Drug tests for employment

[Nikia]

Talk of legalization and decriminalization won't do any good if drug users are shut out of gainful, legal employment. The Bush administration encourages employers to test employees both before job offers and during the course of employment by multiple methods.
In my opinion, drug testing is an invasion of privacy, discriminatory, and unfairly gives businesses the right to dictate what an employee does on his or her own time. For certain types of work, like jobs requiring transportation of others or heavy equipment, the safety concern may be justified. For certain jobs which may dictate other off duty behavior, such as a police officer, I could see the justification also. For most jobs, I feel that off duty drug use has nothing to do with a job. Employees who perform their jobs poorly or who are obviously under the influence can be fired. Potential employees are interviewed, provide references, and sometimes also undergo background checks.
I think that hair testing is especially discriminatory not only because it does provide more positives for people with certain types of hair or longer hair, but it also can provide positives for drug use far after drug use. A person may have chosen to cease drug use privately or after being laid off and be shut out of employment oppurtunities for several months or more even if they are not a current drug user.
Blood testing is bad because many people have problems with needles. I read an article stating that over 10% of Americans avoid going to doctors because of this fear. Another 10% go to doctors but who have serious concerns like passing out. Many more tolerate needles but have serious reservations about going through with it for any non medical necessary reason. If all American employers tested employees this way, would a severe phobia of blood drawing be considered a disability.
Urine testing is unfair because it targets user of the least harmful illegal drug, marijuana. Occaisional users of marijuana will likely fail randomn drug tests while occaisional cocaine users will not. A non addicted user of cocaine, which tests positive for about 3 days, will likely have enough time to abstain after they are notified of an interview with a company who preemployment tests. A marijuana user may not have enough time to abstain since they may test positive several weeks after use.
Drug use may be illegal, but in some states marijuana possession is a very minor crime. In Ohio, possession of a small amount is a civil citation, like a traffic ticket. In many situations, people jailed for minor crimes are permitted by the state and their employer to participate in work release. Why is the crime of drug use singled out by employers for grounds of firing? Why do employers conduct an active investigation of their employers for this crime and not others?
Drug use is a health issue. Although it is true that some employees work may suffer because of drug use, that is not the case in all users nor is it really employers business. Employees work performance may suffer from a variety of other health and personal probelms. They may choose to inform their employer of their problem and expect not to be fired because of the disabilities act or they may choose to keep their condition private. That also brings up the issue of medical privacy in drug testing. Some employers tests for drugs that are legal with a prescription. This may force employees to reveal that they have severe anxiety problems, for example if they test positive for Xanax and like drugs.
I rarely see this issue being discussed. I think that this is important, especially with the poor economy. Potential employees have less choices as far as finding employers who don't test. Marijuana users are also stereotyped as unmotivated and lazy, a stereotype that the government and employers are encouraging by excluding them from employment.

[northzax]

1. you really can't figure it out?

ok, plainly put, most of these jobs are low end ones. Jobs that almost anyone can do, so the pool is much greater. Also, jobs where the pay scale actively encourages turnover. Face the fact that marijuana, cocaine and other drugs are illegal to posess and use in this county. Evidence that you break that law might be construed as evidence that you would be willing to break the laws against theft, for instance. Don't tell me you are alaw abiding citizen, when you break the drug laws. you may think they are stupid laws, but they are, in fact, laws. If I'm an employer, I may want to know if my cashier is a regular law breaker.

second, you must accept the fact that many of these drugs are addictive (yes, Weed is at least psychologically addictive) take someone who needs their fix badly enough, and will they be willing to steal or cheat me to get high? (by the way, the same thing applies to alcoholics and smokers, on a lower scale.

Lastly, drug use, like smoking and excessive drinking, is associated with higher health care costs. If I provide health insurance to my employees, I am obligated to get the lowest rates possible, it is not acceptable to me to hire someone with higher health-care costs and raise the cost of the premium for all the other employees.

Frankly, I don't really give a shit if you smoke weed, snort blow or shoot smack in the privacy of your own home. it's your own fucking life, but private employers can, in fact, make compliance with the law, and the principles of the company, a term of employment. sorry.

[unblock]

3. you can't discriminate on the basis of health care costs

you can have a policy against illegal drug use, have a no-smoking building, and even have a policy about alcoholism, but in general, it is illegal (with exceptions for small businesses) to make hire/fire decisions on the basis of health care costs.

for instance, if i fire someone because they have a chronic illness or refuse to hire someone due to a handicap, i will lose in court easily, unless reasonable accomodation is not possible.

[northzax]

4. as long as it is based on a personal choice

and the policy is consistent, you certainly can discriminate. More and more companies are refusing to hire smokers, after all. you cannot discriminate against someone with, say, diabetes (a high cost illness) since it's not a choice. You can discriminate against someone who self mutilates.

[unblock]

12. agreed. my point was that it can't be simply "health care costs"

it has to be more specific and explicitly exclude handicaps, etc.

[Nikia]

6. Why is this problem targeted though?

I think that all employers should conduct reference checks. Why should a good employment record and good references be mistrusted? If there is high turnover in a particuliar job, isn't it easy to fire an employee for any reason if they show poor performance or appear stoned? While I worked at a low end job with an average turnover of six months, people leave these jobs quickly for a variety of reasons, some because they find better employment.
Gamblers, compulsive shoppers, strip club regulars, people with any chronic health problem and all low income workers without a higher income partner or parent living with them are likely to be in need of money. All except the heaviest (or pickiest) marijuana users usually spend less money on it than alcoholics or heavy cigarette smokers. Put cameras by your cah register if you have a problem with theft.
There are many illegal activites. In Ohio, possession of a small amount of marijuana is a civil citation carryong a $100 fine. May people break the law by speeding in this way, or even excessively speed. They endanger their health and that of others. Should employers deny employment to people with speeding tickets? Should they set up a speed trap where employees are likely to be driving past and fire employees who are going more than 10 mph over the speed limit? Why do some employers permit employees jailed for driving under the influence of alcohol to participate in work release while serving their sentence but fire employees who test positive for drugs?
I realize that health insurance companies may give discount to employers who test and are part of the problem. Employers often have no problem with only meeting minimum OSHA standards for safety. Employers may do little to discourage unhealthy habits and encourage stress and sleep deprivation though. Isn't random testing stressful even if you are not a user?

[northzax]

7. actaully, I have had several jobs where my driving record was checked

as part of the application process. so I guess so. it's a crime! fact it. if I can easily find out which ones of my employees are habitual criminals, I want to know.

addiction is a downward spiral, people get worse, not better, as time goes on. And references are bullshit, everyone knows it.

[Nikia]

8. How does one drug test determine habitual use?

I suppose if you clearly identify yourself as a testing company at your application sight or in the newspaper ad, people who test positive are more likely to be addicts. Many drug users, especially marijuana users, are not addicts.
If you were to go into a bar on any Friday night and observe everyone drinking alcoholic beverages, would be correct to assume that everyone of those people were alcoholics? Would it be correct to assume that each of these people consumed alcohol at or shortly before coming to work? Would it be correct to assume that most of these people would likely steal to pay for their alcohol habit? Will all of those people's drinking habits progress if they do not undergo professional treatment?
For the driving record check, I don't really think that is appropriate either unless the position requires driving an employee owned vehicle or a lot of motorized vechicle travel as part of the job. Do you set up a secret radar gun though at a place where your employees will drive past though?

[northzax]

9. Look, if I can resue to hire you

because your hair is too long (and I can) I can refuse to hire you based on illegal drug use. deal with it. You want a job that requires you to take a drug test, then stop using drugs. otherise, find another job. If this is actually that big of a decision to you (take the job or keep taking drugs) you might havea problem, you know?

[Nikia]

10. Don't assume that is the reason I oppose it

Such people who oppose drug testing primarily because of their drug use buy fake urine and cleansers. I encountered this attitude at a pro marijuna event unfortunately.

[northzax]

11. it was not directed at you personally

it was more of a "royal you" referring to the person who was concerned about failing a drug test in general.

[SemperEadem]

14. I think it's more of a power trip on his part

than anything reasonable. That's his drug of choice--power.

[renaissanceguy]

18. Man that's crazy.

I think companies look too deep to analyze one's qualifications for a job. Sitting behind a desk answering phones and typing has nothing to do with what I do at home.

As long as people don't come to work high or drunk or hungover, and as long as they can perform their jobs well, there are no grounds for these tests.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[I_like_chicken]

13. You're generalizing marijuana with other hard drugs

is there any evidence that people will steal or cheat to get marijuana. How do you know drug use can be equated with stealing. Is there a correlation between people who use drugs and people who steal? How many people who don't use drugs steal? Your arguments have no merit without fact to back them up.

[JohnnyRingo]

2. The next time I'm pulling up to the "speedy window" or parts store counter

...I'd prefer the employee had an "intelligence test" rather than a "drug test".

For some people minimum wage is a gift. LOL

[madrchsod]

5. i know of one place that went to

random drug tests-the place lost over a 124 years of very skilled help just recently the restated random test they lost over 50 years because people quit...i do agree that drug use -in the workplace is really fuck`n dangerous- and should be stopped but that is up to fellow workers and the foreman on the floor. machines don`t care-they rip you apart whether you are high or not,i`ll stay straight while at work. but after work ,it`s my body . employers can not test for legal drugs -that violates many privacy laws both state and federal.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. What about false positives?

I know several people who have lost jobs due to falsely testing positive for drug use. Ten years ago, there was a 5% chance of a false positive test. Anyone know if this is still a problem?

[Nikia]

17. I don't know how big of a problem it is, but any chance is too much

Especially if random testing is done often. Most companies now double test in case of a positive. The cheaper test with greater chances of false positives is done first. If it is positive, they do a more expensive test that distinguishes clearly between chemicals that can be mistaken for another. The more expensive test may yield few false positives on the basis of mistaking another chemical for an illegal drug, but it is also rather sensitive and can show positive for environmental exposure (Don't go to a heavy metal concert the night before your test) . One company that I applied for made employees pay for this second test if they came up positive on the first test. There is also the issue of disclosing medications for consideration both for possible false positives and when taking prescription drugs that they test for. There is also the fear factor even when they do the second test. I intially failed the first test for the job that I have now for a drug that I never had used or been around ever. I was rather upset even though they assured me that the more sensitive test would show negative if I hadn't really used that drug. Luckily, it was negative and I was hired but I never would want to go through that experience again or wish it upon anyone.

[MrModerate]

16. My company tests incoming applicants . . .

. . . but not employees -- unless there's an incident or the employee operates heavy machinery.

They're also a heavy federal contractor, and the use of these tests began about 15 years ago, when such things started showing up in the federal workplace. Partly management feels they have to comply to win work, and partly they're a tad moralistic.

Luckily, the company is very performance-driven, and if you continue to perform, you don't hear much about drug testing. If your performance falls off minimally, you stop getting promoted, and if it falls off a lot, you get downsized the next time the company is in shrink-mode. Not entirely unjust.

I agree that marijuana testing is something foisted on businesses by the testing industy and the Mrs. Grundys of the world. But at the same time, the employer DOES have the right to ask -- do I want to hire a serial lawbreaker? (Which is what someone likely to test positive for pot is very likely to be.)

The fact that serial civil disobedience is not exactly the same thing as serial lawbreaking is a distinction either lost on employers or which they explicitly reject.

Testing for harder drugs makes a bit more sense -- those thangs are mind twisting and you can hurt yourself and others, even as a mere user.

Sorry I don't have a simple throughline to this post, but it's not a straight-line topic, IMHO.

[Mnemosyne]

27. I like how you put that:

"The fact that serial civil disobedience is not exactly the same thing as serial lawbreaking is a distinction either lost on employers or which they explicitly reject."

That is exactly what I consider marijuana use.

I like it!

[Sugarbleus]

19. Drug testing is a TOTAL invasion of privacy! It should be yanked

forthwith!! As a former supervisor in a manufacturing plant, I can tell you that the bosses went out and get shit faced drunk at lunch, snort cocaine in their offices and do as they damn well please. Likewise, small business owners do the same if they so desire..whos going to drug test them?......NOBODY.

Making people pee or blood test is OUTRAGEOUS; an UNCONSCIONABLE BREECH of personal rights. IF that employee is capable of DOING HIS GOD DAMNED JOB SOBER then an employer has no fucking business knowing what that employee does on HIS OWN TIME off the job. This is another slave-labor/control-freak trap by the Anal retentive Neo Liberals and neocon establishment. LIGHTEN UP ALL YE!!!

Many MANY laws are not good and should be overturned or grandfathered. Laws are man-made, NOT WRITTEN IN STONE.

We've got the feds and insurance orgs looking into a persons health record--->descrimination happens. We've got feds looking into a person's use of certain medicines----->descrimination happens. Oh yeah, what if the employee is under a doctors orders to take MORPHINE for a serious pain problem...can the employer just dump that otherwise great worker just because he is on a narcotic???? THINK!

"LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" Where did that go?

[SHRED]

20. I tell my redneck gun nut co-workers

The ones who don't seem to have a problem with piss tests:

"The government will have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands but they can have my piss for testing!"

They just get a vacant look on their face.

[Sgent]

21. Not a new thing...

If you accept federal dollars, which means all states and muncipalities, and almost all federal grantees and contracts, you must have a drug free workplace. This was instituted I believe by George HW, but I know it existed during the Clinton years as well. At least as of 6 months ago, 43 had not made any changes (positive or negative) to the rule.

Most businesses don't require pre-employment screening unless there is a lot of manual labor; however, the Feds do, and so do many states. There may be a test given if a supervisor suspects being high on the job or after some sort of accident. Finally, I have seen many places -- esp. state employers -- who tell the candidate something along the lines of "your hired, you can start after you pass the drug screen". Implicitely telling them not to take the screen until after the candidate knows he will be clean.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[methinks2]

26. a friend of mine was asked if he would pee in a cup

he told his boss, he would pee if his boss would drink it. That was the end of that discussion.

[Muzzle Tough]

24. It depends.

If you're driving a bus or performing surgery or something like that, then drug testing should be required.

But other than those kinds of sensitive things where safety is an issue, drug testing for a job should be prohibited.

I have never used illegal drugs, but I don't think people should go to jail or be denied a job for what they do in their private lives.

[gulfcoastliberal]

25. I regard these pee tests as invading privacy, but one must remember

that there are easy ways to get around this problem. Please see my link for the answer to these bullshit tests. It's a fucking game, and it's easy to beat them at it. Trust me, I know. ;)

http://www.bdtzone.com/products/sub_solution.asp

[Mnemosyne]

28. Aren't all three branches of our government

considered our employees? If they should be tested, do you think many would pass?

It's a given that * would flunk. LOL

[K-W]

29. All you have to do is stop for a few weeks to pass 1 test.

The tests are so very obviously not meant to actually stop drug use by employees, but simply to further demonize drug use.