what I am suggesting is that the employee, if they are drunk or stoned enough for others to notice, would also probably have some loss of motor functioning (that stuff that keeps up from falling down???) and thus more likely to get hurt at even simple, non dangerous tasks (and actually, that janitor? that’s got a relatively high worker’s comp rate - my rate for office personnel is something like .0064 x payroll amounts, whereas the rate for a janitor is more than the unemployment insurance that I pay).
Yes, admittedly a number of other possabilities can distract a good employee (or a bad one). Smart employers would send some one home for the day if they seemed so distracted (sobbing uncontrollably about the husband that just took off for example), but certainly, if they see something that would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe they weren’t in control of themselves…
Another issue is: Ok, you have the stoned employee. They’re wandering around the work place, everyone knows they’re stoned etc. you do nothing, they get hurt. In addition to their workers’ comp claim, your raise in rates, etc, you also are risking another suit by the employee (and yes, I’ve seen it) for ‘allowing an obviously inebriated individual’ to continue to work.
And what of the other employees who have a right to not get hurt by some one else on the job? Ever been in a bar room fight? bystanders often get hurt, too.
The employer is only turned into the ‘arm of the state’ if they call in the cops and hand over evidence for prosecution. To send some one home or otherwise have an employment related consequence for their stoned behavior is more in line with a civil issue than a criminal one. And, the employer has rights as well.
So, in short, I see it as more than simply “one individual’s rights vs. corporate America” thing.
If the person is noticeably stoned, then chances are that his motor reflexes and cognition are impaired as well. Could there be exceptions to this rule? Perhaps, but I doubt it… and in any event, they would merely be exceptions. The employer has no way of determining exactly how impaired the worker is, or will be.
First, why should the company be forced to wait until the problems emerge? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
As for employee behavior, if more employees start taking illegal drugs, then there’s the risk of increased symptomatic behavior. This can include amotivational syndrom or just generally degraded performance.
Now, as for lower work quality…
That excuse is speculative though, and it only applies to a specific situation… not to industry at large. Besides, the employer doesn’t know how intoxicated the employee is. As you yourself said, individual reactions can vary. Far better to err on the side of caution.
Not it isn’t… but if I had to choose between a company that’s drug free and one that isn’t, I would certainly choose the former.
OF COURSE drug testing can’t tell you how serious the problem is. However, it can tell you that a problem exists. Companies would rather prevent problems altogether, than wait for them to become catastrophic.
And there are many others who aren’t. That’s why pot is described as a gateway drug. Even if we assume that most people don’t go on to harsher stuff, we do know that serious addictions start out small. Again, why should the company be forced to wait until the problem becomes too big to handle gracefully?
Sometimes, yes. If an employee is drunk on the job, then the company may be exposing itself to a lawsuit.
Besides, we are talking about ILLEGAL drugs. That’s the topic at hand. The question of legal drug abuse is another matter altogether.
Well first of all, that only applies to “joints,” not other drugs.
And second, many other problems remain – the risk of moderate drug abuse leading to more serious abuse, for example. Also prolonged effects that may remain throughout the work week. Why should the company be forced to retain employees, when there is that risk involved? After all, nobody’s FORCING the employees to take drugs, so why should the company be forced to keep them on the payroll?
I don’t think they’re under any illusion that it WILL make the workforce productive – after all, there are many other factors to consider (training, morale, etc). However, it is certainly a vital component of an overall plan.
Okay wring. I retracted my exaggerated proposition of being stoned on the job. I have some experience working places where drunks were hired and knowingly kept on the payroll in the thought that doing so was best for those individuals. I also worked side by side with mentaly handicapped individuals, who were entirely capable of performing their simple repetitive tasks. But if I want to go into this, I’ll start a new thread.
My main complaint is testing without cause in jobs that do not involve vehicle or machine operation or law enforcement. In the examples given where other employees know an employee is walking around obviously stoned, I’d say that constitutes adequate cause.
How bout this?
Assume an ability to quickly and reliably test individuals’ mental and physical coordination. Is such a thing conceivable? Through eye reaction or some other combination of simple tests?
Do you agree with me that not all jobs require the highest degree of both physical and mental “alertness”. (At the extreme ends of the spectrum we can’t all be pro atheletes or brain surgeons. But a brain surgeon could perform the physical and mental requirements to be a ticket taker.)
Assume the required level of competence for various positions could be quantified.
Finally, assume this testing can be done relatively inexpensively.
Then, test all employees at the beginning of each shift. If needed, after breaks, or randomly as well.
Insurance premiums and quality assurances could be tied to proving that the workforce had the necessary physical and emotional capacity for the particular job tasks, rather than whether or not someone smoked a joint two weeks ago.
If I am so “gifted” that I can pass the test while stoned, while daydreaming, or while planning my “nooner”, more power to me. On the other hand, failing will not indicate why. But the employee who fails can either consent to counseling which will be directed at identifying and correcting the cause of the shortcoming, or face dire penalties in the event of subsequent failure.
JT
Is beer a “gateway drug”?
I’d like some support for your contentions as to increased experimentation and continued use of “harder drugs.”
What would be best, IMO, is a way to test for current drug intoxication, but my understanding is that such a thing does not exist.
I have no recollecion of any drug that had continued effect on me two days later. What specifically are you thinking of? Current detection does not distinguish between social use and addiction.
Again, tho, let me stress. I am back pedalling significantly from the extreme position I stated. Tho I may hold that position personally, I am not about to defend it in this forum. What I will state is that limited recreational drug use in an employee’s free time does not affect his ability to perform most jobs. As long as I am defining the terms of my proposition, I will say marijuana use on friday night. It is only tested because the drugs are illegal. If they were legal, an employee’s friday night habit would be of no more interest to his employer – has absolutely no moore effect on their job performance, than someone who goes out on the town every night, drinks more than they should, and bums a few smokes off their friends.
Feel free to offer whatever proposition you wish. And I will join you or not as I see fit.
** can you add in occupations dealing with chemicals, too??? please???
** Ok, I think I know where you’re going with this.
FTR - in most cases, I don’t think it should be of importance to an employer (or their right to know) that you chose to imbibe on any mood alterating substance 2 days ago. Where it gets grey to me is where abilities can still be impacted (which is why I wouldn’t do the "so what if I got blasted last night, it was on my time).
Of course some jobs require less manual dexterity than others. Would have thought that was obvious. HOwever, this doesn’t mean that if a job doesn’t require manual dexterity, there wouldn’t be a potential for harm while stoned. Accidents happen.
I’m not necessarily an advocate of ‘test everybody at the beginning of each shift’ even if it doesn’t involve body fluids. I’d go for testing anytime there was probable cause and random for everyone as well (rather than everybody all the time). More cost effective and hell that principal worked at the correction center.
Like I said, I also agree that for some one to be ‘upset’ etc, would lead to possability of same sorts of distraction related events. Is the above a workable comprimise?
now as for consequences, there it might get dicey. Some one may be distracted 'cause of an impending divorce or be strung out on cocaine. how would they be handled? the same? differently?
wring IMO the employer is effectively (of course, not literally) acting as an arm of the state because they are investigating and punishing behavior based on that behavior’s legal status, rather than any demonstrated relation between that behavior and the employee’s work performance. I am not saying drug use NEVER adversely affects job performance. But I believe that unless or until it does, the employee should not test for it.
BTW - in the “something I learned today,” I pulled up the IL stats and found that huffing household chemicals is considered an “illegal use of an intoxicating compound,” not a drug-related offense. 720 ILCS 690/1
It is perfectly reasonable and within a company’s rights to insist upon sobriety in the workplace. “Don’t show up to work drunk” is a close sibling to, “Don’t show up to work in jeans and a t-shirt.” Whatever the company’s reasons, they have a great deal of discretion in setting the rules of conduct for their own workplace.
The same is NOT true of things not pertaining to the actual workplace. They have no discretion in setting the rules of conduct in my home. Drug addiction is only one of an infinite number of non-work related personal problems which could potentially affect one’s job performance. Take, for example, a messy divorce.
After all, nobody’s FORCING the employee to serve his wife with divorce papers, so why should the company be forced to keep him on the payroll? After all, these things can drag on for years, and he might become less productive due to depression, which he might develop. Yeah, better fire him now.
If an employee’s work begins to actually slide, for whatever reason, then his employer would have some justification for letting him go. We would all consider it outrageous, however, if a company fired anyone only because he was getting divorced. The reason we consider it acceptable to fire someone for personal drug use, and the reason we permit the howling invasion of privacy that the drug test represents in the first place, is because of the moral stigma attached to said use. Hell, we even get mad when women who become pregnant are let go, and that actually will affect their job performance.
The only actual difference is that our hypothetical drug user is doing something illegal and is thus running the risk of imprisonment. However, the company can always fire someone if they happen to get arrested (that should affect their job performance). To be fair, a company does spend money to train new employees, and they would have a valid reason for wanting to know if Job Prospect Johnny is a risk for incarceration 2 months into employment. On that basis, one could argue that drug testing for interviewees is not entirely irrational (though I would still view it as a terrible invasion of privacy). Similarly, if a potential employee admitted to being in the middle of a messy divorce, the employer would be justified in having certain apprehensions about hiring him. The rules change for an efficient employee whom the company has already turned a profit on.
Summary: If you are not prepared to say that it is o.k. to fire pregnant women, people going through divorces, and people who test positive for alcohol, then it would be entirely inconsistent to say that it is o.k. to fire someone who tests positive for some illicit drug (regardless of the fact that the test should never have been administered in the first place).
I consider random testing without cause a significant invasion of my privacy, whether I know I am clean or not. So while I would accept broad testing wit cause, and probably a pretty darn low threshhold for what constitutes adequate cause, while reserving random testing for occupations with significant safety risks. Sure, include chemicals.
But I prefer my suggested idea of testing current ability, rather than for trace levels of certain substances.
Given your example, you could have stayed up late last night drinking, while I smoked one joint on Friday night and ingested no other illegal substances. We show up to work Monday a.m., my eyes bright and my tail bushed, whereas you are hungover as all hell. We both have to piss into a cup, and I am the one who faces disciplinary action. That does not strike me as the most desirable situation.
I repeat my position - the employer should be primarily interested in whether you can perform the physical and mental requirements of your job. He should be equally interested anytime an employee falls short of that standard, for whatever reasons, not just if a trace history of illegal substances can be identified.
My guideline is to treat the employees with compassion at the start.
If an employee is being unproductive, I would counsel that employee and work with him to find a solution. After all, employees don’t always realize that they’re being unproductive. Additionally, they may have some personal problems that they need to work through.
Similarly, if an employee were to show up drunk, I would give him a warning and send him home. If this problem persists, I would tell him to seek counseling. If possible, I would have the company itself arrange for the counseling.
Depending on the person’s job and the severity of the abuse, I may put that person on leave of absence and have them go to rehab. I may also extend an invitation for that person to come back, once he has cleaned up his act. It would depend on the person, the nature of his job, his prior performance and his prior offenses.
Fun things to know: In the State of Michigan, use of prescription drug other than legally proscribed by a doctor for you personally is a felony punishable by up to 7 years in prison.
Ok, I see what you meant by the defacto state, but I still disagree - An employer is legally responsible for things on their premises - so, has a right to defend themselves. So, they certainly, (I’d think) be allowed to search for weapons etc. as well. And, the ‘until adversely affecting job performance’ standard is similiar to me to the arguments of those who don’t want to use BAL for drunk driving convictions - they’d rather have something like demonstratable problems.
The problem with that approach is that one is only able to protect oneself after the fact. So, I wouldn’t be able to test for drug/alcohol levels until after it’s cost me $$ (accident/job performance etc). the employer, in that case, has already been damaged.
This revelation does not change the debate, however. Our divorce example above already posited the possibility of harm being done to the company. You wouldn’t know whether Varlos’ job performance is going to slide becuase his wife has a predilection for fair-haired postal workers, so you’d better start interviewing his replacement now. Without some reason to suspect intoxication in the workplace, [without some reason to suspect a drop in productivity due to divorce,] there’s no justification for drug testing. [there’s no justification for dismissal.]
I don’t think that’s a very good example. Divorce CAN cause depression and a drop in productivity… but so can remaining in a lousy marriage. The company can not make this choice for the employee.
Illegal drugs are another matter. They definitely impair performance and they are absolutely unnecessary. Taking drugs is not a fundamental right, and so it does not merit the same kind of protection as marriage or divorce. One can’t demand the privacy to take drugs simply because this is not a protected privilege.
Of course, that ties into the illegality as well, and the company’s image, and the right to protect itself from serious grievous harm.
I don’t think that’s a very good example. Divorce CAN cause depression and a drop in productivity… but so can remaining in a lousy marriage. The company can not make this choice for the employee.
Illegal drugs are another matter. They definitely impair performance and they are absolutely unnecessary. Taking drugs is not a fundamental right, and so it does not merit the same kind of protection as marriage or divorce. One can’t demand the privacy to take drugs simply because this is not a protected privilege. Moreover, while divorce can result in depression, it does not generally produce clinical depression – unlike many drugs, which do produce adverse symptoms at a clinical level.
Of course, that ties into the illegality as well, and the company’s image, and the right to protect itself from serious grievous harm.
It’s also similar to the arguments of those who oppose speed limits, saying, “Until it’s been conclusively shown that I can’t handle higher speeds, I shouldn’t be prosecuted.” By then, the damage has already been done.
A blatant falsehood. My joint on Friday won’t affect my work on Monday. You really should shy away from words like “definitely” or “always” when dealing with these matters. As I said, I’m not talking about showing up to work intoxicated, burnt out, or hungover. I’m talking about showing up to work alert and efficient with trace elements of certain chemicals in one’s blood.
Because the government (or, more specifically, you) doesn’t like drug use you have the right as an employer to monitor the content of my urine? I don’t demand “privacy to take drugs,” I demand privacy. The very nature of that (constitutionally protected) right implies that what I do within this sphere of privacy is none of your business. (If what I do in my private life begins to hurt my employer in the form of poor work, on the other hand, then the situation changes.)
But, as you implicitly acknowledge, divorce does sometimes cause clinical depression, just as there are many drugs that do sometimes cause depression (or some other cause of inefficiency). To automatically act as if drug use will definately hurt one’s job performance is either ignorant or illogical.
Illegal or not, your employees’ personal life is none of your business, ethically speaking, if it does not impact upon their job performance. The mere possibility of inefficiency does not relieve you of your responsibility to mind your own business. Don’t like my divorce analogy? Fine.
Bob’s mother is on her last legs. If she goes, Bob could be useless for months. Better shit-can him now.
Rick’s going through an IRS audit. His work is fine for now, but his personal life is gonna be really hectic and distracting, and he may have done something illegal. Best if he wasn’t with us.
Want more? I’ve got a million of these (literally).
Again, all of this ignores the fact that my employer has no right to study my urine in the first place.
First of all, no one makes those arguments (or virtually no one, if you prefer). If the government wants to make perfectly sensible rules about your conduct on the road (don’t show up to the highway drunk, don’t go insanely fast on the highway, etc.) that is fine. They can’t bar you from the highway, however, because you drink beer in your home and go nowhere near your car afterwards. They would have no logical reason to do so.
No, the majority of illegal drugs DO have lasting effects… and even for drugs like marijuana, a case can be made for amotivational syndrome and acting as a gateway drug. Even if you argue that this doesn’t always happen, that only means that drug testing is illegitimate. At best, it would only mean that (a) certain illegal substances should possibly be exempt from testing, and (b) the company should taking some risk by assuming that no lost-lasting adverse effects will ensue.
Note that I did not use the word “always.” In other words, it was meant as a general statement – one which happens to be supported by the medical community. The company should not be asked to assume that there will be no lasting effects from the consumption of a drug which the medical community has deemed to be dangerous.
Oh, and as for speed limits? Some people DO argue that they should be removed; in fact, this was the topic of a recent SDMB thread. The argument was that people should only be prosecuted for traffic offenses WHEN an accident occurs. In other words, it’s a matter of “too little, too late.”
Where does the Constitution guarantee the right to privacy? There is no such clause, despite the protestations of Roe v Wade supporters.
Moreover, the government routinely denies the right to privacy, as far as illegal acts are concerned. You can’t abuse your wife or rape a child, then demand protection under the right to privacy.
Nobody’s saying that it will always affect job performance. The point is that there is compelling reason to believe that it will – unlike divorce, which can actually be a change for the better.
When it comes to most illegal drugs, it would be highly unusual indeed for them to NOT impact performance, one way or another.
“. . . Only means that drug testing is illegitimate”? That’s my whole point! Furthermore, it’s not just a case of my arguing that drug use doesn’t always affect job performance, since it’s obvious that it doesn’t. To suggest that every single instance of drug use affects job performance is patently ridiculous; to suggest that even a majority of drug use (not necessarily addiction, mind you) impacts job performance is, at best, an unfounded assertion.
I’m not normally one to demand cites, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that this is true. It’s not uncommon for drug use to affect job performance, of course, but I suspect that you are making the claim above with only anecdotal evidence. Please provide some backup.
Divorce can be a change for the better, and some people are able improve the quality of their work with, for example, speed (methamphetamines, Ritalin – all in the family, so to speak), be it of the legal or illegal variety. Both cases are largely irrelevant to the analogy. With a messy breakup, there is “compelling reason to believe” that our employee will suffer personal turmoil which could easily affect his job performance. But hey, like I said, if you don’t like this analogy pick a new one. (How is a tax audit gonna be a good thing?)
You don’t believe that the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy? Well ok, I (and the Supreme Court) happen to disagree, but that is an entirely different argument. I mentioned it mostly as a rhetorical device, since it’s not strictly relevant to the debate.
First, we’re not talking about the legality of government intrusions of privacy; we’re talking about the ethics of private intrusions of privacy. Second, the examples you give (rape, abuse) are not in any way examples of privacy issues. Privacy necessarily implies a lack of bad consequences to others – a sphere of action within which one neither bothers nor is bothered by other people. An employer is not injured by an employee’s drug use, though he can be injured by an employee’s poor work (whatever the cause).
I can only assume by that statement, then, that you agree that testing positive for alcohol is equal grounds for dismissal as testing positive for some illicit drug. After all, the medical community has determined that alcohol is a very dangerous drug (more damaging to one’s temperment, motor skills, and internal organs than both marijuana and heroin, depending on dosages, of course). If that is not your position, then your position is inconsistent.
That’s why I threw the word “virtually” in front of “no one.” Compared with arguments against drug testing, it is an exceedingly rare viewpoint. In any event, on the grounds of the principals involved, I agree that it’s a silly argument. But no matter.
I’ve searched and searched, and haven’t been able to find any studies that prove that on the job safety or productivity have improved due to the adoption of a drug testing policy. It hasn’t at my workplace, or at the refinery next door.
Nor have I been able to prove that pot is a gateway drug, in that it leads to the use of hard drugs. Let me make that clear. I don’t think using pot causes one to “graduate” to hard drugs. Look at alchohol, fer cryin’ out loud. Do most alchoholics move on to heroin?
Nah, the biggies do very well on their own, without the help of pot.
Peace,
mangeorge