I would stick to the impairment aspect of this. If the drug is quickly removed from your system like alcohol it cant impair you. Cocaine can still be affecting you for a few days as I recall. Also I think part of the job penalties address the aspect of “if hes doing drugs, a crime he can be put in jail for, whats to stop him from say stealing from the company.”
Employers generally don’t like people who disregard rules.
Come to work loaded, you deserve to be punished for it, medical science is always coming up with more accurate testing methods and I think even now they can tell if drug traces are at “residual” or “impaired” levels say so many mg/dl of THC or cocaine.
actually, (IIRC from my correction center days), cocaine leaves the system pretty quickly.
Drug testing (as it was done when I was around it, and I’m not certain that it’s changed), tested for the existence of illicit drugs, and prescription drugs of abuse (could but probably wouldn’t test for penicillin for example), and the level of alcohol.
The reason, at least in my setting, was that any consumption of cocaine was a chargable offense, but that alcohol can be present legally (Nyquil type of cough medications can lead to a measurable amount of alcohol, tho’ probably not .08 kind of thing).
I suspect the current technology exists to measure the relative amounts of any substance (after all, they can tell us that some one died of an overdose of barbituates for example), but that it’s not commonly done.
With any drug, you still will have measurable levels after the ‘high’ is gone. what remains to be established is probable levels of impairment for the various levels. I suspect there would be plenty of volunteers for such testing.
No money, homeless, carless, less likely to produce viable offspring, diminished lifespan, sounds like evolution will take its toll eventually.
Darwin would be proud
Denying ones ability to be successful in life sounds like an excellent form of managing drug addiction. Would being denied promotion beyond a certain level due to drug testing make you contemplate cleaning up a bit? Criminal penalties aren’t working but oh man the reactions when you talk about denying employment. If you’re going to punish someone the threat of penalties should have meaning. Laws obviously do not.
How about denying government assistance like medicare, I believe CA has something like that they are working on now for Medi-cal, and or AFDC, or oooh this is evil, unemployment payments.
Robodude, I’m still looking forward to people who you would allow to be impaired that interact with you professionally.
I think the essence of the problem here is that drugs, like their alcohol and cigarette bretheren, would be inelastic goods. (never thought econ would come in handy) People will buy it no matter how much it costs, you just have to make sure its cheaper to do it legally.
CD’s and designer jeans are things people can wait for an opportunity to purchase at a discount. I buy most of my games out of the discount bins at computer stores. If you need your fix your going to do it soon to avoid withdrawl, even if it means paying a little more for it. Why wait for your “tax evading connection” to show when you could walk into any convenience store for 50 cents more.
The legal manufacturers will do what they must to keep their product moving and that will include price competition. They will also be researching constantly to make better quality drugs making them safer, faster acting, leaving less residue in your system, etc. Genetic engineering will probably do wonders for the MJ crowd.
But drachillix, they don’t test for impairment. In fact they refuse to test for impairment, or to even talk about such testing.
The big problem with impairment testing is that it is just that - impairment testing. It isn’t specific to the cause of the impairment, but only shows that you may be too impaired to work safely. That’s not what companies are after. They want to advertise themselves as “drug-free”. not “impairment-free”.
I’ve worked in construction all my life, and can tell you that a worker who’s had a bad nights sleep or a fight with her/his SO can be far more dangerous than one who’s smoked a joint last Friday night.
I tested positive for THC ten weeks after I last used pot. Surely you don’t think that the drug is that potent.
Peace,
mangeorge
True, but they dont have to test for impairment right now because these substances are currently deemed illegal. Its kinda a tough position when an employer is holding evidence that you have broken the law, would it be better if they fired you, or turned you over to law enforcement? Once again as in a previous post check your policy manuals everyone has something like them.
THC is kinda fickle in the sense that it is fat soluble. You smoke out, you pork out, fat is stored and THC with it. You can show positive for years later if you have lost a little weight right before a test. I dont believe you would be impaired by this “stored fat release”
If these substances were legal then I’m sure that impaired/unimpaired levels would be established just like alcohol today.
I agree with you on the life probelms creating a potentially volitile situation, but I having been a supervisor, would be more likely to let someone have a day off to collect themseves if a spouse left them or a friend died than “I partied too much last night”
[aside]
Heck I even let someone off the hook for being 2 hours late because he claimed he hadnt had a date in 2 years, he met a woman who took him home the night before, and rocked each others respective worlds, he didnt want to leave, she didnt want him to leave. But he finally did come to work.
[/aside]
life situations happen and we cant always control them and almost all of us understand this, employers do to, as long as it isn’t a continuous problem. If my forementioned romeo had a history of being late to work, I would have been less merciful and would write it off as a “creative excuse” but not something worthy of forgiving his lateness.
Here is where the hard part is, if you’re a good employee, you will get breaks, marginal or poor employee, they will use any excuse you give them to get rid of you.
I am not saying your a bad employee mangeorgebut if your company has a policy concerning drug use that could be punished by your showing positive even 10 weeks later, then you knew that your actions could hurt your employment.
I do not believe you were impaired 10 weeks later however which is part of why I started this thread
The “drug-free” workplace is just a buzzword like “non-fat milk”. It dosent mean its gone, just so low its tough to detect.
I’d really like to see a cite to back up this statement because I don’t beleive it to be true if you are talking about a urine test. It’s generally accepted that 90 days is the upper limit on how long it takes to clear your system of a level of THC that would be detected by a standard urinanalysis.
Anyway…on the topic of legalization of drugs…
If we are ever going to get there we are going to have to get there by taking baby steps. Perhaps first, marijuana should be legalized. Then, after we’ve proven to ourselves that legalization of marijuana hasn’t destroyed the nation, maybe then we will have created an atmosphere in which the legalization of other drugs can be discussed and considered without hyperbole.
AFAIK, most testing for illicit drugs has nothing to do with determining whether someone is currently impaired, but merely determines whether someone has used drugs recently.
Employers have every right to can someone who comes into work wasted, or brings drugs to work, or otherwise causes harm to the company. They do not have a right to discriminate against people merely for what they do in their free time.
Its pretty much an accepted fact that people have been tagged for DUI the morning after some heavy partying, they still had enough in them to be cited 6-8 hours later. I’m sure just about everyone here has had a late night or two (or two hundred) when they woke up and dragged themselves to work and were still feeling a bit of a buzz. They did it on free time, still came to work drunk…not good.
Here’s a tester that tests impairment; http://www.pmifit.com/index.htm
Seems more meaningful than body fluid testing to me.
But, as mentioned above, safety isn’t the point.
Peace,
mangeorge
I’m sure that if society evolved to the point where drugs were legalized, companies would be strongly pressured to use something like that in place of drug testing.
If an employee is impaired at work, regardless of how he got that way, it’s the employer’s business.
Regarding your challenge… there are some jobs where chemical impairment isn’t necessarily a show-stopping event. I knew a few telemarketers who would get stoned every day, before work and at lunch.
Safety isn’t really an issue when you’re sitting at a screen with a headset all day, and the managers looked the other way because it made them better salesmen. (“You need to be funnier and more friendly on the phone.” “You know there’s only one way I can do that, boss…” “Then do it.”)
Of course, most people don’t want to interact with any telemarketers, sober or not. But my point is that ability to do a job is at least somewhat independent of chemical mental state, and much more important.
Some years back I worked in a bindery, simply stacking catalogs on pallets. Rolling into the locker room at 7 every morning, my fellow employees would be firing up. Can’t imagine how that adversely affected any aspect of their work performance. IME certain janitorial work is not necessarily adversely affcted by use of certain substances.
Now the guys who were operating the cutters in the bindery – they used to have regular contests to see how many pitchers they could down at lunch. I’d be surprised if any of them still had all 10 fingers.
I think employer resistance to “impairment” testing illustrates their hypocrisy. They currently test for residual evidence of drugs, simply because they can, not because it accomplishes anything significant. There is not a blood or urine test for infidelity, dishonesty, laziness, embezzlement, etc. Good PR. Makes it seem as though they are doing something worthwhile, and so much easier than actually trying to accomplish something meaningful.
It strikes me as more enlightened if they somehow or another established an individual’s baseline proficiency. Then, either every day, with cause, or randomly, they could test and compare. Then, if the proficiency were reduced, they could investigate reasons. If the worker says he had a bad night’s sleep, he could be sent home, and told he will be tested againe tomorrow. If he fails again, maybe counseling or drug testing would be investigated.
Of course, this lacks the ease of application and false feeling of righteousness supported by enforcing a “bright-line.”
The possability for accidents at work exist for any occupation (I’ve had two worker’s comp claims for injuries recieved in an office while doing things such as reaching for files and going up stairs - stuff can happen in any occupation).
2.*** originally posted by Dinsdale* -with whom I often agree-
**
Except:
laziness - the remedy for that is to fire the person
dishonesty/embezzlement - remedies are : fire the person, file criminal charges, apply for relief through bond insurance.
Injuries on the job cost the employer straight out. The worker’s comp insurance can go up with injuries. Perhaps, if you could prove they were under the influence at the time of the injury, you could fire them for cause, but your rates would/could go up anyhow.
Didn’t quite understand your last post, wring, making me question whether I was sufficiently clear in mine.
I’m suggesting that what is important to the employer is performance. If the employee is performing adequately, I see no reason to test him for drugs. Of course, if performance falls, the employer should do whatever he can to try to identify the cause of the decrease, and (in a perfect world) help the employee overcome any difficulties.
My objections are to drug testing without cause. If I am able to do my job functions stoned, why should my boss care? Sure, in some people and in some occupations being intoxicated might increase the possibility of accidents. But so might distraction due to any number of personal issues, poor physical conditioning – I can imagine a near-endless list. But, there is not a urine test for these, nor are they regularly recognized as fireable offenses.
Routine drug testing to some extent turns employers into an arm of the state, identifying and punishing drug use simply because it is illegal, not necessarily because it is directly related to any aspect of job performance. But there is not ongoing screening bby employers to identify other illegal activities by employees. Why? Cause it takes more than having someone piss in a cup? Cause it would be an inappropriate invasion into employees’ personal lives?
Assume I have a job that involves no operation of dangerous machinery. I routinely get the highest performance ratings, the quality and quantity of my output is unsurpassed, and comments from clients and customers are regularly excellent. Why on earth should my urine be tested? Why should it make any difference to my employer whether I smoked a joint last weekend, or even in the morning before coming to work?
The only possible argument I see is the observation of decreased insurance premiums. Which I’m not sure is a sufficient justification for social policy.
Now let’s say my performance starts to slip, but still remains within the acceptable range for my position. Does it make any practical difference to my employer (insurance aside) whether my decreased performance is due to drug use, or any other cause - say an illness in my family, or even just personal burn-out? But in a zero-tolerance environment, are the various potential causes treated the same?
One is the possibility of an accident. Even if you’ve been able to perform while stoned, there is still the risk of a future accident – possibly a costly one. Even if you’re just pushing paperwork, that possibility is still an acute one.
Another is employee relations. If other employees see drug abuse being tolerated, they may decide to show up stoned as well. This could cause a precipituous drop in productivity and employee behavior.
The third reason pertains to work quality. Suppose you manage to do the job while stoned. In all likelihood, you would do a better job while sober – and of course, the employer wants workers who will do their best.
Fourth, companies often want to tell their c ustomers that their facilities are drug-free zones. This is an important marketing ploy – an attempt to project professionalism and an assurance of quality control.
Fifth, the company has no way of knowing how serious the substance abuse problem is. A person may appear capable of doing his work, but this could be masking more serious problems that would compromise the company’s effectivity.
Sixth, moderate substance abuse often leads to serious substance abuse. The employer may wish to head these problems off before they seriously affect the company.
And finally, if an employee is stoned at work, then there’s reason to believe that substance abuse is occuring on company premises. This could spell big legal trouble for the company.
JT
Thanks for the thoughtful, and in some respects spot on, response. Essentially, I significantly overextended my argument, and you correctly scored a bullseye.
A couple of limited responses, and then a strategic retreat.
I disagree that the risk of accident is necessarily made more “acute” for all jobs and all individuals’ responses to all drugs. Of course, my personal experience with certain menial jobs and the effects of various substances may differ from yours.
If the other employees’ drug use results in a drop in their productivity, that drop would provide the reason totest them. What do you mean about a “drop in employe behavior”.
Not necessarily. In the bindery example I gave, all that was required was to offload the catalogs and magazines at whatever rate the machine ran. The machine could have gone up considerably, and the workers could have been far more intoxicated, before there was any drop in quality of their performance. Conversely, when you are stacking goods on a plaaet, there is only so much room for improvement, whether stoned or sober.
I’ll pretty much concede this one, but for the limited observation that some of the customers’ perception is colored by the legal status. Moreover, keeping a work environment “drug free” is not a guarantee of quality product.
Drug testing alone does not say how serious the substance use is. I’m not sure I’d use the term “mask”, but significant drug use may acciompany other “problems.” Of course, many such problems can exist without concommitant drug use, in which case clean urine tests may give the employer a false impression of his workforce.
Not sure about this. I’ll need a definition of “often” and some type of support. I personally know many people who are content with their pot.
Is this a problem if the drugs are not illegal?
Having said all this, tho, your points hold pretty well for my extension to being stoned at work. Please allow me to retract that statement, and replace it with, "I could do my job just fine if I smoked a joint every Friday evening, after the workweek ended."
Most current drug testing says nothing about recency and amount of use. Further, I suspect (no citations) that employers focus on testing for drugs because the can, and they falsely believe that if they eliminate drug use, they have a productive capable workforce (or at least they can market that perception). I do not believe increased productivity necessarily follows. “Drug-free workplace” is a handy catch phrase, which gives certain impressions. It would be somewhat harder to implement (and market) policies directed at being a compassionate employer who challenges and rewards his employees for doing their best.
