drug testing at the workplace......

onelongsong

trappedinmyradio wrote:

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.

trappedinmyradio

onelongsong wrote:

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.

callen

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

right on.....

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.

onelongsong

trappedinmyradio wrote:

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.

trappedinmyradio

onelongsong wrote:

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...

onelongsong

trappedinmyradio wrote:

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.

hippiemom

trappedinmyradio wrote:

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.

trappedinmyradio

hippiemom wrote:

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).

trappedinmyradio

onelongsong wrote:

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.

TheGossman

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?

FinsburyParkCarrots

I think there are certain kinds of work, where psychotropics could really aid productivity.

aNiMaL

trappedinmyradio wrote:

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?

I don't think anyone condones drug or alcohol use while on the clock.

If given a reason for suspicion, drug test away! Otherwise, if I give you no reason to think it, mind your own business. What I do on my own time is my business and my business only.

Collin

trappedinmyradio wrote:

sure, i said that - but, when it bleeds into the workplace it is no longer your business, but the business of your coworkers and the people who are employing you. disagree? i'm talking about drugs affecting your ability to perform your duties, or alter your perception of safety...

True, but if it doesn't bleed into the workplace you still can get fired, which is unfair if you ask me. If there were better tests, I'd be all for it, if they had a test to see wether you show up drunk or high at work I wouldn't have a problem with it because then you could actually cause harm, but wether or not I smoked a joint last week doesn't affect my work today.

trappedinmyradio

Collin wrote:

True, but if it doesn't bleed into the workplace you still can get fired, which is unfair if you ask me. If there were better tests, I'd be all for it, if they had a test to see wether you show up drunk or high at work I wouldn't have a problem with it because then you could actually cause harm, but wether or not I smoked a joint last week doesn't affect my work today.

and i agree...

Pearl Jam and toast

The government, companies, schools, whoever has no business doing that.

If a drug problem exists and becomes a problem it's not hard to pick it out and fire or suspend a guy for it. Sending little johnny who smokes weed occasionally out to try and get into college with "Drug offense" on his record isn't doing anything helpful for anybody.

trappedinmyradio

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

The government, companies, schools, whoever has no business doing that.

If a drug problem exists and becomes a problem it's not hard to pick it out and fire or suspend a guy for it. Sending little johnny who smokes weed occasionally out to try and get into college with "Drug offense" on his record isn't doing anything helpful for anybody.

yeah, it is hard to do that. it's called wrongful termination. unless you have a test result to confirm it you have no leg to stand on. schools drug test?

hippiemom

trappedinmyradio wrote:

yeah, it is hard to do that. it's called wrongful termination. unless you have a test result to confirm it you have no leg to stand on. schools drug test?

Most states are employment at will, you don't need a reason to fire someone.

trappedinmyradio

hippiemom wrote:

Most states are employment at will, you don't need a reason to fire someone.

i'm completely aware of that. if you fire someone for drug use and you do not have a positive test to back up the assertion then you're getting sued. you're going to get sued on a couple of theories of tort and under ADA.

hippiemom

trappedinmyradio wrote:

i'm completely aware of that. if you fire someone for drug use and you do not have a positive test to back up the assertion then you're getting sued. you're going to get sued on a couple of theories of tort and under ADA.

So don't fire them for drug use. Fire them for incompetence.

trappedinmyradio

hippiemom wrote:

So don't fire them for drug use. Fire them for incompetence.

now, you know as well as i do that that will not work. i am not for firing someone. i'm for getting them the help that they need.