** Barney ** Maybe I’m misreading all the posts here, but geez. they DO seem to say that “whatever I may be doing off the job is not your business”, and that employers should not be “in the position of being the police and identifying illegal drug use”, and that submitting to urinaylsis without a warrent is wrong (and the employer would NOT have a warrent).
I’m trying to understand the viewpoint of “the employer has no right to ask for urinalysis”, and all the stuff about “individual rights” and “warrentless search” and “economic cooercion” and where do the employers rights come into play?
If all of the arguers were accepting that testing FOR CAUSE was ok, I missed it. THey sure seemed to be arguing that without a warrent, such testing was an infringement.
Drug testing a prospective employee is a simple and painless (though expensive) thing. Drug testing a current employee and/or firing for cause can be a legal nightmare.
My former company, an international firm with DOD contracts, was incredibly gun shy about firing anyone, even for gross incompetence, because they had been sued so many times.
[sub]Most of the suits were groundless. All were settled out of court.
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that the question about illegal sex acts is, in fact relevant to this debate.
You seem to be of the opinion that it is OK for employers to randomly test employees for certain drugs because these drugs are illegal, therefore the employee who uses these drugs is a criminal.
The question is, should it also be OK for the employer to check and see if you are engaging in other illegal activities away from the workplace, based on the fact that the person engaging in these activities is a criminal?
There have been no scientific studies that show that a person who uses drugs away from the workplace is any more of a safety or economic liability to an employer than is someone who uses alcohol away from the workplace.
Everybody on this board, whether pro- or anti- drug testing, seems to be in agreement that an employer has the right to expect that his/her employees will not be drunk, high, or otherwise impaired while at work. The question here isn’t so much about drug testing in and of itself, but rather, does an employer have the right to hire, fire, or otherwise discipline an employee based on what that employee does away from the workplace so long as those activities do not negatively impact that employee’s performance or safety on the job.
The fact that you are so anxious to dodge the illegal sexual activities question tells me that you know that your position is untenable.
Your sole contention in favor of drug testing is the illegality of the drugs, so it is valid to ask you if you believe that employers should be able to check up on you to make sure you aren’t engaging in other illegal activities away from work.
I agree that the question about illegal sex acts has bearing. Daniel is asserting that employers do have the right to test for drugs. Since he does not believe in inherent or eternal rights, questions clarifying the scope of this right are relevent, as are questions as to why he holds this belief.
I, speaking only for myself, think that employers should not be compelling people to do anything unless they are on the job. This practice is inherently elitist as the employer has greater wealth. The employer’s right should be curtailed but this is not devestating for them. Factors concerning work are still under their purview.
I respect Ben Franklin as I do none of his compatriots, but this witticism is crap.
This is how a society works: we give up our freedoms, such as owning biological weapons, in order to secure our safety.
The argument concerns when and how much, IOW what IS essential. And for that matter, ALL safety is temporary.
The quote is bombastic and vague; a mere rhetorical trick.
NO, we are NOT in agreement that it is OK to hijack this tread into a debate about sexual preferences, and Laws thereof. See, I know where you guys are going- “It is Illegal” -“But the Law is immoral”, thus we get into a huge debate over whether or not sexual practice laws are right. But we are NOT discussing sexual practices. We are discussing drugs, and we are discussing employer drug testing.
MY “sole contention” is NOT that it is illegal- my contention is that it is the Employer’s Ball, and either play the game his way, or start another game, with another ball. The employer has every right to make you dress in a certain way (within reason), even if he cannot show that dress code has any bearing on your performance. You have every right to tell him to “cram his tie”, and find another game/job.
As long as the Employer does not violate your LEGAL rights he may do so. There is some ambigueity in the Law about your right to privacy, or sexual preferences. Thus, it is possible, that the employer has no LEGAL right to pry into your sexual preferences (illegal or no). The same is CLEARLY not true about drug testing. The Employer has every legal right to test you. Clearly, also, the Employer may not pry into, or discriminate against you for your religous or political beliefs. Since the LAW is unclear about sexual privacy, when the act is/may be illegal it is not part of this debate. If you want to debate this, again, hit the “start new thread”.
Now, I am also saying that using Illegal Drugs is, for the most part- wrong, and thus the Employer also has the moral highground, here. But you may not beleive they are wrong, but that does not answer the salient point - IT IS THE EMPLOYERS BALL, if you don’t like the way they run their company, go work for someone else. Or, if you REALLY think that the vast majority of folks agree with you- then use the collective bargaining process. We are ALSO NOT debating the morality of drug laws, either. There have been other threads for that.
And you folks go on & on about the “what if” cases. Well, in the real world, there are a LOT of companies that DO require employees to take drug tests. These tests have been held, by the LAW to be not: illegal, unconstitutional, a violation of your rights, or a privacy violation. So we are talking about the REAL world here folks, where this has been hashed out in the courts. However, in that same REAL world, there are no companies that test for “sodomy” or whatever. You find some, and then find the cases where the Courts have ruled about these tests, then we will talk. In the same REAL world, there are NO companies that require you to wear you underwear on your head, thus i will not debate whether or not that is an unreasonable “dress code”.
what do you want me to say?? it is illegal for sane adults to smoke one plant, but not another. i think this law is idiodic. i think it is destroying our country. i think it is nobody’s business what one does to their own body in their own home. how could i ever accept that someone else could test them for that under any circumstance?? we are born on this planet, and the local strongmen [ie gov’t and business] tell us what we can do with our own lives and bodies?? i think it is ludicrist and repugnant and anti-freedom.
Test the employees, because you have a reason to believe that they’re currently intoxicated at work. Use a test that measures current intoxication, not past use.
Danielinthewolvesden:
Um, no. Maybe this is why you aren’t understanding. I’m not trying to talk about sexual practice laws. I am assuming that you would be opposed to an employer testing employees’ sexual behavior, and using that to discredit your premise that employers should be able to test employees for illegal off-hours activity.
While I haven’t read every post, I have to agree with Daniel. He merely has stated that, under current laws, an employer has a right to ask you to perform a drug test to obtain/hold a job. This is the law. You may not like it, but it is the law. Live with it or try to change it.
Bringing up specious arguments about sexual preferences has nothing to do with his statements. What you do to/with someone in your home, is not currently your employers business, under the law(with the exception of a felony,perhaps). And don’t get started about sodomy being a felony in some states.
I don’t see an extended debate on sexual morals developing. Mr2001 doesn’t want to debate what sex acts are ethical. He is trying to get DITWD to agree that basing someone’s job status on their sex life is wrong. An analogy between a person’s private sex life and private drug life might then be made. I understand that Daniel has no wish to visit the land of the horrific what-if?s, but he is refusing to examine the basis of the right that he supports.
At least I believe that he supports the employer’s right to drug test.
.
The bolded statements ( and the entire quote for that matter ) are true statements. They give an accurate picture of the current situation. What we are discussing here is the question of whether this is a good idea. I think that it is not. Daniel thinks that it is, but will not explain why, or so it seems to me. I certainly hope that this is not his sole contention here because this paragraph contains nothing to contend with.
The nonbolded dress code statement is not relevent to the argument, assuming that everyone here agrees ( and I believe we do ) that employers have a right to run their businesses.
An employer has the right to enforce a dress code, whether that involve wearing a suit, a dress shirt and a tie, or, if you must, underwear on the head while the employee is at work. I’m sure that Daniel would not sit still for his boss to require him to observe that same dress code while he is away from the workplace. And that is what this debate is about- an employer attempting to regulate an employees behavior away from the workplace, when that behavior has no impact on the employee’s ability to safely perform his or her job.
I have been away from this thread for a while, and I do admit, a bit of weariness of the topic. I do think Daniel expressed himself well, and I am in agreement with him on this issue. (Who would have thought! ;))
One thing I want to share. I have a job where I work with and look after Developmentally Disabled people. I work for the state in which I live. When I applied for the job, they did a thorough “background check” on me, and I also had to pass a drug test. I never thought a second about refusing the test. The State has to be very picky and careful about who takes care of these people. The parents of these DD people want to make sure that every employee is carefully screened.
Do all of you think that my employers should not screen prospective employees? If you do think they should screen employees, what level of screening do you think should take place? How do you think the parents of these DD people would feel if less stringent employee screening were in effect? Their children are vulnerable and totally in our care.
Also, my sister took some sort of job with the military, where she had to go through an extensive screening process. Even more exhaustive than what I went through. Not only did they look into her past, they looked into the rest of the family’s past as well, including my past. What do you think about this? Do you think that employers have any right to do such “screening”? No matter what?
I think a criminal background check is appropriate in these cases.
A drug test to determine whether a worker might choose to unwind after work or on a day off from what must be a very stressful job by smoking a joint instead of drinking a beer is not.
If one of your coworkers is under the influence of drugs or alcohol while at work, then your employer should fire them. On the spot.
The issue here is not the safety of the employees, or of the people under their care. The issue is, should the employer be regulating workers’ behavior away from the workplace. I don’t understand why this concept is so difficult for some people to grasp.
These tests also test for other drugs, like crack, cocaine, meth, etc. We are not just talking about a “joint to unwind after work”.
Do you think a parent who puts their DD child under the care of an employee would feel comfortable not knowing if their child’s caretaker may use one of these other drugs? Drug screening at least gives them some feeling of reassurance on one thing.
I do not blame the State being as stringent as they are when hiring caretakers for the Developmentally Disabled. I am sure the parents of these people are not objecting to it either. I’m sorry, I just don’t agree with you on this.
The mistake you are making is the assumption that drug users are untrustworthy. This is a generalization. Drug users are people. Some are trustworthy and some are not. Patient safety is not increased by drug testing.
Would you go back & read my posts? I never said that employer drug testing is a GOOD idea (except for certain occupations). I simply have said over & over, that as drug testing is LEGAL, then it is the employers RIGHT to do so. It is also your right to refuse & get another job.
Are we in disagreement here? Is there anyone who wants to argue that the Employer has no LEGAL right to do drug testing? Now, the employer has then, the right to do whatever he wants, and ask you to do the same, and vice-versa, as long as you both stay within the law. He can ask you to wear a suit & tie at home, also. You can tell him to get stuffed. What is the problem with this?
One more time; I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF EMPLOYER DRUG TESTING*.
First, drug testing for cause is not intrusive. Drug testing by necessity is always consensual. I have no objections whatsoever to those cases.
I cannot imagine, however, that a reasonable person woudl submit to unnecessary drug testing unless he had been compelled to do so by force or economic necessity. Such a person has nothing to gain by submitting (if you accept the general philosophy of presumption of innocence) and much to lose (if from nothing else than a false positive). One might claim he would gladly submit. I wish to note that the reasonableness of an individual need not be assumed, often it must be demonstrated, and not all are capable of doing so.
I’m intelligent and assertive and I have a particular style of writing. It pisses some people off, especially people who disagree with me, and most especially people without a clear a grasp of logic. I speak in simple declarative sentences because that is an immediate and powerful way of speaking. Sometimes it sounds like I’m pontificating. Such is not my intention, but I see no need to insert “IMHO” every third word. I’m just some schmuck on a BBS, not the voice of God. Deal with it.
You absolutely may contradict me, challenge my premises or my logic, and I will respond in a friendly manner. If you find a faulty premise, an error of logic, I will be grateful for you pointing it out; you have strengthened my mind. Logic is mathematical: it is either entirely correct or it is not. Premises either contradict reality or they do not (or they are indeterminate); only one sort of premise is acceptable.
If you call my conclusions invalid because you don’t like my manner of speaking, then take it to the Pit. You are not challenging my argument, you are making a covert personal attack. I won’t stand for that: Go to the Pit and I’ll put my eloquence directly against yours with no pesky facts or rules of logic to get in the way. And iff you want to start talking about motes and beams, you’ve made your share of bald assertions. You will note that I have argued against you not by calling you names, but by countering with my own logical arguments.
All people have the potential to be untrustworthy. Or not.
My employers are in a delicate position. The parents of these DD people have to trust their children’s lives with us. All manner of screening is used druing the hiring new employees for this reason. We have a difficult job - among other things, we dispense rather powerful medications to the people under our care. We often have several people that we look after at a time. Sometimes a staff member can mix up medications, or make some other medication error. The State cannot afford to take any chances when hiring. If an employee used drugs while on the job, and made a med error, or neglected the DD person in some way, what do you think the parents are going to think? They would want to know if this person was screened for drugs. And if they were not screened for drugs before being hired, imagine the liability. Imagine how the parents would feel.
I’m sorry, all I can do is repeat, I do not agree with you on this. The risk is too much. And it is not a good idea to not test, and just wait until a person screws up and then fire them. By then it could be too late. One time would be all it would take, and a person could be given the wrong medication, and die. Once again, how are the parents going to feel? At least when there is drug screening, the State (and the parents) feel that some effort has been made to avoid such a situation.
And yes, I know that people can screw up for a variety of reasons. But with drugs, there is a test for it. So the State feels the obligation to use these tests that are available to them. One less risk has been weeded out - that is their thinking. And the parents agree.
I have never seen anyone say that drug testing is illegal. I have seen (and made) arguments that it should be illegal, because it is wrong.
Let me say this again:
Drug testing is, in most states, legal. No one disagrees with this statement.
Some here have argued that drug testing is morally wrong, some have argued that it’s at least morally neutral, some that it’s a moral imperative.
The two previous statements are in the wrong order. The existing legality of an action has no direct bearing on its moral nature. It is the morality of an action that governs its acceptance into correct law. If you accept that legality implies morality, then you must accept that before 1863 (ish) it was at least morally neutral to own slaves.
yosemitebabe: You make a persuasive case that drug testing for your job is a matter of immediate necessity. Therefore, by choosing to work in that field, you must, by necessity, consent to the test.
No one has argued that drug testing is morally wrong when prompted by cause or objective necessity.
The argument is whether an employer has the moral right to impose testing regardless of necessity or cause.
