BS. That like saying they have a right to know if you speed, or if you had a beer before you were 21. They don't have any 'right' to know. Besides, rights are for individuals, not corporations. Because of liability issues it might be ok to test if you ARE high at work, and they have tests for that. But its none of your business if an employee gets high while NOT at work or coming into work.
One more point. If you want insurance that your chosen method is working, go to a drug store and buy an 'at home' test. These tests are pretty good but, as always can be faulty.
Cranberry juice? Dude it's not a bladder infection. Increasing the acidity of urine won't mask THC. Bad advice.
My feelings exactly. Unless it's directly related to your work (either safety issue or artificially boosting your home-run hitting ability) they have no right to pry. Your competence for the job should be measured by a manager, not a chemist.
And if the employer chooses to employ only those who do not use drugs, isn't that their perogative? The employer doesn't have to justify their reasoning for not having drug users as employees any more than they'd have to justify hiring only people with college degrees. If you don't want to work under those conditions, don't apply.
No more than they can choose not to employee someone who sodomizes other people. That's what privacy is all about. The only reason you can have a legitimate test is if you are testing to see if they are high WHILE at work. Not while they're not at work.
I disagree that an employer has a right to dictate what an employee does outside of work hours as long as that activity does not affect his or her job. But, i guess we each have a different measure of what's an acceptable infringement of civil liberties. . Unfortunately, they didn't ask me, so it's of no real help to our man Tweezer . Good luck with the job.
That is simply false, from a legal standpoint. You can't refuse to hire people for a specifically illegal reason (race, gender, etc) but otherwise you can hire and fire for whatever reason you like. I could choose to hire only employees with two-syllable names and be within my rights. Drugs isn't the same sort of reason, of course. A cocaine addict, for example, may be more prone to workplace theft to cover his addiction, even if he doesn't snort at work. This is not a "civil liberties" issue. You have no "right" to work at X company. You choose to apply, you choose to accept the requirements the company puts on employment.
Yes, no one is saying drug testing is illegal. Whether its 'right' or not is another question. That's stupid. You could say the same thing and substitute 'poor' for cocaine addict. I doubt workplace theft is a documented hazard of pot smoking. However, a cocaine addict 'may be prone' to work a lot more hours and handle a lot more duties as a result of their addiction, especially while snorting at work. Certainly it is a privacy issue. But again this a question of whether its 'right' to test someone for something that's none of your business. Just because its illegal doesn't make it your business anymore than being involved in sodomy does (in the states where its illegal), or whether you speed or not, or whether you've done one of the myriad of other things that are 'illegal' but harmless - like being in a sports pool at work.
Interesting note: the Department of Transportation Regulates Drug Testing in the Work place. Kind of weird to think of that at first, but actually makes a lot of sense. You don't want users driving oil tankers and trucks.
A hair test is easy to beat. Go to your local head shop and Zydot makes a hair cleanser. It has a three step process and works. TRUST ME! Follow this link, probably not safe for work.
You think poor people are as likley to steal as drug addicts? Drug use is a jailable offense. There are hundreds of thousands in prison for drug posession. Speeding and underagre drinking are finable offenses. Not exactly the same thing. Drug testing is more like the space on your application where they ask if you have been convicted of a crime. As for your view of rights, corporations are ultimately owned by people, and hiring managers are their agents. If I were the owner/majority shareholder in a company, I would not feel a bit in the wrong for eliminating any criminal from my hiring pool. Oh, and there is no right to privacy.
it's not any job that requires the use of heavy machinary... it's an entry level accountant postion... SEC watch out!
OK, so you don't care if they're a criminal as long as its not a felony? As in my earlier example, sodomy is a crime in some states. I hope you wouldn't just exclude a homosexual because they are breaking the law, breaking the law. I have yet to hire someone who DOESN'T smoke pot. Luckily I pay them enough to keep them from stealing my stuff to support their pot use ....
I haven't been reading the thread except for this sentence that popped out, but hardcore drug addicts are much more likely to steal than poor people, imo. But the threads about weed. If you're dumb enough to become dependent on coke, then you probably have self control issues anyway.
Screw that. If I put that much time, effort and resources into a business and I don't want drug users shouldering repsonsibilities of my business I think that is a perfect right. It's great if they can work well and use drugs. But that's the *risk*. And a business has a right to decide whether they want to take that risk or not. If it were my business - my work and effort - I sure as hell wouldn't want to take it.
I understand You also against that law that requires the pedophiles to contact their neighbors and let them know they pedofiles [actually i think it is all Sex Offenders] just asking Privacy is a good thing I love how we all have exceptions If you chose this job .. you choose less privacy [i.e. sugeoon, taxi driver, etc] Rocket River
