There actually are not that many testing methods that are good at testing for amphetamine use that are feesable for company drug testing. I'll try to dig up some of my old information. We use to use hair tests, mouth swabs, and urine tests. Mouth swabs are a joke.........
no, i'm not talk about the collection method...i'm talking about the analysis portion of the testing. immunoassay is not good at amphetamine recognition...but, it's cheap, so most organizations opt for that route...cgms is good but it's a little more expensive...probably 35 per employee vs. 10 per employee...like i said, you have to figure out your problem and you have to solve it...you don't solve a problem by using inadequate testing means...in the sample collection or the analysis phase of testing. you don't need to go information hunting.
Absolutely yes on the proactive staff. If there's reason to believe that someone is impaired at work, then by all means test them. It's random testing and across the board testing that I'm opposed to. I'm 100% against oil spills and avoidable loss of life, but I don't think there's a causal relationship between a guy getting high last week and an accident this week. Someone who only got two hours of sleep, or is hungover or depressed or otherwise distracted is much more dangerous, and there's no test for any of that. Drug tests are no substitute for adequate supervision.
drug testing is not a substitute for adequate supervisor training, but, by statistical analysis, those people that are users, in general (your use at home individual), costs a company more in the realm of insurance, workers' compensation premiums, productivity (think absenteeism, tardiness), and then the indirect cost of having someone perform a job that they are not exactly trained to do because of absenteeism or injury. if an organization is trying to get the best possible employee to work in their buildings then they could and should use drug testing as one of those tools. but, the oversight doesn't stop there. think about the person that doesn't start working until 10, takes a 2 hour lunch, and leaves early, repeatedly. that's another discussion. by and large, drug testing will weed out far more bad employees then it will stop good employees from working. i am aware that there are users out there who are good workers...is pot a huge issue with this and that in the workplace...probably not...but, that, again, is a different discussion.
CGMS....??? Continuing Glucose Monitoring System? If that's what you're talking about, it's for diabetes monitoring, not illicit drug testing..............Tell me that you think a persons occasional marijuana use is the cause of a retarded guy not properly locking or tagging out a piece of equipment and an entire off-shore oil rig is lost.............My point was that most companies do not use efficiant method of drug testing to test whether the person is actually intoxicated. A urine test can show up 1 time marijuana use for 2 weeks after use.........Hair test for 90 days after.........A person that smokes meth is clean on a urine analysis after at most 2 or 3 days..........LSD doesn't even show up in a urinalisis in most cases.................Is that an efficiant technique that most employers use? I never said that drug testing is retarded, just not efficiant.
gcms...gas chromatography/mass spectometry...looks like i got that acronym wrong in typing. someone smoking pot is probably not an issue. but, have you seen the commercials...you know, where the guy rapes the girl cause he's high? that's a joke, by the way. someone comes to work high or gets high at lunch and comes back and has to lock-out/tag-out a process...say the fire suppression system in the area...the process isn't done correctly...a fire occurs...the system is down...someone dies...what are you going to point to in order to determine what was the but-for cause of the incident? the fact that guy smoked some crank at lunch to keep up with the overtime he's working, or something else? let's not make this a marijuana discussion. that's such a moot point that it's not even worth getting into. marijuana is not bad. but, you know, just as well as everyone else, that alcohol and illicit drug use on the job is a problem.
if the concern is performance/productivity and saftey what about the person who is a bad relationship...? I've seen people blow off work and not show up due to a stressful life at home....you mention not wanting to meddle in private lives...
my point, if you smoke a bit, come to work the next day, do a good job without problem...what is the issue...? as I've stated earlier, I'd be willing to bet more drunks have trouble at work than smokers do....as well as those in bad relationships....
bottom line: if you show up on time, do a good job, you should do what you want when you are not working...
well, we were talking about drug testing, but if you want to get into other issues, not related to drug testing, then we can talk about those.
your last statement says it all. if you show up on time, do your job, and do it safely, then you will have no problems. this is why management has to focus on performance. there are a myriad of factors that can influence a worker's performance: stressful home life, legal issues, financial issues, a change in duties, being upset that he/she was passed over for a promotion, being promoted and not sure of your duties, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, improper/inadequate training, etc. these are all factors that can be taken into consideration and corrected if you havea proactive and caring management/ownership. one of the tools in management's toolbox is an effective, comprehensive employee assistance program. you can't just have an eap. you have to have one that the employees know about, trust, use, and advertise.
well, we were talking about drug testing, but if you want to get into other issues, not related to drug testing, then we can talk about those.
your last statement says it all. if you show up on time, do your job, and do it safely, then you will have no problems. this is why management has to focus on performance. there are a myriad of factors that can influence a worker's performance: stressful home life, legal issues, financial issues, a change in duties, being upset that he/she was passed over for a promotion, being promoted and not sure of your duties, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, improper/inadequate training, etc. these are all factors that can be taken into consideration and corrected if you havea proactive and caring management/ownership. one of the tools in management's toolbox is an effective, comprehensive employee assistance program. you can't just have an eap. you have to have one that the employees know about, trust, use, and advertise.
I agree with pretty much everything you've stated...however (:)) I feel random drug tests are invasion of privacy...
if somebody shows up stoned or drunk - bu-bye...
if they blow off work - later gator...
if they don't do there job in a safe manner - hasta lavesta (sp) baby...
if they smoke a smoke at a PJ show three weeks ago...so what...
I think we are on the same page, we just happen to disagree on the drug testing thing...
organizations spend a lot of money training employees. so, they have to do what they can to predict which employees will be a good fit. so, i guess i am talking more about initial testing than i am random testing post-hire. if people are performing then i see no reason to test them but if their performance is decling then something has to be going on and management should try to pinpoint what that is, whether it's a personal problem (which a myriad have been listed above), or a problem with training.
but, there are situations where random testing is a must. any industry where people are involved in using heavy equipment or driving over the roads, those people have to be tested. you cannot wait until an inicident occurs to address the issue.
organizations spend a lot of money training employees. so, they have to do what they can to predict which employees will be a good fit. so, i guess i am talking more about initial testing than i am random testing post-hire. if people are performing then i see no reason to test them but if their performance is decling then something has to be going on and management should try to pinpoint what that is, whether its a personal problem (which a myriad have been listed above), or a problem with training.
but, there are situations where random testing is a must. any industry where people are involved in using heavy equipment or driving over the roads, those people have to be tested. you cannot wait until an inicident occurs to address the issue.
i like how not one of the pro-drug test people are willing to touch this response. what about it folks? should you have to blow into a breathalyzer on your way into work?
i like how not one of the pro-drug test people are willing to touch this response. what about it folks? should you have to blow into a breathalyzer on your way into work?
dude, read the thread...i have mentioned alcohol in a couple of responses, and i think it is far bigger a problem than marijuana, and some other drugs because of its wide acceptance and use.
dude, read the thread...i have mentioned alcohol in a couple of responses, and i think it is far bigger a problem than marijuana, and some other drugs because of its wide acceptance and use.
i wasn't wnting it mentioned in passing or comparatively. im saying if you support companies randomly testing their employees, do you think it would also be acceptable to demand that employees blow into a breathalyzer to, say, start their computer? is that ok?
i wasn't wnting it mentioned in passing or comparatively. im saying if you support companies randomly testing their employees, do you think it would also be acceptable to demand that employees blow into a breathalyzer to, say, start their computer? is that ok?
I wouldn't have a problem with this. Especially if the legality of alcohol was taken into account so a zero alcohol policy would not be the norm.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
gcms...gas chromatography/mass spectometry...looks like i got that acronym wrong in typing. someone smoking pot is probably not an issue. but, have you seen the commercials...you know, where the guy rapes the girl cause he's high? that's a joke, by the way. someone comes to work high or gets high at lunch and comes back and has to lock-out/tag-out a process...say the fire suppression system in the area...the process isn't done correctly...a fire occurs...the system is down...someone dies...what are you going to point to in order to determine what was the but-for cause of the incident? the fact that guy smoked some crank at lunch to keep up with the overtime he's working, or something else? let's not make this a marijuana discussion. that's such a moot point that it's not even worth getting into. marijuana is not bad. but, you know, just as well as everyone else, that alcohol and illicit drug use on the job is a problem.
I'm not even against testing for drugs if there has been an incident or if there is reason to believe someone is using on the job. But in a random test? It's just not logical. And marijuana is an issue in this debate. Many people get fired every year because their randoms come up positive for THC.............even if they smoked it a week prior to the test. Even Gc/Ms methods only show the presence of the drug in the system.............and are completely bound by the collection technique, seeing as how different drugs are metabolized differently. Gc/Ms doesn't show usage habits either....... I'm not against firing someone who shows up to work high or drunk, but am against firing them for getting high or drunk when they are not on the job. One exception for that, in my opinion, is meth use. I do not consider it a recreational drug what so ever. From my experience and how much I have worked with it, if meth is in the system............goodbye. Going to have a hard time swaying my opinion on that one.
i wasn't wnting it mentioned in passing or comparatively. im saying if you support companies randomly testing their employees, do you think it would also be acceptable to demand that employees blow into a breathalyzer to, say, start their computer? is that ok?
okay...is there a company that requires you to submit a piss test for marijuana, cocaine, opiates, or amphetamines before you start work for the day? no. do organizations test for everything except alcohol whenever an incident occurs? no. random testing and pre-hire testing involves alcohol and i am for pre-hire testing and testing for cause...yes, test for alcohol. if performance dwindles and it's because of alcohol then you, as management, have the duty to get them help, or fire them. i thought it was clear that i was for alcohol testing. sorry, that it was not.
but, realize that the ADA recognizes a current alcohol abuser/drug abuser, or someone in recovery for such things, as a person will a disability, thus falling under the protections of the ADA.
Thankfully, working in IT has kept me from ever having to take a drug test for my current employer.
I agree that if you will be driving company vehicle or operating company machinery, then drug test are acceptable. But if you are at a computer all day...or selling something, then no, it is a complete invasion of privacy.
However, if you need help passing a drug test, I invested in one of these several years ago and it is fool proof: http://www.urinator.com
I'm not even against testing for drugs if there has been an incident or if there is reason to believe someone is using on the job. But in a random test? It's just not logical. And marijuana is an issue in this debate. Many people get fired every year because their randoms come up positive for THC.............even if they smoked it a week prior to the test. Even Gc/Ms methods only show the presence of the drug in the system.............and are completely bound by the collection technique, seeing as how different drugs are metabolized differently. Gc/Ms doesn't show usage habits either....... I'm not against firing someone who shows up to work high or drunk, but am against firing them for getting high or drunk when they are not on the job. One exception for that, in my opinion, is meth use. I do not consider it a recreational drug what so ever. From my experience and how much I have worked with it, if meth is in the system............goodbye. Going to have a hard time swaying my opinion on that one.
are you saying that you worked high on meth? just wondering.
again, i think that i got off-track and was talking about pre-hire and for cause testing as opposed to random testing. by and large, i agree with you on random testing. the pitfalls are too great and non-problem employees are wrongly terminated for recreational marijuana use. but, i do agree with random testing as per the DOT. case in point: i worked with the DOH during summer during undergrad and there was a truck driver (which falls under DOT testing) and he was a drunk. he was a risk and a liability. random testing found him out and he will never drive for DOH again. he still has DOH employment, but none of it involves driving. he digs a lot of ditches, holds a lot of signs, and paints and push-mows a lot, but that's it.
testing for pot is discrimination because many; i mean many people have prescriptions for marajuana based medicines. even if you have an Rx; you still won't be hired. this is my problem with it. several pot pills are prescribed for many reasons. marinol; canabinex; and others are prescribed for everything from cancer teatment to appitite stimulants.
there's also a line between use and abuse. the test doesn't determine if a person is a casual user of stoned every waking minute.
i say stop the testing and judge by work performance. i know people who stop for 30 days prior to looking for a job. most are very good at what they do and are never tested or even questioned after hire.
if it's any consolation; i only hire pot smokers.
Thankfully, working in IT has kept me from ever having to take a drug test for my current employer.
I agree that if you will be driving company vehicle or operating company machinery, then drug test are acceptable. But if you are at a computer all day...or selling something, then no, it is a complete invasion of privacy.
However, if you need help passing a drug test, I invested in one of these several years ago and it is fool proof: http://www.urinator.com
you mention IT...what if you like to get high at work...and you get half as much work done as a coworker who doesn't use? is that okay? should you only be paid for half the work? or, should the organization have the right to test you and fire you based on your poor performance if you test positive for some substance, whether it be drugs or alcohol, if you refuse to get help and stop using to a degree that will not affect your job performance?
testing for pot is discrimination because many; i mean many people have prescriptions for marajuana based medicines. even if you have an Rx; you still won't be hired. this is my problem with it. several pot pills are prescribed for many reasons. marinol; canabinex; and others are prescribed for everything from cancer teatment to appitite stimulants.
there's also a line between use and abuse. the test doesn't determine if a person is a casual user of stoned every waking minute.
i say stop the testing and judge by work performance. i know people who stop for 30 days prior to looking for a job. most are very good at what they do and are never tested or even questioned after hire.
if it's any consolation; i only hire pot smokers.
that is an outright falsification! if you have a prescription then you need to disclose that from the beginning. judging based on performance is the only way to do anything. if performance is fine then there is no reason to suspect a problem. but, pre-hire testing...your test comes back positive for something...why take a chance?
you mention IT...what if you like to get high at work...and you get half as much work done as a coworker who doesn't use? is that okay? should you only be paid for half the work? or, should the organization have the right to test you and fire you based on your poor performance if you test positive for some substance, whether it be drugs or alcohol, if you refuse to get help and stop using to a degree that will not affect your job performance?
The employer should (and does) have every right to terminate him for poor performance. The reason for the poor performance is irrelevant. He might be baked out of his mind, or he might be too busy playing computer games to do any work, or he might just be lazy.
Now, if they want to be nice about it, they can ask if he's having personal issues or addictions that they can help with and offer those services ... personally, I think that would be the smart way to handle it. But they'd also be within their rights to simply tell him to get lost.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
The employer should (and does) have every right to terminate him for poor performance. The reason for the poor performance is irrelevant. He might be baked out of his mind, or he might be too busy playing computer games to do any work, or he might just be lazy.
Now, if they want to be nice about it, they can ask if he's having personal issues or addictions that they can help with and offer those services ... personally, I think that would be the smart way to handle it. But they'd also be within their rights to simply tell him to get lost.
hey, i'm all for it. i'm all for helping an emoloyee with issues they may have whatever they are. but, to pretend that an employer should sit idly by while performance falls (here, we are assuming drug or alcohol use causes the decline) is absurd. like i said before: the employee is asking the employer to keep them employed...
that is an outright falsification! if you have a prescription then you need to disclose that from the beginning. judging based on performance is the only way to do anything. if performance is fine then there is no reason to suspect a problem. but, pre-hire testing...your test comes back positive for something...why take a chance?
disclose or not; you won't get hired. i know people who have tried that. i'm a card carrying medicinal user and the Rx means nothing until federal law changes.
disclose or not; you won't get hired. i know people who have tried that. i'm a card carrying medicinal user and the Rx means nothing until federal law changes.
then you, my friend, need to file suit for discrimination...management that would not hire someone taking a prescription medication that comes up positive for canniboid is a management that is so far behind in every area that i wouldn't want to work for them. but, i can understand your frustration.
almost 20 years experience driving semis....and i dont have 1 moving violation......
*toots his own horn*
hehehehehehehehehehehehehe.................
I think you have a really cool job...you mentioned not glamorous..well glamorous sucks many times......I've thought many times of dropping this white colar bs and becoming a trucker.
then you, my friend, need to file suit for discrimination...
i'm self employed myself. semi retired but still overseeing my companies. as for the others; the supreme courts decision that even if states legalize for medicinal use; federal law takes precidence and you are still an illegal drug user. thus; the "clean hands rule" applies.
i'm self employed myself. semi retired but still overseeing my companies. as for the others; the supreme courts decision that even if states legalize for medicinal use; federal law takes precidence and you are still an illegal drug user. thus; the "clean hands rule" applies.
and, that's retarded...federal law precedence or not...management can decide to hire you regardless...but, question, do you suffer the same type of effects from taking the medcation as you would if you smoked marijuana? you know the effects, shooting your friend with a loaded gun, raping your friend's sister...
and, that's retarded...federal law precedence or not...management can decide to hire you regardless...but, question, do you suffer the same type of effects from taking the medcation as you would if you smoked marijuana? you know the effects, shooting your friend with a loaded gun, raping your friend's sister...
i do smoke. and have never committed any other crime. not even a traffic ticket in 34 years of driving. i'm not sure what effects you're talking about.
hey, i'm all for it. i'm all for helping an emoloyee with issues they may have whatever they are. but, to pretend that an employer should sit idly by while performance falls (here, we are assuming drug or alcohol use causes the decline) is absurd. like i said before: the employee is asking the employer to keep them employed...
I wouldn't expect an employer to sit idly by. If performance falls, they can let you go, or they can offer to help you. I have no problem at all with drug testing for cause ... that is, an employer saying "Look, you're not doing your job, if you want to stay here you're going to have to do this, this and this," with one of those things being a drug test. In that case, I think the employer is being generous. Many would just kick your ass out the door without a second thought.
I really don't think we disagree, or at least not much. What I'm opposed to is across the board testing, and random drug tests ... treating your entire workforce as though they were criminals on probation.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I wouldn't expect an employer to sit idly by. If performance falls, they can let you go, or they can offer to help you. I have no problem at all with drug testing for cause ... that is, an employer saying "Look, you're not doing your job, if you want to stay here you're going to have to do this, this and this," with one of those things being a drug test. In that case, I think the employer is being generous. Many would just kick your ass out the door without a second thought.
I really don't think we disagree, or at least not much. What I'm opposed to is across the board testing, and random drug tests ... treating your entire workforce as though they were criminals on probation.
we don't disagree. well, maybe, we do on pre-hire testing...but, that situation is just predicting...and, possibly protecting yourself against a bad hire...
if someone here says that people should not be drug tested pre-hire because it's not fair then i say we should do away with all qualifications and just hire joe shmoe (if your name is joe shmoe then i'm sorry for possibly offending you, and this is, in no way, meant to offend cavemen, who have done so much for us as a people).
i do smoke. and have never committed any other crime. not even a traffic ticket in 34 years of driving. i'm not sure what effects you're talking about.
well, aside from violating the marijuana law, you're doing better than i am. i have a terrible traffic citation record.
hell yes, its invasion of privacy, its one thing if you go to work stoned on a regular basis, but if you just like to smoke a joint on weekends, I don't see any harm. I have lost alot of cool friends at my last job because they were tested on the spot, and thats just wrong. What about all the alcoholics that go to work drunk or hungover?
Comments
no, i'm not talk about the collection method...i'm talking about the analysis portion of the testing. immunoassay is not good at amphetamine recognition...but, it's cheap, so most organizations opt for that route...cgms is good but it's a little more expensive...probably 35 per employee vs. 10 per employee...like i said, you have to figure out your problem and you have to solve it...you don't solve a problem by using inadequate testing means...in the sample collection or the analysis phase of testing. you don't need to go information hunting.
from my window to yours
drug testing is not a substitute for adequate supervisor training, but, by statistical analysis, those people that are users, in general (your use at home individual), costs a company more in the realm of insurance, workers' compensation premiums, productivity (think absenteeism, tardiness), and then the indirect cost of having someone perform a job that they are not exactly trained to do because of absenteeism or injury. if an organization is trying to get the best possible employee to work in their buildings then they could and should use drug testing as one of those tools. but, the oversight doesn't stop there. think about the person that doesn't start working until 10, takes a 2 hour lunch, and leaves early, repeatedly. that's another discussion. by and large, drug testing will weed out far more bad employees then it will stop good employees from working. i am aware that there are users out there who are good workers...is pot a huge issue with this and that in the workplace...probably not...but, that, again, is a different discussion.
from my window to yours
gcms...gas chromatography/mass spectometry...looks like i got that acronym wrong in typing. someone smoking pot is probably not an issue. but, have you seen the commercials...you know, where the guy rapes the girl cause he's high? that's a joke, by the way. someone comes to work high or gets high at lunch and comes back and has to lock-out/tag-out a process...say the fire suppression system in the area...the process isn't done correctly...a fire occurs...the system is down...someone dies...what are you going to point to in order to determine what was the but-for cause of the incident? the fact that guy smoked some crank at lunch to keep up with the overtime he's working, or something else? let's not make this a marijuana discussion. that's such a moot point that it's not even worth getting into. marijuana is not bad. but, you know, just as well as everyone else, that alcohol and illicit drug use on the job is a problem.
from my window to yours
well, we were talking about drug testing, but if you want to get into other issues, not related to drug testing, then we can talk about those.
your last statement says it all. if you show up on time, do your job, and do it safely, then you will have no problems. this is why management has to focus on performance. there are a myriad of factors that can influence a worker's performance: stressful home life, legal issues, financial issues, a change in duties, being upset that he/she was passed over for a promotion, being promoted and not sure of your duties, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, improper/inadequate training, etc. these are all factors that can be taken into consideration and corrected if you havea proactive and caring management/ownership. one of the tools in management's toolbox is an effective, comprehensive employee assistance program. you can't just have an eap. you have to have one that the employees know about, trust, use, and advertise.
from my window to yours
I agree with pretty much everything you've stated...however (:)) I feel random drug tests are invasion of privacy...
if somebody shows up stoned or drunk - bu-bye...
if they blow off work - later gator...
if they don't do there job in a safe manner - hasta lavesta (sp) baby...
if they smoke a smoke at a PJ show three weeks ago...so what...
I think we are on the same page, we just happen to disagree on the drug testing thing...
but, there are situations where random testing is a must. any industry where people are involved in using heavy equipment or driving over the roads, those people have to be tested. you cannot wait until an inicident occurs to address the issue.
from my window to yours
I see your point...
i like how not one of the pro-drug test people are willing to touch this response. what about it folks? should you have to blow into a breathalyzer on your way into work?
dude, read the thread...i have mentioned alcohol in a couple of responses, and i think it is far bigger a problem than marijuana, and some other drugs because of its wide acceptance and use.
from my window to yours
i wasn't wnting it mentioned in passing or comparatively. im saying if you support companies randomly testing their employees, do you think it would also be acceptable to demand that employees blow into a breathalyzer to, say, start their computer? is that ok?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
okay...is there a company that requires you to submit a piss test for marijuana, cocaine, opiates, or amphetamines before you start work for the day? no. do organizations test for everything except alcohol whenever an incident occurs? no. random testing and pre-hire testing involves alcohol and i am for pre-hire testing and testing for cause...yes, test for alcohol. if performance dwindles and it's because of alcohol then you, as management, have the duty to get them help, or fire them. i thought it was clear that i was for alcohol testing. sorry, that it was not.
but, realize that the ADA recognizes a current alcohol abuser/drug abuser, or someone in recovery for such things, as a person will a disability, thus falling under the protections of the ADA.
from my window to yours
I agree that if you will be driving company vehicle or operating company machinery, then drug test are acceptable. But if you are at a computer all day...or selling something, then no, it is a complete invasion of privacy.
However, if you need help passing a drug test, I invested in one of these several years ago and it is fool proof: http://www.urinator.com
are you saying that you worked high on meth? just wondering.
again, i think that i got off-track and was talking about pre-hire and for cause testing as opposed to random testing. by and large, i agree with you on random testing. the pitfalls are too great and non-problem employees are wrongly terminated for recreational marijuana use. but, i do agree with random testing as per the DOT. case in point: i worked with the DOH during summer during undergrad and there was a truck driver (which falls under DOT testing) and he was a drunk. he was a risk and a liability. random testing found him out and he will never drive for DOH again. he still has DOH employment, but none of it involves driving. he digs a lot of ditches, holds a lot of signs, and paints and push-mows a lot, but that's it.
from my window to yours
there's also a line between use and abuse. the test doesn't determine if a person is a casual user of stoned every waking minute.
i say stop the testing and judge by work performance. i know people who stop for 30 days prior to looking for a job. most are very good at what they do and are never tested or even questioned after hire.
if it's any consolation; i only hire pot smokers.
you mention IT...what if you like to get high at work...and you get half as much work done as a coworker who doesn't use? is that okay? should you only be paid for half the work? or, should the organization have the right to test you and fire you based on your poor performance if you test positive for some substance, whether it be drugs or alcohol, if you refuse to get help and stop using to a degree that will not affect your job performance?
from my window to yours
that is an outright falsification! if you have a prescription then you need to disclose that from the beginning. judging based on performance is the only way to do anything. if performance is fine then there is no reason to suspect a problem. but, pre-hire testing...your test comes back positive for something...why take a chance?
from my window to yours
Now, if they want to be nice about it, they can ask if he's having personal issues or addictions that they can help with and offer those services ... personally, I think that would be the smart way to handle it. But they'd also be within their rights to simply tell him to get lost.
hey, i'm all for it. i'm all for helping an emoloyee with issues they may have whatever they are. but, to pretend that an employer should sit idly by while performance falls (here, we are assuming drug or alcohol use causes the decline) is absurd. like i said before: the employee is asking the employer to keep them employed...
from my window to yours
disclose or not; you won't get hired. i know people who have tried that. i'm a card carrying medicinal user and the Rx means nothing until federal law changes.
then you, my friend, need to file suit for discrimination...management that would not hire someone taking a prescription medication that comes up positive for canniboid is a management that is so far behind in every area that i wouldn't want to work for them. but, i can understand your frustration.
from my window to yours
I think you have a really cool job...you mentioned not glamorous..well glamorous sucks many times......I've thought many times of dropping this white colar bs and becoming a trucker.
i'm self employed myself. semi retired but still overseeing my companies. as for the others; the supreme courts decision that even if states legalize for medicinal use; federal law takes precidence and you are still an illegal drug user. thus; the "clean hands rule" applies.
and, that's retarded...federal law precedence or not...management can decide to hire you regardless...but, question, do you suffer the same type of effects from taking the medcation as you would if you smoked marijuana? you know the effects, shooting your friend with a loaded gun, raping your friend's sister...
from my window to yours
i do smoke. and have never committed any other crime. not even a traffic ticket in 34 years of driving. i'm not sure what effects you're talking about.
I really don't think we disagree, or at least not much. What I'm opposed to is across the board testing, and random drug tests ... treating your entire workforce as though they were criminals on probation.
we don't disagree. well, maybe, we do on pre-hire testing...but, that situation is just predicting...and, possibly protecting yourself against a bad hire...
if someone here says that people should not be drug tested pre-hire because it's not fair then i say we should do away with all qualifications and just hire joe shmoe (if your name is joe shmoe then i'm sorry for possibly offending you, and this is, in no way, meant to offend cavemen, who have done so much for us as a people).
from my window to yours
well, aside from violating the marijuana law, you're doing better than i am. i have a terrible traffic citation record.
from my window to yours