I realize I used a very loaded term, but in many ways you are. With the military, you are not allowed to quit whenever you want to. In the civilian sector, I can say “screw you, I quit!” I imagine that if you tried to up and quit they’d court martial you, right?
Anytime I’m on the clock, I’ll be sober as a preacher on sunday. What I do off the clock is none of their business.
Most of Australia would be out of work if drinking on your own time could get you fired from your job…
And no one is suggesting that drinking off the job (other than to the extent that you show up other than sober to work) is at issue at US Steel. On the other hand, illegal drug usage is at issue. And before a huge debate breaks out over that, let’s just point anyone who wants to debate the merits of the legality or non-legality of marijuana usage over ---------------------------------> to a new thread. Let’s keep this one about the merits of a drug testing policy at US Steel.
The huge company I work for doesn’t seem to test at all. They didn’t even mention it in the HR stuff on hiring, and it’s not in any of the papers that I had to read and sign. I think they’ve taken for granted that they’d have to fire a huge number of computer geeks and are more concerned with the NDA and non-competes that we all had to sign.
They seem to have a ‘don’t come to work drunk or high’ policy, which is working just fine. Doesn’t infringe in an employee’s time away from work, and allows them to insist upon good performance at work. Of course, we’re just codemonkeys. We don’t fly planes.
In Detroit we just had a police chase yesterday. They caught a guy making a u-turn on the Blue Water Bridge. Once they caught him they discovered he was a pilot who landed a plane at Metro Airport an hour earlier. He was coked up.Why wasn’t he tested.
And others have signed up as a “Drug Free Workplace.” It’s a big PR thing.
Fine & dandy for pilots, surgeons*, forklift drivers, etc. But a graphic artist friend of mine lost his job because he’d been at band practice the night before. Yes, he’d smoked!
As a military guy myself, I’m fine with the occasional drug test. I’d say on average I get one once every nine months or so. When I’m at sea, I’m around aircraft, heavy machinery, and ordinance. Frankly I find it very comforting knowing that my coworkers aren’t on drugs. My life depends on their attention to detail and skills. If those skills are eroded, my life and well being are at risk.
And even in an officer environment, I’m fine with it. I think what people do at work is their own business too, but if they are doing something illegal, that can degrade their performance, I think my employer has a right to know that. They have medical costs, and loss of performance issues that would effect the company.
And has been pointed out, if you don’t like the policy at US Steel, it is “a free country.” Leave and work for a company that doesn’t test their employees for drugs. And I wonder what company will be safer and more profitable - US Steell or Drugs-are-us Steel?
How do you know he was coked up if he wasn’t tested? :smack:
If this report is right, that’s a pretty reasonabe assumption:
Bolding mine.
I work for a large software company headquartered in Redmond Washington. No drug tests here. Why would they bother? Alcohol is served at the workplace at company parties and no one bats an eye.
In a situation where alcohol and drug use could be unsafe, like when people operate heavy equipment, then a company-wide alcohol and drug policy which can include testing makes sense. And generally these policies cover the whole company rather than just the employees that fly planes, shoot guns, or drive forklifts. And this is fine. But for most office jobs drug tests are a foolish, insulting waste of time. If safety is not an issue, the question is whether someone performs their job adequetly or not. And if they don’t, whether they can’t do their job because of a drug problem or some other problem is irrelevant.
I had a longer reply, but my browser crashed and I had to re-boot.
Heh. Yeah, that Firefox sucks, eh?
Oh, you use another browser? Huh.
But those reports show that he WAS being tested. And until the tests come back positive, it’s purely a guess (albeit an educated one) that he was “coked up.”
U.S. Steel has always been U.S. Steel, to my knowledge. I have family members who have worked for them from around 1915 right through to today.
The U.S. Steel division that hired these folks was made part of USX a few years back, true, but me dad’s checks still came from U.S. Steel.
Now the U.S. Steel building is another story. It is about to undergo yet another transformation where the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center will put its sign on all three sides of the tower, and take over many of the floors. UPMC is now the largest employer in the city, has been for years, and the health system is moving its headquarters from the University to Downtown.
That’s brilliant. So the Medical Center logo will be prominently displayed on a building whose exterior is made of intentionally rusty metal. Maybe they could extend the theme by constructing their signs out of used hypodermic needles.
Sorry about the cut and past of the entire article. My ignorance. (we do that all the time on other forums i belong to).
On the policy to hold an employee’s vehicle after a drug test. Now if there was a positive finding there could be rational for it, but what could be found from the blood test that the piss test would miss relevant to being a liability to the corporation?
As i stated earlier, I do not work for US Steel, but i have brothers that do and they both have years 30+ for the company. They don’t do drugs, and aren’t drinkers. But they are intimidated by this policy.
Now the company i work for CC has a new policy in place also. I’ll give an example of the fairness of this one.
Joe (not his real name) is a truck driver(240ton haul truck) and was directed to tack a load of Rock(low grade tac) to the plant area and he will be directed where to dump the load by plant Foreman (Chuck). He was then directed by chuck to back up to an area and given the signal to dump the load. The box contacted a 13,800 volt overhead power line, blowing all the tires on the truck. Driver Joe, sat right there untill the power line was properly grounded by the electrical suppler. Joe then was checked to make sure he was alright, and then taken in for a piss test. Foreman Chuck who was giving Joe the go ahead didn’t get to go for the test.
Joe didn’t pass the test and he no longer work with us anymore. He was an occasional pot smoker and had indulged over the long weekend.
He had 30 years of service, and had never been a problem to anyone.
Now who would you rather work around Joe or chuck? I’ll work with Joe Thank You Please
Look, I’m not personally an employee of U.S. Steel myself, and I don’t know all of the issues involved in the implementation of the testing. However, my brother is a U.S. Steel employee and a United Steelworkers member, my dad is a retired U.S. Steel manager and former United Steelworkers member, and my grandfather and great-grandfather worked for U.S. Steel divisions and were similarly union members. So I do have an interest in this, but no real axe to grind.
Now, the best thing for the union to do would be to get behind a drug testing program that works, and make it work with the company. Industrial accidents are no joke in a place like a steel mill. A family friend recently lost his legs in an accident in one at a coking mill in the Mon Valley. And an impaired employee puts his fellow union members at risk big time.
My dad now works for another steel company, and his hiring process is a nightmare. He cannot find decent laborers, because a sizable proportion of his hiring pool cannot pass the drug test. And we’re not talking just pot here - these guys are testing positive for coke and meth - stuff you don’t want in your system when working with hot and pressurized ovens, and dangerous gasses, and heavy moving machinery on rails. Good paying jobs with good union benefits are going unfilled.
Want one? Give my dad a call. But he will insist on a blood test first. And he’ll be right to do so.
Well, I said it was a reasonable assumption- not a fact.
And I could ask you to take off your clothes if you want to come into my house, and put a ladle somewhere. That doesn’t mean that I should. There is no reason that I can see that what you do on your own time is any concern of your employer’s. It would be very different if they were showing up intoxicated, but firing someone for using on his own time makes no sense.
If it truly makes no sense, then the workers will refuse to work there, and the business will go bankrupt. If that doesn’t happen, then clearly at least some people are willing to agree that it is worth having that intrusion to obtain a job, n’est-ce pas?