Maybe they were hoping she’d resign.
Can’t really verify that one, I’ll admit. That’s just what she told us over dinner a few days ago. So hearsay, granted.
Is there any other country in the world that tests run-of-the-mill employees for drugs?
I mean really, what employees do on their own time is their own business.
Puritanical USA at its finest.
Curious, what’s the downside to not having a policy as strict as that? Will the feds swoop down on your business, board up everything, and arrest anyone at manager rank or higher?
I don’t like the old company’s policy (specifically re: marijuana) but there is a valid reason for it for other drugs (including alcohol.):
If you show up for work impaired in a lab or manufacturing environment (which said company has both of) it’s not just that your own performance might be poor, it’s that you might seriously injure or kill someone. Like others have said, and I agree - it’s silly for marijuana because it is detectable for long after you actually used the stuff. But I’m fully for - you work in a factory, get tested on the job for a BAC of 0.04 or higher (that was the old company limit) your ass is immediately fired.
The big difference is that while the effects of alcohol and marijuana leave your system within a day (or even hours), drug tests trigger on marijuana for far longer. Firing for using marijuana two weeks ago (as long as you weren’t on the job at the time) is just plain silly.
I’m a service manager at a large car dealership. We have employees that drive cars on the city streets regularly. We drug test before employment and if there is a question or an accident. I don’t have a random program for drug testing at this time.
But picture this. Let’s suppose I hire a new tech and I don’t drug test him. Now let’s further suppose that on his first day he is in an auto accident that is his fault and he is higher than a kite.
With no pre-employment drug screen the injured party’s lawyer is going to make me and my dealership look like the largest bunch of idiots that ever twisted a wrench. The lack of a drug screen could also add maybe an extra zero to the settlement.
I believe that our insurance company requires a drug screen before employment. FTR we also do a background check for criminal matters. I have had people I could not hire due to background checks.
I don’t remember every detail, so my apologies if I get something a bit wrong, but at the company where I used to work, which was a manufacturing company, we had to institute a drug-testing policy because we couldn’t afford not to. It was tens of thousands of dollars in workers’ compensation charges for not having a “drug free workplace.” Part of having a drug free workplace was instituting something that fit the government’s idea of a drug testing program, which meant adopting it wholesale, not piecemeal. So even though marijuana has the issues you and others have mentioned, we were not permitted to pick and choose drugs (well, I bet we could have added some, but not taken any out). And the levels of a positive test were preset too, which meant that we were told positive or negative, not how high or how low. We had no way of knowing how recently someone used the drug, just if they tested positive.
The problem is that libertarianism = insanity.
But what I don’t get about the policy is the testing, and way it’s unrelated to performance. In Europe, if you show up drunk to work you will probably be fired too, if it’s a job where it matters. It’s not like we are all at risk of crazy stuff going wrong because people show up drunk all the time and do dangerous things, just because they don’t have to pee in a cup. We don’t have regular Ebola outbreaks because of drunk lab accidents.
That’s where it’s so crazy to me. You’re limiting freedom without having demonstrated a clear need. It sounds like a power trip to me, not just being puritanical. You guys should really sort out those unions. You know we get proper holidays in Europe too, right? And then we get to do drugs on those holidays. It’s a blast. 
nm
But how does one prove that one wasn’t on the job when partaking? It’s not like the tests show “this person ingested marijuana at 19:30 two Saturdays ago, so they’re OK”.
Job performance should be the standard for that.
If I show up on time every day and do my job as well as anybody, (weller than most even) what does that say?
My gf works in advertising. At least in the creative departments, drugs/alcohol are par for the course. On Fridays they break out the kegarator!
Worse. Businesses get sued and they take their money.
This has got to be a Big Bang Theory episode title. I’m also thinking the fired friend is a regular user trying to save face. Blanket drug policies just suck, but a company can have whatever silly rule it wants as a condition for employment. You break that rule, you’ve essentially expressed your disinterest in employment.
That’s a different debate. 
However, since I posted that comment, the subsequent posters have shown I was in error. These drug tests are government mandated, by a Reagan-era federal statute that does in fact intrude in the workplace, so it’s not a libertarian system at all.
The UK has already been mentioned.
My experience in Spain has been that companies can ask for a drug screen as part of your incoming or yearly medical checkup (required by law for every company, no matter how small), but they pay extra from a basic check, so they only do it if for reasons of seguridad - the Spanish word includes several concepts: safety, security, risk prevention… You don’t want your warehouse guys to be driving a vehicle high, but you also don’t want your finance guys to be negotiating a contract high. Companies which request the extra tests are split between “lab calls employee and talks about setting up counseling, company doesn’t even get the result”, “lab calls employee and talks about setting up counseling, company knows there was an issue and it’s being treated but not what it was” and “company gets ‘positive for X drug’ and you’re out”.
Nah. Very few companies care about morality. It’s about profit.
There’s a big difference between coffee and pot. And yes, the employer does have the right to tell you to not show up on the job after having done drugs, no matter where you did them.
You completely missed my point- there’s no difference in the desire to consume coffee or pot.
Yes, you can be fired for using other drugs, at least in this state.
But nobody is going around testing people for alcohol, which certainly causes more absenteeism and other issues than MJ.
And that’s my objection, none of this is grounded in reality.
People who use marijuana (in their own time) aren’t any more likely to cause problems than anyone else.
Being impaired at work, bad news no matter what the situation.
Pot, booze, prescription drugs, even legit ones, all that is problematic.
But that’s not what the thread is about.