they may currently have the legal right to do so. i don’t agree that they should have that right. what other personal issues do you think they should have the right to know?? your medical history?? whether you are capable of conception?? whether you are in a stable relationship?? whether you have been divorced?? whether you live in government housing?? whether you smoke tobacco?? whether you’ve seen a psychiatrist/psychologist??
these and many other factors could have an impact on your work performance. but isn’t your personal life just that?? ie, personal. the only thing that should matter is: can you do the job!
what if some job could be done better under the influence of an illegal substance?? or some person could work better under such influence??
I don’t disagree with your three points; however, they do not address my own.
Your position seems to be that it is OK to for your employer to test you for narcotics because you work with people who are addicted to these substances and so you shouldn’t be using them yourself.
My point is that you are working with people who are addicted to alcohol and yet you are allowed to use it yourself.
That is a contradiction ( unless I am misunderstanding your position ).
Dan:
I agree that the rights exist as you have stated them. I disagree that this is how the rights should exist. My body is not their concern. If I do my job, that should be enough.
I would also like to point out that the “nowadays” labor situation is bound to change.
When the economy inevitably falters and jobs become more scarce, how will a person be able to “vote with their feet”?
When you say that you “disagree that the rights should exist” do you mean that there should be a law against drug testing or simply that employers shouldn’t care about anything more than the ability to get the job done ?They are slightly different statements, and I’m not sure which you mean.It’s possible to have the right to do something, and yet not do it.
There are many areas in the country, Las Vegas being a prime example, where it is virtually impossible to get a job without having to piss in a cup, get some hair cut, or both. So, Daniel, voting with your feet isn’t really an option.
There have been no studies done that show that off the job drug use has any impact on employee safety or productivity. The link to the ACLU report has already turned up in a couple of posts, so I’m not going post it again.
I agree that if someone is high/drunk on the job, that person needs to become unemployed. However, I don’t feel that it is any of my employers business what I do when I’m away from the workplace, as long as it doesn’t have an impact on my job performance. Alcohol is the only substance I know of that can have such impact. I’ve been drunk a few times, but I also smoked pot almost daily for over ten years. I’ve had hangovers with booze, but never with weed.
I think the main purpose for drug testing is that it is a means for employers to avoid liability for on the job injuries. If you smoke a joint Friday night, and get hurt on the job Wednesday afternoon, workers’ comp won’t pay, and the employer pays lower premiums. Additionally, you’re likely to lose your job due to your away from the workplace behavior.
OK, I’m starting to repeat myself here, but I think the point needs to be gotten across.
that part of my statement meant that i believe drug testing should be restricted. the individual should have the right to refuse. now intoxication testing is a whole nuther matter…
a later part of my post was aimed at your second conclusion.
I do not believe that employers should have the right to drug test. I realize that this would curtail their rights to some degree and I would be amenable to compromise but I feel this is justified due to the economic control that they have over their employees. A person should not have to sacrifice privacy in order to gain employment.
I am unsure why dixiechiq believes that your post was directed at her. I assure you that I am not her sockpuppet.
Employers have certain rights & responsibilities. They may not discriminate against “protected classes”, they must pay minimum wage, follow safety rules etc. On the other hand, they do not have to give out paid vacations, or pay $20hr, etc. Certain portions of your “private life” are protected by law, and they may not ask about these.
On the other hand, your usage of illegal drugs is not protected in any way, so employers have the right to ask you to take drug tests. Don’t like it? Don’t work for them. Think this is unfair? Start your own company, or change the law, or start a Union that won’t put up with it. “They are being unfair”- LIFE is unfair, so get over it.
Why the hell do you think the world owes you a free ride, all filled with fun drugs & great jobs? It don’t. Now, if you can get away with this, without screwing up MY life (ie don’t drive that 18 wheeler while stoned), then- more power to you. But if you can’t, then shut up and lump it. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
I wonder, do you feel the same way about other lifestyle choices that aren’t protected by law? Would you support a company’s right to refuse to hire people who engage in premarital sex, or listen to classical music, or eat meat?
I wonder, do you feel the same way about other lifestyle choices that aren’t protected by law? Would you support a company’s right to refuse to hire people who engage in premarital sex, or listen to classical music, or eat meat? **[/QUOTE]
How would you go about devising a test for classical music listening?
Support? Well, those restrictions are kinda silly, and none are ILLEGAL, so I would not “support” these, but neither would I object.
But let’s put it in perspective: you can’t compare to “eating meat”, as eating meat is not illegal. But you could compare to gambling (where it is not illegal) or Adultery (where that is illegal), or committing any felony, which is what Illegal drug use almost always is. So, if they found out you committed armed assualt, and thsu were convicted of a felony, then yesm they would have every right to fire you.
Many companies will not hire you if you have ener been convicted of a Felony, no matter how long ago, or how minor- is that “unfair” also? I do not think this is always the best policy myself, but the employer has every right to do so. Some companies ONLY hire ex-cons, is that unfair?
Again, I do not think that drug testing is GOOD, and should be required- (except for driving or law enforcement), but it is the employers right to do so, as it is your right to get another job.
In this case you seem to be asking about ** my ** employer and the specific issues about working with folks with substance abuse issues. Yes, I believe that if you are working within the system (cj/rehab etc) with drug/alcohol addicts that 1. you should absolutely personally refrain from illegal drug usage. and 2. you should refrain from alcohol usage ON THE JOB.
Why the difference?
Alcohol is a legal substance, I am of sufficient age (and then some), I do not have a personal history of alcohol abuse. If I were underage, if alcohol were illegal, or if I had a personal history of alchol abuse, I would think it would be improper for me to drink, period, either on or off the job.
As far as other occupations, if you will be operating machinery, driving, or other health and safety occupations, I feel that you should not be under the influence of mood alterating, reaction time affecting substance, legal or not, WHILE AT WORK.
first of course, i don’t believe any government has the right to regulate or restrict what i do with my life, mind, or body. by an accident of birth i was born in america. i have never voluntarily surrendered my autonomy to the american gov’t. this does not mean i believe i have the right to infringe upon someone else’s autonomy. so making drugs illegal to me is meaningless. when it comes to employers, i believe they only have the right to regulate the time for which they are paying me. what i do in my freetime is up to me. that is why it is called my freetime!!
i realize this is at odds the beliefs of many employers. i do not work for them and never will. they want too much for what they are willing to pay. imo, it is their loss.
Daniel, hun, it’s come to this: I agree with you 100% on this issue! Who would have thought??!? We agree on something! I cannot manage get all riled up with righteous indignation because someone wants an employer to respect their illegal activities.
You poor victim you. Born in America. A terrible tragedy - how do you bear your greivous burden of (sigh) being born in America? Sheesh, that’s rough. Life is shit like that sometimes. You got shafted - man oh man. Being BORN in…AMERICA!!! It doesn’t get rougher than that. I feel for ya, hun.
But, you know, no one’s keeping you here, dear. Those guards at the border won’t stop you from leaving.
[/quote]
i do not work for them and never will. they want too much for what they are willing to pay. imo, it is their loss.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you have done the wise thing - you won’t work for these employers - no problem. As far as it being “their loss” - I’m sure that would be up for debate with the individual employers.
you have entirely missed my point. and the sarcasm was not called for.
it was not america in particular i was ranting about. it was being the subject of whatever local gov’t happened to exist where i was born.
i’m aware that i’m allowed to leave. i have lived, worked, and travelled in many other countries. perhaps you should travel some and broaden your horizons.
as for employers, every one that i have had has been very sorry to see me leave. i’ve been offered promotions and money to stay.
perhaps you assume i use illegal drugs, and further assume i’d thus be a poor employee. i have not stated that i use legal or illegal drugs. it is not germaine to the discussion, and none of anyone’s business.
Most companies will not fire you if you are convicted of drunk driving, which is not only illegal, but also constitutes a danger for the other folks on the road. Using drugs in the privacy of your own home endangers nobody except possibly yourself. Do they really think that someone who doesn’t care about endangering the general public really cares about creating a safety hazard for themselves or their co-workers on the job?
So, it’s ok with your employer if you break the law and endanger others outside the workplace, but it’s not ok if you break the law and endanger noone.
Perhaps you’d have to allow your employer to search your house for classical albums at random times, or walk around all day with a microphone and tape recorder so they know what you’re listening to. Neither seems as demeaning as having to submit a urine sample.
Danielinthewolvesden:
Oh, you only support drug testing because drugs are illegal? How about an employer who won’t hire you because of a speeding ticket you got five years ago, or because you engaged in oral sex in an area where it’s illegal?
On the other hand, what if you fail a drug test because you were on vacation in Amsterdam two weeks ago and you smoked marijuana legally? Is it still OK to fire you just because it would have been illegal if you did it here?
If you answered yes: Many things are illegal if you do them on the street corner, but not if you do them at home. Is it OK to fire you for masturbating at home simply because it would be illegal if you did it elsewhere?
I would question the policy of blindly refusing to hire anyone on that basis without regard to the circumstances, but I’m not as opposed as I am to drug testing. Drug testing pries into your private life, whereas being convicted of a felony is definitely more public.
I think it was. There was a “whining” tone when you mentioned not choosing to be born in America. Oh puleeze. That begged for some sarcasm from me!
You know nothing of my travel habits, or my “horizons.” So, “the sarcasm was not called for” from you either.
I have no clue of what kind of an employee you are. But you seemed to hold such a high opinion of yourself as an employee - I just had to comment on that.
I don’t care about whether you use drugs or not. Then again, I am not an employer.
Did you read all of my post? I said, at the end, that I only “support” drug testing for certain occupations, like driving or law enforcement. But, I do not condemn the employer who requires you to do so. That is his right, just as it is your right to smoke dope- where it is legal.
I know several jobs where you must have a good driving record, so even infracions could keep you from being hired.
Yosemite- we often agree- even when we disagree. (Ie, I admire your posts, even when I do not agree with them).
Why would anyone care what music I, or anyone else listened to. It would have no bearing on my abilities or my character. You might argue that if you smoke a little weed on the weekends, that would also have no bearing on your abilities or your character. And that may well be true for you (if you partake in that evil weed).
But are you saying that drugs in the workplace are not a problem? That employers shoud not be concerned. That the problem is not costing them money? Remeber, an employer can be held liable for the actions of an employee.
Well, why would anyone care what plant I smoke on the weekends? I don’t see any evidence that the kind of plant you smoke affects your character any more than the kind of music you listen to.
Drugs in the workplace as in employees being stoned on the job? We’ve already solved that problem for alcohol.
