, you’d try and rule out the most obvious reasons first.
Dinsdale - go back and read, please. I talk about the need for an employer to reduce potential harm and risk to employees due to accidents. Others (including you) keep dregging up other employee bad acts. Not me.
As a matter of fact, I specifically stated that employers should NOT use this testing to try and find out if there is a druggie who MIGHT steal etc, IMHO.
When ANY accident occurs (highway, industrial etc.) the first thing folks do is look for reasons. They look for mechanical failure and use of substances by the humans involved. SOP. weather or not it’s **the ** major cause isn’t my point. It certainly is an easily checked factor in many cases.
While doing drug testing on inmates for 14 years, the #'s I saw for the “shelf life” in some one’s urine was roughly 48 hours for most, up to 48 hours for cocaine and up to 30 days for MJ. I think we need to come up with and USE a test for MJ that would test CURRENT use, not last 30 days. Since it is my position that current use is relevant, I’m not interested nor do I suppor the use of hair testing etc. Therefore, tests for CURRENT usage DO exist, except for MJ. In today’s world.
Hey, hey, hey!
I did read them! Thought you’d appreciate that I went back to your 1st point to clarify whether you consistently said “except for” pot.
You now say you are speaking only of an employer’s legitimate need to avoid accidents. Sorry I wrongfully remembered you talking about the “appropriateness” of someone “reeking of beer while attempting to counsel someone about abstaining from alcohol,” or the need for cops to remain drug free while “enforcing the law”. I misunderstood you to acknowledge that there might be interests involved other than simply workplace safety. Thanks for correcting my misperception. Sorry to “dregg” that up. It certainly makes for a neater debate if we each just define the world in terms that render our position tautological.
And I guess I failed to appreciate that benevolence of employers testing white-collar employees in non-sensitive industries without cause, to avoid fatal paper cuts or some nasty toner tragedy?
Dinsdale, could you please point out my quote where I was concerned about drug testing and employee theft or sick leave? As I read it, I specifically said it SHOULDN’T be done.
I started with: Certain professions SHOULD remain drug/alcohol FREE because of the NATURE of the profession - law enforcement, those working with substance abusers were two I specifically mentioned.
IN ADDITION, employees who will work with machinery or drive as part of their work day, should also refrain from being under the influence of drugs/alchol, DURING WORK HOURS (which would include don’t use just before you leave for work) since folks under the influence can actually end up getting hurt and hurting others. Neither of these categories would include white collar workers, office workers in general, many retail occupations etc.
I have never supported the idea of drug and alcohol testing for the purpose of determining sick leave/ employee theft and all the other red herrings you’ve pulled out.
and
**
I’ve kept a civil tone with you. I even ignored your previous admonition to “get back to work”. It is you who continually pulls in irrelevant, condescending nonsense like the above.
wring
The “Get back to work” was intended as a joke. In fact, it is a common saying among me and my friends and co-workers, “Get back to work, you.” I believe it was originally from Matt Groening’s “Work is Hell” book. Sorry it wasn’t appreciated as such. I guess I might have to learn how to use smilies.
I thought you sorta dropped the first glove when you somewhat brusquely instructed me to re-read your posts, when I had purposefully done so, and thought I wrote my posts in a manner to reflect that. I always enjoy your point of view, and I’m sorry if the way I presented my views here (or possible elsewhere) strikes you as offensive, aggressive, fill in the blank.
I still think you are adopting a suspect position by relying upon nonexistent technology and not reflecting present world practice. I also believe in your posts you personally exceeded “safety” issues, but subsequently presented yourself as not doing so. Examples such as theft, absenteeism, etc. therefore are, in my mind, merely logical extensions of your stated position, not red herrings. But, having said that, I think we agree on far more than we disagree here, so I’m leaving before this gets nasty.
Please feel free to have the last word over me on this.
What you call “logical progression” I called red herrings (especially since I specifically said I didn’t agree with using such tests outside the scope of safety and the specific occupations that should really stay out of it.)
I guess I didn’t think of “reread” my post as brusque (when these things get going, it’s easy to get different posters’ positions mixed up, I do believe there WERE people suggesting things like employee use of sick time might decrease with increase in testing. just 'twasn’t me)
So, no hard feelings on any of it.
The current technology (IME) DOES test current drug usage (except for MJ). In addition, they DO have other technology that tests for long term usage (through hair - so in my case you’ll find out my drug usage for the past decade or more)
I do NOT support employers who use testing for those in occupations that do not involve the use of machinery, driving or the kind of occupations I’ve listed (substance abuse workers, law enforcement etc.) In those occupations, I believe that we, as a society, and the employer specifically have an overriding (the right of privacy) concern.
And, from re-reading your position, I suspect we agree more than we disagree. You fear the wrong doing by the employer more than I, and I fear the drug/drunk employee more than you.
the effort to eliminate illegal drug usage is far greater than $81 billion. we just sent more than a billion to columbia to fight drugs. that is a small portion of the cost of the foolish war of people, er, i mean drugs.
we have 2 million americans in prison. the highest proportion in the world. a substantial portion of them for drugs. how much is that costing us in lost produtivity?? how much is that costing us in direct incarceration costs?? how many billions do we spend on interdiction attempts?? what is the cost to human rights in the militarization of our police force??
Employers have every right to a pre-employment drug screening, and on-the-job tests.
You, on the other hand, have every right to not work for these employers.
Employers need employees as badly as employees need the job. And, nowadays, we have a very low unemployment rate, so anyone can get a job, of some sort, if they really want to.
Here is Silicon valley, we have NEGATIVE unemployment, ie there are more Jobs than workers.
So, if you think an employer is unfair to ask for drug tests- don’t work for them- vote with your feet.