Employer drug testing

Great Debates
101

And how often, exactly, does this happen? It sounds to be an extremely rare instance. I am sure a person could provide a prescription to prove they used pot for medical purposes. As far as being in a country where a drug is legal, a person could explain that to the employer, I suppose. It would be easy to prove that the employee had, indeed, been in the certain country during that time.

They can kick kids out of school for using alcohol. No one is stopping that from happening. If an employer wants to test a potential underage employee for alcohol before hiring, they can give it a shot.

For one thing, I’d like a cite for what percentage of drug users abuse or do not use drugs properly. I do not believe the percentage is “tiny”. Could you provide some sites on this issue? I believe spooje asked you before for a cite, as well. I believe a reasonable concern exists in the minds of many employers about drug use. At my previous workplace, several employees smoked pot while on the job. (Some of them used equipment that could be dangerous.) At my current workplace, drugs have been found at the workplace. (They never did nail who was responsible for it.) What are the odds? I don’t believe that drug use at work is a rare, remote thing. I’d like some cites proving otherwise.

If they became legal, then that would change the issue somewhat. I still would think some employers would have to right to place restrictions on who they hire. Especially where a concern for safety is present.

102

It is one thing to invade someone’s house, it’s another thing to tell potential employees that they will be required to take drug tests. A person has the right to walk away from such a situation.

If drug abuse is a concern in the workplace, why should an employer not be allowed to protect themselves from liability? (And drug use while on the job has existed at my last two jobs, so I believe it can be a justifiable concern.) I can see that it would be a sticky situation to start drug testing old and reliable employees. But I do not see why an employer should not want to attempt to “weed out” the risk of drug use at the workplace when hiring new employees. The best way to do this is to drug test.

103

yosemitebabe:

Assuming that the employer’s policy is something more detailed than “if you fail the test, you don’t get the job”, and that a potential employee can convince him that he only used the drug where it was legal, and that the employer’s concern for legality is the same as yours.

I’ve never heard of kids being kicked out of school for alcohol use. Kicked off the athletic team, sure - and you can guess how I feel about that. :wink:

I was unable to find statistics on drug use at work, or any drug-related statistics other than “X% of Americans age Y to Z used this drug in 1998”. I retract my comment.

The best I can do is quote statistics for alcohol and presume a correlation. According to http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hus/tables/2000/00hus062.pdf, 52% of the population over age 12 used alcohol during 1998, including 32% of the population between 16 and 17 and 60% of the population between 18 and 25, and I don’t think I need statistics to say nowhere near that many people come drunk to work, even for the ages where alcohol is illegal.

Are you saying that if, say, marijuana became legal, you would still support testing it more than you support testing legal alcohol use now?

104

How do you feel about that?

I don’t know what the percentages are, and they do not directly relate to illegal drug use. But I have witnessed employees drunk at jobs I have had. I don’t believe it’s all that rare.

I would have sympathy for an employer who wanted to weed out dope smokers, (pardon the pun) but if it were legal, I could not support testing for it. However, we haven’t really discussed other drug use. What about heroin? Cocaine? Crack? Meth? Do you think an employer should not be concerned about hiring an employee who uses these substances?

105

yosemitebabe:

I disapprove, for the same reasons I disapprove of employer drug testing.

Where do you draw the line between rare and common? If even 2% of drinkers show up drunk at work, that’s one out of every hundred Americans. That seems way too high for me.

I believe that if an employee demonstrates an ability to do his job well, what he does off-hours is generally not the employer’s business - especially if it’s something the employer needs to test for, rather than know immediately by looking at him, or read about in the paper.

I don’t believe that simply using one of those substances will prevent someone from doing his job… look at Hollywood. A typical heroin addict will have enough problems that you don’t need to resort to using the drug use itself as a reason to let him go.

106

Re the kicking athletes off of the team because of alcohol use: If the student knows ahead of time what the stakes are, (i.e. they cannot drink and stay on the team) why should they expect to not be kicked off if they willingly go against what they know will get them in trouble? There are all sorts of restrictions and requirements in schools these days. What is so terrible about a school not tolerating illegal drinking from their athletes? Should the school allow bad grades as well? Does the school owe an athlete a spot on the team, no matter what their behavior?

I don’t know exctly where the line of “rare” and “common” might be, but if an employer feels they see a bad pattern and they have cause to be concerned, are they not entitled to be concerned? Are they not entitled to take legal measures to help weed out potential problems? It’s their liability on the line.

Why does a typical herion addict have problems? Did the problems escalate before or after the addiction? Why do we always hear tales of “And things got really bad when they started using drugs.” Does a screwed-up person get better when they take up a drug habit? And, I have friends who work in Hollywood. A lot of drug users/drunks are “enabled” by others around them on the set. It doesn’t mean that they do their job well, or create a pleasant working environment. I could go on about this one. I’ve heard many tales as far as Hollywood goes, so I don’t think that’s a good example of people using drugs and doing their job well. The amount of time wasted, budget wasted, is something most people never know. We just see the final result. (Why do so many shows suck? Why do so many of them make no sense? I could go on about this one, too!)

107

yosemitebabe:

The prevalence of the problem is not the issue. The employer’s interest in a drug-free workplace is not the issue. The situation with an employer is exactly analogous to the situation with the government.

I cannot state it more plainly: Regardless of the prevalence or degree of the underlying problem, neither the government nor an employer has the right to use its power to compel a presumably law-abiding American to submit to a warrantless search or other intrusive procedure.

When an individual has sufficient power to secure his own liberty (such as in my case vs. my employer), the defense of liberty is trivial. When an individual does not have the power to secure his own liberty, it is the duty of his fellow citizens to come to his defense.

If you do not value your liberty, that is your right. If you do not object, your employer may humiliate you at his will and for his own purposes. If you do not value your own liberty, I cannot convince you to value the liberty of others.

108

Joe Malik:

Have we become slaves, and I didn’t hear about it?

People do have a choice to not take a job that performs drug tests. They are not being restrained and tested against their will.

109

yosemitebabe:

Bad grades are related to school, drinking isn’t.

Also, the school is not the police. It’s not their position to enforce the law, especially if they need to resort to unwarranted searches to do it.

Should the school also kick out athletes who have sex, legally or illegally… or is this another case where it has to be both illegal and mind-altering? Are you concerned that the athletes might show up to practice drunk?

I don’t see why they can’t deal with it the same way they deal with alcohol use - if someone shows up drunk at work, fire him. Don’t fire him just because he might possibly show up drunk one day.

How does any of this relate to what I said? Did I say that heroin addiction was beneficial?

110

>1 You do not speak for the “citizenry” or the 'collective democratic ability & obligation". Nor do I. I speak for, me, DITWD. You speak for you, Joe Malik. Nobody else. Do not presume to do otherwise.

>2 No the “test” is not how you specified it. You’re not the moderator. You make think that that is the test, but u do not agree to any such test. Are you SURE you’re not a Libertarian? :smiley:

>3 I am not doing any presuming, nor do I care what the “preponderance of consent in a similar venue is”. Nor do I care what the average rainfall is on the plain in Spain.

>4 More straw men & “what ifs”. Are these questions about “employer drug testing”? What did we say about this? You’re not listening. However, you may be trying a cheap debate trick, where you ask someone if they are “in favor pf rape, sodomy, & genocide”, even tho those things have nothing to do with the question at hand, hoping that the audience will possible equate them. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you simply are not listening.

>5 I have not personally insulted YOU. Your ideas, and debate, yes.

111

No, the “inconsistency” is that this thread is about DRUG TESTING BY EMPLOYERS. Not empoyers asking you to wear your underwear on your head. If you feel you need to start a debate about employer restrictions on consentual sex acts, there is that “start new thread” function- I suggest you use it.

112

The employer has no right to force you. They have every right to compel you. The Government, by it’s tax code “compels” folks to have kids, invest in a certain way, and contribute to charity, etc. All these things are legal, as they are voluntary. Drug testing by Employers is voluntary- you may walk out that door anytime. Yes, the employer, by its pay, “compels” you to take the test. It also 'compels" you to show up on time, wear certain clothing, do a job in a certain way, and maybe even smile at the customers. To use your trick with straw men - are these things wrong? “How dare those nasty evil empolyers compel you to show up to work on time!”

Ah, so now Yosemite & I do not value our liberty, as we disagree with you. :rolleyes: No, we value our liberty all the more, as we realize that in order to have freedom, we also must have obligations.

113

Danielinthewolvesden:

Thanks, I know what this thread is about. You have given reasons why you believe employer drug testing is acceptable. I, by pointing out your inconsistency, have shown that your premises do not hold up, since when your logic is applied to other situations you take offense to the conclusions.

Isn’t it germane that you can’t come up with justifications for testing that don’t also justify plenty of things you wouldn’t stand for?

114

There is no “inconsistency” in my postings- I have always said the Employer has the right to ask employees to do drug tests. I have also refused to be drawn into other debates which are not germane to this thread. “Hijacking” a thread is considered rude around here.

No it is not “germane”- what is germane is the discussion of EMPLOYER DRUG TESTING. If you do not want to debate EMPLOYER DRUG TESTING, then please, by all means, start a new thread. Clearly, you know your defence of drug use, or the right of the employee to do so, despite his employers wishes- will not wash, thus you are attempting to change the subject.

115

Poster A: “X”
Poster B: “If X then Y. You don’t like Y, so you can’t like X”
Poster A: “Y is irrelevant. I want to discuss X”

regards,

pan

116

Joe Malik, it is truly a pleasure to hear someone with a clear and logical viewpoint. Many (too many) people forget that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are all about curtailing coercive power.

These rights have been hard-earned, and they belong to the people, not the government. And yet we seem to be comfortable handing more and more power to the government everyday, mostly in the name of public safety. This is almost always a bad trade. Benjamin Franklin understood this when he said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

I disagree with random workplace for any number of reasons:
They, not being for cause, constitute an unreasonable search. They, by definition, raise serious obstacles to my right against self-incrimination. And, from a purely pragmatic standpoint,they prove nothing- especially for marijuana use. A positive test result shows nothing about my present capacity or incapacity, it merely shows that I was around marijuana in the past month or so.

Businesses, however, are not the government, and they don’t have to follow the same protocol as the government. Business, in general, has no noble purpose to serve here. Do you really think that your employer cares about you? C’mon. Government pressure and insurance company kickbacks are the driving force behind random workplace drug testing. There are additional profits to be made here, and whether your rights are trampled or not is entirely incidental.

117

** Joe **, and ** Mr **

question for you.

Employer Jones has 100 employees. their job is to operate presses and to operate machinery where plastic bottles are constructed. Every now and then, these machines will jam, which means the operator must execute a series of actions, and in the correct order, to clear the jam and get the machines to start working properly again.

One day, Jones observes employees Smith, Johnson and Collins. Smith smells of alcohol, Collins has dilated pupils, and there’s some suspicious white powder under thier nose, and Johnson smells of marijuana.

What is Jones to do? Jones attempts to ask each employee if they need to leave to take the day off. Each declines, stating they’re fine. However, Jones has observed evidence to believe that they MAY be under a condition where they might not be able to do their job in a safe manner.

If Jones simply sends them home w/o pay, that’s a punishment without proof. If Jones attempts to send them home using sick leave, that’s again, a punishment (taking sick leave when the employee states they’re not sick) without proof.

If, however, Jones does NOT do anything and allows them to work, suspecting they may injure themselves or others, where do you figure the liability to be?

What possible solution would you propose?

It is not enough to say the employee is responsible for thier own actions. Others are negatively affected by workplace accicents. If the employee gets hurt, the company also will suffer harm. Their worker’s comp insurance payments will go up. The family of the employee will suffer, the company will be without a trained employee for a period of time, etc. Other people may be injured by the employee under the influence.

Where do you weigh in on this?

118

wring,

I know your question wasn’t directed at me, but I’m here right now, so…

Your scenario is a perfect example of drug testing {b}for cause**. Here there is a concrete reason to suspect that an employee may be under the influence. I don’t think many people (myself included) would have a problem with the employer requiring testing in this instance.

Why do so many people fail to see the difference between testing employees for cause and casting a net over everyone in an attempt to snag anybody (in the holy name of “public safety”)? The latter situation is exactly where the concept of “unreasonable search and seizure” came from.

119

and also note that this is a case of test for intoxication, not for past drug use!

having an altered state during work is very much a concern for most any job. and the employer has purchased you for that particular time. what s/he has not purchased is your freetime.

120

and also note that this is a case of test for intoxication, not for past drug use!

having an altered state during work is very much a concern for most any job. and the employer has purchased you for that particular time. what s/he has not purchased is your freetime.