How do you feel about corperate drug testing? Im against it, although I do not use any type of drugs. I feel if you work with any type of machinery or do work that would injur you and/or someone else, then definately (random/initial) testing is needed. But for office work, I don't think a paper cut caused from a little dope smoking is a real concern. My biggest concern is privacy. From what I've heard, all medical transactions are recorded by the government. So every time you take a piss test, or any other medical treatment, the government can track that. Sure, you may think its no big deal that the govt. knows you are drug free, but im sure they automatically test for anything and everything, not just drug testing. And other than that, the company has no business knowing what you do in your private life, as long its not effecting your job performance. ------------------ ...out with the old, in with the new...
I was a little bugged out that I had to be fingerprinted for my job. I mean how am I going to get away with any fantastic crimes now? Actually, I have a tendency to think corporate drug testing is okay. I mean, yeah, a little paper cut is no big deal, but if everyone's smoking a doobie during lunch and then getting paper cuts it's kind of a problem. If you want to do drugs in your free time then find a company that doesn't test. It's a trade off and it's not like you don't have options. ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
I don't see any problem with it. If a company wants to ensure that is doesn't have any cokeheads amongst them, that's their perogative. ------------------ When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of yourself and umption. visit www.swirve.com
I agree 100% with the Ghost, who said... "the company has no business knowing what you do in your private life, as long its not effecting your job performance" Bingo. Unless you work a job with heavy machinery, or one where other people's safety is your responsibility, then the company has no business drug testing you. ------------------ I am the b*stard son of LHutz. Huh? Right!
I have to agree with Space Ghost as well. This is a subject that has bothered me for a long time. For jobs in which a lapse in concentration could result in harm to the employee or others, it is very important that the employee be clean of mind-altering substances. Additionally, if an employee's performance on the job is being adversely affected by some outside influence, there is justification for a company to determine and correct the problem. However, testing every employee indescriminately, regardless of the risk involved in their position, reeks of a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality. That's not what this country is about and I'm afraid of the precedent it sets regarding our freedom and right to privacy. What's next? Random AIDS testing? ------------------
Drugs are illegal. If it is ok for a company to look at your criminal record, then why not allow them to look into other types of illegal activity? I cannot fault any company for testing its employees. I would not want a drug addict, or even a casual drug user working for me, regardless of what type of work it is. Put yourself in their shoes. ------------------ There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." [This message has been edited by HOOP-T (edited October 30, 2000).]
So, y'all have a problem with the various professional sports leagues testing for drugs? ------------------ When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of yourself and umption. visit www.swirve.com
I agree that drug testing is invasive, but I think you ultimately have a choice in the situation. If you don't want to be tested, you can quit. Many companies perform credit checks on their employees, and to me that is even more invasive than drug testing because you're looking at patterns in someone's life rather than trace results from a weekend of partying. ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
Why? I mean, what exactly is the reason you would not want this person working for you (assuming they are otherwise capable of doing the job)? You are absolutely correct, sir. If that does happen, THEN the employer has a beef. ------------------
Drugs can affect other things besides merely job performance. For instance, if you've got an employee doing cocaine, he/she might resort to theft to pay for their habit. Also, negative publicity may result from drug use (VP of X corporation convicted for mar1juana possession). ------------------
By the time an employer realizes that an employee has a drug abuse problem, that employee has already cost the company money in terms of mistakes, lower productivity and possible absences from work. Then, once the drug problem is discovered, the company will probably be liable for getting that person into rehab and giving them a second chance. If a casual cocaine user has a heart attack from some bad drugs, that user is going to get medical treatment that is basically subsidized by his/her employer in the form of insurance. There's more involved than an individual's right to privacy. ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
HOOP-T, do you drink? Beer or coffee? Both drugs. There's really only two real casual drug users, the social drinker and those who partake in mar1juana. ------------------ When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of yourself and umption. visit www.swirve.com
My only issue is that drug use is something that can be tracked even when the person isn't stoned. Drugs remain in the system for as long as 72 hours depending on the substance. If someone is high at work, that is one thing. But, if you test someone who had a joint on a Sunday afternoon but came to work straight as an arrow, they could still be fired. If they are going to test for drugs, they must be allowed to also test for alcohol. What happens if you get busted for drinking beer during the football game on Sunday? And the "drugs are illegal and alcohol isn't" argument doesn't apply here. They aren't testing you so they can had the evidence over to police. They are testing you to make sure it doesn't impair your job performance. In that instance, you could commit a crime on the weekend and, as long as it doesn't effect how you perform on the job, it isn't really any of their business. I am not advocating crime or drug use. I am involved in neither. However, it seems a little weak to test someone for a drug they could've taken several days prior that may not have effected their job performance. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
In my past, people that admitted they casually used drugs were much better people all around than the ones that did not. They were much laid back, more willing to go the extra mile for you, did not cop out attitudes and give you crap for stupid stuff. So an answer to your question ... yes! GREAT RESPONSE! next we are going to be firing all the overweight people and anyone over 60 because they might have a heart attack! ------------------ ...out with the old, in with the new... [This message has been edited by Space Ghost (edited October 30, 2000).]
I don't think I would go as far to say that casual drug users are better people than those who don't do drugs. You do make a good point about overweight people though. ------------------ When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of yourself and umption. visit www.swirve.com
How can you jump from testing for drugs to firing overweight people? Non sequitir, does not follow. I was not saying that anyone should be fired for using their insurance, I was merely trying to point out that job performance may not be the only thing affected by drug use. And as long as we're pointing out fallacies, how many people would admit on a job application that they were casual drug users. ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
With mar1juana, it takes approximately 30 days to get out of your system, depending on your body fat percentage and how much you smoke. ------------------ I am the b*stard son of LHutz. Huh? Right!
I think it depends on the situation. If you are in a job which requires you to manage money, then a credit check could be (but not necessarliy should be) beneficial to the company. In college, I knew some people who ran up ridiculous amounts of debt. Most of them learned from their mistakes and are now very responsible financially as a result. As for drug testing, I think this also depends on the job. Like Space Ghost said, if your job involves the safety of others, then drug testing should be mandatory. In what way, however, I'm not sure. A person can be an alcoholic and can be even more dangerous due to the fact that alcohol is legal and might not appear in a conventional piss test. But if you like to smoke a joint after you get home from work, I fail to see how that is a problem. I've known plenty of stoners who were among the most responsible people I've ever known. Concerning the legality of drugs, I have a problem with anyone telling me what I can or cannot put into my own body. ------------------ Hey, I've got a new signature! 302
I would hope that employers' would see the difference between mary jane and cocaine. I also think that drugs can affect any job, not just those that involve operating heavy machinary. ------------------ When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of yourself and umption. visit www.swirve.com
