If a chemical test of an employee’s urine is required to determine whether that employee has been taking drugs, then I would argue that you’re not dealing with a serious drug problem. Serious drug problems result in missed and otherwise substandard work, and sometimes erratic behavior. But, so, for example, do serious relationship or psychological problems. Do you think everyone should have to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, or maybe submit a sex diary to the company, just to protect the normal workers?
Reduced premiums. I’m assuming (which perhaps I shouldn’t) that the reduced premium is built around the expectation that accidents will be fewer, but I couldn’t prove that.
Again, it’s important to note that I’m in Ohio. My understanding is that Ohio’s BWC is unusual and this may be one of the ways in which it is.
From here:
What we were talking about here was pre-employment piss tests?
They’re not going to know, period, they haven’t had the work experience with the person. They’ll want it before the person gets in.
About the sex diary, no (unless the person is an exhibitionist and wants to submit one…hell, whatever turns them on 
). Sex outside of work can’t really affect what goes on during work.
As for the psychiatric evaluations…if someone at work was acting weird, then I would think it’s in the company’s right to have the person tested.
I’m sure if it were feasable to test for alcohol by a urine screen, many employers currently requiring prospective employees to pass a drug test would also require them to pass an alcohol test. But testing for alcohol requires blood, not urine (making it a more physically invasive test), and the blood has to be drawn into a special tube and then processed rather quickly. It’s not a sample that can sit around for a few days (or even several hours) and still yield an accurate result. That’s why they don’t do it - the test isn’t amenable to the batch processing those employers are probably using. You can’t screen prospective hires, save the samples and ship them of to an outside testing lab twice a week like you can urine samples for a standard drug screen.
I just don’t get all the outrage and comparisons to shit like not hiring someone who wears red socks, or marries outside their race or ethnicity. No laws against red socks, last time I looked, nor against interracial marriage (not these days, anyway). Lots of laws against drugs, though. If you do illegal drugs, you’re a criminal. A pretty harmless criminal, usually, but a criminal nonetheless. Employers have a right to know if they’re hiring criminals. After all, if an employee winds up in jail, guess who’s left in the lurch?
I don’t enjoy drug screening. I don’t enjoy submitting to pre-employment criminal record checks, or having my luggage screened at the airport, or having to be checked for weapons when I go to various government buildings. But I understand why the requirements are in place, and if I were the one having to make the decisions, I’d probably make the same ones in a lot of cases.
If you can show me a drug test which tells me that the person at the moment of administration is incapable of flying the plane or driving the bus or policing then sure. If all the test can tell me is that at some point within the last 30 days or whatever the person ingested a particular substance, then fuck it. I was drunk last night; I’m sober now. Should I not be able to do a job today because I was drunk last night? Same for any other drug. How does someone’s having a clean urine test six months ago say anything about their drug use today?
Untrue.
reread page one, looking for the post where Lib states that in his utopia stockholders are held responsible.
CrazyCatLad, As I have stated, a lot the outrage comes from the fact that this is not how law-abiding citizens are supposed to be treated. I am not unsympathetic with the notion that a company should be able to choose not to hire criminals, but I have yet to see any evidence that:
A) A problem existed in the first place to warrant testing.
B) Or, assuming that A is false, that the testing has improved anything.
In the end, as I see it, this is just part of the continuing erosion of our ideals as a society and further erosion of our personal dignity.
Dude - did you miss the part of my post (that you quoted) where I said, “I’m not saying that every testing place follows the same policies…”. A single anecdote does not a universal truth make. Besides, just because I said the testing place asked for information doesn’t mean they pass it along to the employers.
But what if my kink is to have women in spike heels whip me and then stomp on my testicles? Conceivably, the resulting psychical trauma could indeed lead to me calling in, or to me performing less that ideally if I do come in. Or what if I decided to get a big tattoo? Conceivably that could also cause performance problems (while healing).
This is why I think we need to be very careful with this kind of thing. They have a way of getting away from us. Are we that far away from a day where employers are legally allowed to base hiring decisions on these kind of factors because they could effect performance? I know that these are extreme (even hyperbolic) examples, but I am not prepared to say that they are not plausible.
If you are a pilot…yes. If you are making me a burrito…no.
Then I’d say, “what the hell is taking you so long to invite me over?”
Seriously, though, they ARE hyperbole. That’s why I (personally) can’t take those instances into real consideration.
Oh I get you. I guess what frustrates me is that we keep having these bizarre restrictions that we later decide are wrong (as in segregation, loyalty oaths and the like) and we keep leaving all of this human wreckage in our path.
That, more than anything, I guess is where I am coming from. I simply believe that folks should be allowed to do recreational drugs if that is their wish and that the war on drugs and all of the spin off institutions that it has spawned are as wrong as segregation was (and the jury is still out on the red socks).
So, what’s your personal stop point, Crazy Cat Lady? Random strip searches? Anal probes? Constant video monitoring? Why should the rest of us want to go where a self-admitted “Crazy Cat Lady” is willing to go? You may be quite comfortable with the drug screens, the strip searches and the anal probes. Whatever rationalizations the rationalization boys come up with work wonders for you. The rest of us … well, we ain’t all Crazy Cat Ladies.
I know this is the Pit, but it has turned into more of a Great Debate, and as such I would really like to see some cites showing that drug screening can be justified monetarily (I won’t bother with psychologically because it seems quite a bit more subjective). I believe that companies think it is worth it, but I don’t believe that the number of bad employees turned away will outweight the number of good when compared with a company that does not do drug testing. Insurance adds a wrinkle because apparently companies get charged less if they test, but I’d also like to see whether the insurance companies are using reliable data to set their rates in this case.
Pilots should not be tested for past intoxication (which is what current drug tests do), but testing for current intoxication seems sensible, so something like a breathalyzer to test for alcohol would be fine. The same applies for school bus drivers. In the case of police officers, I could probably be persuaded that testing them is ok since they have the duty to uphold drug laws whether or not they approve of them. Still, why test for drugs but not check for every other crime the officer may have committed? Why the double standard?
So is it ok if an employer also checks to see if you’ve ever broken any other laws? Traffic laws, theft, assault, murder, breaking and entering, rape, pedophilia, on and on? Note that we’re not talking about checking to see if you’ve been convicted of a crime, because they do that already and nobody (in this thread at least) is complaining about it.
Everyone has broken the law at some point. Period. Tell me you have never broken the law and I know that you are either a liar or don’t know about the law you broke. So why is it ok to check whether you have broken drug laws? Wouldn’t most people would have a big problem if companies checked into your personal life to see if you batter your spouse, whether guilty or innocent? If some batters his or her spouse, isn’t it an indication that he could possibly be a bad employee? A batterer has anger management issues, no? Possibly issues with people who are perceived to not respect the batterer sufficiently? Could get locked up in the future for that and miss work?
It sounds silly to me to check for other or all possible crimes despite a clear criminal record for an applicant, just as it sounds silly to check for illegal drug use. It is invasive, unnecessary, the benefits are highly debatable, and it would lead us to a bad place.
What happens when every single company in the USA ends up testing for illegal drugs? They will either quit using, find a way around the test, abuse legal drugs, or they will remain unemployed. If anyone actually thinks all the users would quit, you will be in for a nasty surprise if this scenario ever comes to pass because they will not all quit using drugs. I would think that most of them wouldn’t quit, actually, and that finding a way around the tests (temporarily stopping the drug use or through other measures as described in this thread) would be the number one choice. It is a no-brainer that they everyone won’t quit using.
As I already said, everyone is a criminal, but only a fraction have been arrested and convicted. Why is drug use so much worse than every other crime? There are millions upon millions of drug users in this country that hold steady jobs and/or are productive members of society. Making it so they can’t get jobs helps in what way again? Is it ok to check for any crime the employer is interested in even if the person has never been convicted of a crime? Would it bother you if a prospective employer went fishing for information to see if you ever got into a fight (assault is illegal, you know), or ever drank before you were 21, or ever drove over the speed limit (you’ll be late for work if you get pulled over!). Of course it would bother you. Drug use is no different unless someone is showing up intoxicated on the job (oh, wait – caffeine is ok and even encouraged!). The double standards make me sick, quite honestly.
Shrug. No skin off my nose either way. The libertarian meaning of “coerction” has a snowballs chance in hell of ever becoming the common usage. Define it however you want, just realize that it is your sphere in which it has this meaning, not the common sphere. Courtesy would dictate either a definition to accompany unusual usages or a shift to the common connotation when conversing with people outside the realm of libertarian philosophers. Of course the dictates of courtesy is a form of coercion so it probably should be disregarded by Libertarians in favor of doing whatever the fuck they feel like.
Enjoy,
Steven
…they do the “drug test” is not for the urine (which they just feed to the robots), but for the DNA sample they get from the outside of the cup. They use the DNA to prove to The Government that They are complying with Affirmative Action regs, and are therefore eligible for HUGE Government subsidies. Haven’t you noticed that when you hand the cup over to the technician that they have rubber gloves on? This prevents Their contaminating the sample with their own DNA.
It’s not about the drugs. They KNOW who does the drugs already. Because of the hidden surveylance cameras The have around your home.
So one drugged up jackass did something drugged-up-jackassish, and that’s a reasonable justification for preemptorily treating all employees as if they may be druggies without any evidence to support such a presumption?
What if that guy had just been a jackass, without the benefit of illegal pharmeceuticals? Would you be advocating personality tests to weed out all potential new hires who seemed to be jackasses?
Insurance costs are not a legitimate reason to create privacy-destroying practices, nor do the demands of insurers justify such practices. Corporate hiring and HR policies need to be based on how to best create and maintain a successful pool of employees not how to serve the demands of insurance companies. Last time I checked, insurance was a service industry, insurers are supposed to serve the needs of their customers, not vice-versa.
Where do you live that it’s difficult to terminate an employee, especially for cause – which would certainly exist if an employee wasn’t adequately performing because of drug use (or any other problem) or if an employee was caught stealing or engaging in any of the other highly feared behaviors attributed to the drug-using employees who are fired in great numbers every year.
Exactly. But there is no empirical evidence that there are sufficient people in the Drug User column to justify a very flawed and very invasive method of attempting to screen them out.
No is there any evidence that we are creating a more successful workforce by using demoralizing screenings for drugs and by focusing so heavily on drug use while not developing better screening techniques (like strong interviewing skills, especially for HR staffers) to determine whether or not prospective employees fall into other columns, i.e. The Idiot Column, The Alcoholic Column, The Slackass Column, The Cannot-Leave-Personal-Life-At-Home Column, The Hypochrondriac Column, The Biding-My-Time-Until-Marriage/College/Moving/Retirement Column, all of which can have far more deleterious effects on a workplace than someone who smokes pot on the occasional weekend or even someone who has a painkiller addiction which does not affect their behavior unless they don’t have enough of the drug in their system to keep them functioning.
I’m not sure how testing programs in such professions are run, however, you must agree that there is a huge difference between the professions you listed – or those in medical professions who give medications and perform surgeries or other crucial procedures – with some of the jobs mentioned in this thread which have also chosen to use drug screenings, such as newsletter editor, Wal-Mart cashier, factory worker or dishwasher who, upon reporting to work while high, run the risk of making a fool of themselves and getting fired, but not so much in the killing other people sort of thing.
I submit that by this assertion you have proven that you’ve never worked in a supervisory or human resources position. Sex outside of work can, and does, impact work performance and I would wager even moreso than whether someone got blitzed or stoned on a Saturday night. The joint you smoked can’t call you up and start a fight with you in the middle of the work day, give you an STD, make you pregnant, or show up unannounced to “say hi” as a precursor to stalking you.
:rolleyes: Welcome to the corporate police state as defined by Lola Baby. “Lola, you’ve had a bad attitude lately. If you want to keep your job, you’ll need to report to Local Psychiatric Hospital and check yourself in for an evaluation.” Yeah, right.
And welcome to “grasping at straws for any argument 101”, taught by TeaElle. 
OK. Prompted by Binarydrone, I did some research.
And as theR points out, this is the Pit, not Great Debates. Nonetheless…
First I went to find out the rationale behind all this drug screening and how it all got started. This is what I learned (which, by the way, is similar if not identical to all the justification for pre-employment drug screening that I’ve heard over and over in the companies I’ve worked for)…
From the state of Tennessee, which highlights the statement of the problem which I found quoted in many locations online.
[quote]
**The Problem: Substance Abuse in the Workplace **[ul]
[li]60% of the world’s production of illegal drugs is consumed in the U.S. [/li][li]Nearly 70% of current users of illegal drugs are employed. [/li][li]Nearly 1 in 4 employed Americans between the ages of 18 - 35 have illegally used drugs. [/li][li]1/3 of employees know of the illegal sale of drugs in their workplace. [/li][li]20% of young workers admit using marijuana on the job. [/ul][/li]Even though many employers choose to ignore the problem, substance abuse in the workplace has a real impact on their bottom line. Substance abuse drains more than $100 Billion from American businesses every year in …[ul]
[li]WORKERS’ COMPENSATION: 38% to 50% of all Workers’ Compensation claims are related to substance abuse in the workplace; substance abusers file three to five times as many Worker’s Compensation claims. [/li][li]MEDICAL COSTS: Substance abusers incur 300% higher medical costs than non-abusers. [/li][li]ABSENTEEISM: Substance abusers are 2.5 times more likely to be absent eight or more days a year. [/li][li]LOST PRODUCTIVITY: Substance abusers are 1/3 less productive. [/li][li]EMPLOYEE TURNOVER: It costs a business an average of $7,000 to replace a salaried worker. [/ul][/li][/quote]
This site provided some background regarding the legislation…
I knew it could all be blamed on the Republicans. 
Here is the “Findings” section from the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1998.
[quote]
(a) Findings.-Congress finds that- …
(4) employees who use and abuse addictive illegal drugs and alcohol increase costs for businesses and risk the health and safety of all employees because-[ul]
li absenteeism is 66 percent higher among drug users than individuals who do not use drugs;[/li]li health benefit utilization is 300 percent higher among drug users than individuals who do not use drugs;[/li]li 47 percent of workplace accidents are drug-related;[/li]li disciplinary actions are 90 percent higher among drug users than among individuals who do not use drugs; and[/li]li employee turnover is significantly higher among drug users than among individuals who do not use drugs.(Drug-Free Workplace Act, 1998) [/ul] [/li][/quote]
Then I searched to find if there were any studies to back up these claims. What I found was interesting. What I found seems to debunk all these claims.
Here is the first study.
Here is the Committee on Drug Use in the Workplace study on the productivity claims…
For obvious reasons, I’ve only quoted a small portion of the information contained in the links above. (I know, I know. What I quoted was probably too much as it is.) Regardless on which side of the argument you find yourself, this all makes interesting reading. I don’t know if these sites are biased or not. I’d say yes, but in spite of that the research seems legitimate.
Bottom line is that while none of this changes my opinion of the morality of pre-employment drug screening, it certainly makes me question my assumptions about the rationale behind the screening.