Employee drug testing. For or Against

I am for employee drug testing.

So if you don't bring drugs to work, you should not be tested?jimmyjammer69

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] Yes? You've nothing against random alcohol tests? A hungover employee is probably as dangerous as a guy who was stoned yesterday, and why shouldn't your boss have the right to sack you because you've been drinking yesterday?jimmyjammer69

We're talking about illegal drugs here. If somebody chooses to do something that's illegal in their spare time that can impact job performance, the employer has a right to know.

You make it seem like drug testing lets an employer gain all sorts of information about one's personal life. It's just a drug test. It detects drugs. That's it. Its just a means to protect the company (and potentially the employee, should he injure himself on the job due to his drug use).

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="sonicare"] We have every right to fire someone if they have been involved in an alcohol related crime such as drunk driving. It is an illegal activity per the law. It also shows incredibly poor judgement. The use of illegal drugs is also illegal and we have the right to fire someone for that.RadBooley

We're talking about illegal drugs here. If somebody chooses to do something that's illegal in their spare time that can impact job performance, the employer has a right to know.

You make it seem like drug testing lets an employer gain all sorts of information about one's personal life. It's just a drug test. It detects drugs. That's it. Its just a means to protect the company (and potentially the employee, should he injure himself on the job due to his drug use).

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]For it, but it's not necessary in all jobs.Murj

Same. I don't mind getting served by a stoner in Subway but if my doctor is foaming at the mouth then I got a problem.

I disagree. I think the employer has a right to know if you have a criminal record, but has no right to know whether I or LJS or any other employee secretly smokes pot at weekends. He is not a law enforcement agent and shouldn't be given the powers of one.jimmyjammer69

Employers aren't given the power of law enforcement agents. They don't drug test potential employees so they can turn them in to the cops. In fact, most companies just tell the person they failed and that's that. No police are involved.

The job market is competitive. Employers want to get the best person for the job. If that person has a secret, yet illegal habit, the employer has a right to know so he can make the best decision. Its their business-- they're perfectly within their rights to make sure their employees aren't doing drugs. Who would want risk employing someone who could be a liability later on? Why should employees be forced to turn a blind eye to a factor that may cause an employee to injure himself, others, or the company name?

Drug testing potential employees is imo ok.

Really depends on the job, if its working for the police then yes. But if your working on a cruise ship then no.bobaban

Why not? The last thing we need is for people to be doing drugs on a ship, then fall overboard and drown.

Really depends on the job, if its working for the police then yes. But if your working on a cruise ship then no.bobaban

How could anyone be against it? :?

Pirate700

For it for all jobs.

Their property, their rules.

agturboninja

^ I was going to say something along the lines of having mandatory drug testing, but this is a bit more reasonable. ^

I don't care its easy to get past it if you have to anyways.cs45F

That's why God created random drug testing.

[QUOTE="pis3rch"]

:lol: Yes, because everyone who smokes marijuana is a dirty, smelly cretin who never bathes. Also they're communists. Reefer madness-esque stereotypes are always fun!

LJS9502_basic

I've met people who were dirty who DON'T use drugs. Are YOU saying that such people don't exist?

The thing is, you didn't say "I don't want DIRTY people preparing my food." You said that you don't want STONERS preparing your food, and you justified that by saying that a stoner MIGHT be dirty.

Yeah, no ****. So might everyone else.

The thing is, hygeine is actually important for people who handle food. There are standards for hygeine at restaurants. And if a restaurant isn't following proper hygeine specifications, then stoners are the LEAST of your worries. And if a restaurant IS enforcing proper hygeine among their employees, then it's kind of nonsensical to be worried about POSSIBLE bad hygeine that might result from someone being a person who uses marijuana occasionally. If they're hygenic enough to keep their jobs, then being a stoner is IRRELEVANT as far as hygeine goes. And if they are NOT being hygenic, then the problem isn't stoners, but lax enforcement of the rules by restaurant management. What, you think that management is going to let everyone BUT the stoners be dirty as hell? And if the management ALLOWS people to be dirty as hell, do you HONESTLY think that the stoners are going to be the only ones who are dirty?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Or if the job involves the safety of customers....they can be sued by the customer if an injury happens. So it is mostly to protect the company.double_decker

Thing is, you can get in an accident, get drug tested, and then get fired because you smoked a joint a WEEK ago.

Meanwhile everyone likes to go out drinking on the weekends. If you get in an accident on Sunday morning, you're not going to get fired because you went out drinking on Friday night.

Why? Because there is a difference between being someone who uses drugs, and someone who uses drugs ON THE JOB.

We apparently have little difference separating the two when it comes to alcohol. Most employers don't care if you drink alcohol on your free time, as long as you aren't under the influence when you come to work. Do most pre-employment drug screenings check to see if you've consumed alcohol any time in the last week?

But somehow there's this frankly stupid double standard, where we assume that just because someone smoked pot two weeks ago, that they're going to be showing up to work stoned.

There's a BIG difference between a drug user, and someone who shows up to work high. Don't talk to me about safety, when I can get drunk the night before a drug test and still get the job. Drinking alcohol is JUST as much of a safety concern as illegal drugs, which is why I'll get fired if I show up to work drunk. Just like how I'll get fired if I show up to work stoned. But if I'm NOT going to work stoned, how is testing for pot in my system a legitimate indicator that I'm more of a safety hazard than someone who goes to work with a pounding hangover headache?

What ever keeps the costs of goods and services cheap, I am all for it.

What, no poll?:?

[QUOTE="bobaban"]Really depends on the job, if its working for the police then yes. But if your working on a cruise ship then no.RadBooley

Why not? The last thing we need is for people to be doing drugs on a ship, then fall overboard and drown.

Well, don't they actually serve ALCOHOL on cruise ships?

What, would it be better if someone got DRUNK, then fell overboard and drowned?

I don't care its easy to get past it if you have to anyways.cs45F

If it's that easy for drug users to get past pre-employment drug tests, then doesn't that indicate that it's pretty pointless?

If it's that easy to get past these tests, even if you use drugs, then doesn't that sort of indicate that maybe the drug test's ability to screen out potential safety hazards only provides negligible benefits.

As someone here already said..."if you're so incompetent that you can't pass the pre-employment screening, then you shouldn't get the job anyway". But the whole idea that it's so easy to pass a drug test even though you're a drug user makes me strongly wonder how effective they ACTUALLY are at screening out the people that they are DESIGNED to screen out.

I mean, if I can EASILY pass a drug test, then start toking up as soon as I get hired, and then smoke weed like crazy for the next three years, doesn't that sort of indicate that maybe my drug test was totally ineffective? I'm still a stoner. I still work there. And apparently, passing the drug test was so easy that it did practically nothing to prevent the average stoner from working there. So...what was the POINT of the drug test in the first place?

For it, I suppose, as I can't see how it wouldn't improve the quality of service, generally. How much it improves work habits, service, etc is up for debate, but it certainly wouldn't harm it. I'm also not for people complaining about it. Any job that includes drug testing states so on the contract you sign. You don't have to take that job if you object strongly to drug testing. If it's on the contract, drug testing becomes PART of the job and staying clean is part of what you're paid for. If you don't like your job extending into your private life like that, find a job that doesn't. If you sign the contract, you take the job, and you agree to fulfill all the duties it requires and acknowledge that you can be dismissed if you fail to accomplish any of them, drug tests included. You have no right to whine about how unfair it is, much like I can't really whine about how bad a TV show is or how expensive a particular game is, as I always have the choice not to watch/pay for it.Paladin_King

Bull. This is the USA, damnit, and I can complain about anything I damn well want to.

So what if I signed a contract stating that I consent to drug tests? Is there also a stipulation in that contract stating that I have no right to complain about drug tests? If not, then I ABSOLUTELY have the right to complain about drug tests, even if I consent to one.

EDIT: And I sure as hell have a right to complain about bad TV shows. Where the hell are you getting the idea that I only have the right to express complaint about certain things?

[QUOTE="Paladin_King"]For it, I suppose, as I can't see how it wouldn't improve the quality of service, generally. How much it improves work habits, service, etc is up for debate, but it certainly wouldn't harm it. I'm also not for people complaining about it. Any job that includes drug testing states so on the contract you sign. You don't have to take that job if you object strongly to drug testing. If it's on the contract, drug testing becomes PART of the job and staying clean is part of what you're paid for. If you don't like your job extending into your private life like that, find a job that doesn't. If you sign the contract, you take the job, and you agree to fulfill all the duties it requires and acknowledge that you can be dismissed if you fail to accomplish any of them, drug tests included. You have no right to whine about how unfair it is, much like I can't really whine about how bad a TV show is or how expensive a particular game is, as I always have the choice not to watch/pay for it.MrGeezer

Bull. This is the USA, damnit, and I can complain about anything I damn well want to.

So what if I signed a contract stating that I consent to drug tests? Is there also a stipulation in that contract stating that I have no right to complain about drug tests? If not, then I ABSOLUTELY have the right to complain about drug tests, even if I consent to one.

EDIT: And I sure as hell have a right to complain about bad TV shows. Where the hell are you getting the idea that I only have the right to express complaint about certain things?

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Paladin_King"]For it, I suppose, as I can't see how it wouldn't improve the quality of service, generally. How much it improves work habits, service, etc is up for debate, but it certainly wouldn't harm it. I'm also not for people complaining about it. Any job that includes drug testing states so on the contract you sign. You don't have to take that job if you object strongly to drug testing. If it's on the contract, drug testing becomes PART of the job and staying clean is part of what you're paid for. If you don't like your job extending into your private life like that, find a job that doesn't. If you sign the contract, you take the job, and you agree to fulfill all the duties it requires and acknowledge that you can be dismissed if you fail to accomplish any of them, drug tests included. You have no right to whine about how unfair it is, much like I can't really whine about how bad a TV show is or how expensive a particular game is, as I always have the choice not to watch/pay for it.Paladin_King

Bull. This is the USA, damnit, and I can complain about anything I damn well want to.

So what if I signed a contract stating that I consent to drug tests? Is there also a stipulation in that contract stating that I have no right to complain about drug tests? If not, then I ABSOLUTELY have the right to complain about drug tests, even if I consent to one.

EDIT: And I sure as hell have a right to complain about bad TV shows. Where the hell are you getting the idea that I only have the right to express complaint about certain things?

No, saying "you don't have the right to do this", even though someone clearly DOES have the right to do it, is nearly always an attempt to stop the discussion then and there, by immediately and preemptively reducing competing arguments to something that they completely arbitrarily don't have the right to express.

THAT is what such a statement nearly always amounts to, and that is what you attempted to do.

No one said a damn thing about the right to complain until you brought it up. You only brought it up (unprovoked, I might add), as an attempt to immediately poison the arguments of anyone who complains.

So I called you on it. You can get all upset about it if you want, but YOU brought up the right to complain, YOU immediately made an attempt to discredit anyone who might disagree with you in the future, so don't point the finger at me for playing the semantics game.