I have always disagreed with the policy of random drug testing in the workplace. If there’s a good reason to believe an employee is a junkie or a drunkard, then I have no problem targeting them for testing and firing them based on the results. Otherwise, leave people to do their jobs and live their lives the way they see fit. (I suppose I can make an allowance for routine random testing in cases where public safety is on the line (bus/truck drivers, police officers etc.))
I’ve always been more ambivalent about screening out prospective employees based on drug tests, though. Now, the Judge Judy in me thinks you’re an goddamned idiot if you show up to an interview with illicit drugs in your system. If an employer can catch you being a dumbass before you can potentially fuck things up later on, then more power to him. However, I know it’s possible to partake in recreational drugs and still be a good employee. And just because you fail a drug test doesn’t mean you were up all night getting high. It might just mean you are regularly in the presence of someone who was up all night getting high. Maybe you shouldn’t be hanging out with such a person, true. But few of us would be employed if hiring managers were able to judge us by the company we keep. So while I’m not sure how I feel about screening job applicants by what shows up in their urine, I’m kind of leaning towards it being a dumb policy as well.
So now I really don’t know what to think. I still think drug testing sucks, but if it allows people to prove their trustworthiness and challenge stereotypes, then I guess maybe it’s not so bad? I don’t know. I’m interested in what other people think.
I think the policy of work based drug testing is simply a means for the state to push its own national drugs policy deeper into society, and absolutely nothing else.
It is a way of getting it past the legislature and out of the reach of political accountability by making the policy so diffuse that it is impossible to hold national leaders responsible for it.
Imagine how it would fly in the legislature is the current political administration tried to make drug testing for employment compulsory, it would never get past, they would likely lose an election, the privacy and personal liberty people would rightly destroy the attempt, the public would never stand for it.
So we have it brought in company by company, piecemeal until one day you realise a massively intrusive social policy has been imposed on you without your consent or your approval.
It should be the right of citizens to make that decision, not some unelected stealth policy, where you had no information, no consultation, and was not tested in the arena of public debate.
I’m more cynical than that. I think the policy of work based testing is just a way to sell drug tests. A lot of these policies were enacted after drug testing companies lobbied for them.
Yea, its sort of an interesting case. On the one-hand, it hardly seems fair to use drug-tests as a way to “prove” to racist employers that despite their perception of black employees being likely to be druggies, a given black employee isn’t on drugs. Especially since blacks have equal rates of actual drug use with whites, and whites actually tend towards “harder” drugs.
And even though drug tests are administered to all employees, I’m sure in at least some places both employees and employers are aware that its being used more to assage a worry that employers have more regarding black employees then white ones. So its probably not great for race relations.
On the other hand, even if a pre-conception is racist and incorrect, there’s still an obvious value in letting a minority job-candidate prove it doesn’t apply to them. In this case, the value is apparently worth 12% higher average wages.
Exactly. I can’t remember the guy, someone in the Reagan administration invested heavily in a testing lab just before the disastrous war on drugs started. Same guy who didn’t want the Beach Boys playing at a DC concert I think.
First, it isn’t the government pushing drug testing except in very limited situations (for example, the FAA mandates pilots be drug and alcohol tested on a fairly stringent interval). AFAIK, there are no benefits or penalties to companies that do or do not do drug testing.
It’s very much more the result of a perception that drug testing can weed out people who otherwise might have issues being employed by that company, because of a perceived flakiness or lack of performance on the part of drug users vs. non drug users. The generally conservative mindsets of the management and ownership at the companies that do drug test are convinced that it offers some value, therefore they continue to pay for these tests. Other companies’ management doesn’t really care, so they don’t test. It’s as easy as that.
The reason it would fail at a state or national level, but is perceived as ok on a company by company basis is because of the opt-in/opt-out nature of private testing. If you don’t want to be tested, don’t work for that company.
I personally don’t like it because it doesn’t discriminate between legal acts and illegal acts, and seems awfully intrusive into what I do on my own time. I mean, if I go get snot-slinging drunk out on the town, avoid getting a PI and have a 2 day hangover that overlaps work time, that’s cool. But if I had one legal joint in Colorado or Amsterdam on the first day of a 2 week vacation, then my ass is getting fired if I get tested like a month later. That’s not cool.
I think it’s one step forward two steps back, even if viewed exclusively through the lens of how it affects contemporary white supremacy.
The War on Drugs mindset and polity have, along with housing segregation, gone a long way toward recreating Jim Crow conditions in many parts of the United States. If you think that’s an exaggeration, consider that a drug conviction (which are doled out disproportionately to black men despite roughly equal rates of usage of most drugs across racial groups) in many states means losing the right to vote permanently, becoming nigh unemployable, and losing a whole array of potential benefits from subsidized loans to the right to self-defense with a firearm.
So anything that further entrenches in society the notion that we ought to treat drug usage differently from alcohol usage is moving in the wrong direction, IMHO. It may benefit some people who can use the test to disprove stereotypes, but at the cost of entrenching a system and mindset that is systematically unfair and incredibly damaging.
I agree. Also worth thinking about the fact that it’s sort of a one-time bonus for the black employee at the cost of placing them in a discriminatory environment. Taking the study at face value means an acknowledgment that the employers of these black males have a tendency toward institutionally disadvantaging black males. You get in the door over your employer’s manifest racial prejudice regarding drug use, which taken on its own is obviously better than nothing. But what measures are going to be in place to correct against your employer’s racial prejudice regarding your other work habits?
There is much that needs to be changed in the public mindset about the use of mood-altering chemicals. Just the word “War” shows an adversarial focus.
Both employers and employees can lack the perception that it is a public heath issue and not a criminal issue (unless criminal acts are occurring in conjunction with it.)
Here are a few mental attitudes I see which have been reflected here and which the public, in general, would benefit by adjusting:
It is nearly impossible to use a brain-altering chemical with any regularity and not have an effect on the people around you, personal denial aside. Identifying these folks shouldn’t be a witch-hunt but rather a positively-oriented problem prevention measure.
I doubt that there is a drug testing conspiracy. I think it’s just a bunch of prescient folks seeing an opportunity to make money by watching government policy. Is there a government conspiracy? That I don’t know. From what I’ve read about how crack was introduced into the United States I have my questions.
The main purpose for identifying regular drug users should be for provision of a restoration of optimal health and efficiency. This is a plus for both the employer and employee and his dependents, if any.
For me random testing seems less shaming and perhaps, from a behavioral science viewpoint, a more reinforcing way to address employee’s CD problems. People who don’t have a problem will be less apt to risk confrontation knowing it may be their turn. And people with a problem will come to attention eventually whether tested or not.
I wouldn’t adopt the policy specifically for the reason to challenge stereotypes because we each can do that every day by our own interactions with people. But if random testing has the added advantage of dismantling false perceptions then all the more reason to support it.
I can only speak on what I know. I work in a “safety sensitive” job (bus driver). And I agree with you, Monstro, that it’s reasonable to drug test people in safety sensitive positions. Some more info for you regarding my employer’s policies:
-Our policy on controlled substances is explicitly stated prior to, and during employment. Nobody is getting fired over something drug related that wasn’t in writing and directly explained to the employee.
-Generally only a failed drug test during hiring, or during an accident at work which caused a passenger injury is grounds for dismissal. If you turn up dirty in a random screen, you get put on a employer sponsored drug treatment program, put on light duty (jobs other than carrying passengers) and tested at regular intervals.
-You cannot be terminated for failing a drug test if you are off your initial probation period and currently out for an industrial injury. So people on I.I. are protected.
But you do point out problems with the system. It’s not fair the policy is equally punitive to a guy who had one joint 3 weeks ago and a guy who smoked crack an hour ago. In fact, many of the harder drugs are out of your system so fast a random drug screen is unlikely to catch them.
-Thanks to lawyers, even a bad employee who is a full blown addict who gets nailed from a random drug screen can simply lawyer up to keep their job. This is what happens: they test dirty, they hire lawyer, lawyer finds some inconsistency in test, results of test get thrown out, they get their job back with full back pay+interest. Not only does the lawyer pay for itself from the interest, but the employee basically got upwards of a year off (with pay!). So even for an employee that may have been genuinely high at work, the drug screen does not protect the employer or public.
This part is absolutely wrong. Due to the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 most companies who have a contract to do business with the federal US government, and all companies who receive grant money must have a program in place to establish a drug-free workplace.
The comment I was replying to was talking about “for the state to push its own national drugs policy”, which pretty much means the Federal government.
If State governments incentivize drug testing, it still doesn’t equate to the Feds putting their anti-drug tendrils into everything. Two different levels of government, you know.
And I meant in general; there are a whole raft of conditions that companies doing business with the Federal government have to comply with, including drug testing. But your average company doesn’t get pressure from the Federal government to implement a drug testing program.
I agree with the above about the benefit being far outweighed by the cost.
Your statements seem to assume that all people who use drugs do so regularly. When interpreting the results of these tests, do they differentiate between the guy who gets completely baked every night and the person who takes a couple of hits maybe every 4-6 months? I don’t think it’s “denial” to say that the latter would have a negligible effect on any aspect of the person’s life, including work performance.
