drug testing at the workplace......

1356

Comments

  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    Some good points but really it depends on the job. For some jobs it should be the expectation that you are not out breaking the law even on your own time. And like it or not that's what drug use currently is, breaking the law. Much like a company may fire a bank teller that is caught robbing liquor stores on the weekend.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    I was once told that most companies enforce random drug testing for insurance reasons and in order to protect themselves from lawsuits. I don't agree with the fact that all drugs are put into the same category, not to mention how ineficiant the techniques for drug testing are. I would support drug testing if they actually used methods that determined whether or not the person was high on the job............I think that it is a bad idea to have such a black and white policy where if you come up positive for THC=YOUR FIRED when there are many worse drugs out there.........I know a lot of workplaces that are becomming more tolerant of marijuana use though.........thanks to the dirth little METH HEADS, lol
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    I'm 100% in favor of a company's right to test if they choose.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • trappedinmyradio
    trappedinmyradio Posts: 1,189
    PJPOWER wrote:
    I was once told that most companies enforce random drug testing for insurance reasons and in order to protect themselves from lawsuits. I don't agree with the fact that all drugs are put into the same category, not to mention how ineficiant the techniques for drug testing are. I would support drug testing if they actually used methods that determined whether or not the person was high on the job............I think that it is a bad idea to have such a black and white policy where if you come up positive for THC=YOUR FIRED when there are many worse drugs out there.........I know a lot of workplaces that are becomming more tolerant of marijuana use though.........thanks to the dirth little METH HEADS, lol

    when you talk about inefficient techniques...if you use CGMS you are going to get the best results...not inefficient...tell me that you think drug testing is retarded when a guy doesn't properly lock-out/tag-out a piece of equipment and an entire off-shore oil rig is lost...and people die! do you want that person weeded out beforehand...or, at least, do you want a proactive staff that is trained to spot lackluster work and behavior patterns and get those people out of there and get them the help that they need?
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    trappedinmyradio wrote:
    when you talk about inefficient techniques...if you use CGMS you are going to get the best results...not inefficient...tell me that you think drug testing is retarded when a guy doesn't properly lock-out/tag-out a piece of equipment and an entire off-shore oil rig is lost...and people die! do you want that person weeded out beforehand...or, at least, do you want a proactive staff that is trained to spot lackluster work and behavior patterns and get those people out of there and get them the help that they need?
    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.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,972
    I have personally had to deal with injured employees that eneded up being fired because the drug test came back positive.

    A random drug testing policy (we didn;t have one) has the potential to get these dangerous people out of your factory before they hurt themselves or anyone else...so I'm all for it.

    You shouldn;t wait till something bad happens...you need to prevent it from happening. When other people's health, lives, jobs all depend on you not being drugged up at work, I have no problem with a drug testing policy.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    trappedinmyradio wrote:
    when you talk about inefficient techniques...if you use CGMS you are going to get the best results...not inefficient...tell me that you think drug testing is retarded when a guy doesn't properly lock-out/tag-out a piece of equipment and an entire off-shore oil rig is lost...and people die! do you want that person weeded out beforehand...or, at least, do you want a proactive staff that is trained to spot lackluster work and behavior patterns and get those people out of there and get them the help that they need?
    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.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    cincybearcat wrote:
    I have personally had to deal with injured employees that eneded up being fired because the drug test came back positive.

    A random drug testing policy (we didn;t have one) has the potential to get these dangerous people out of your factory before they hurt themselves or anyone else...so I'm all for it.

    You shouldn;t wait till something bad happens...you need to prevent it from happening. When other people's health, lives, jobs all depend on you not being drugged up at work, I have no problem with a drug testing policy.
    So you should start going to bars and seeing if employees are there and firing them because they are drunk........even though they don't have to work for the next 3 days? That's pretty much the same thing as firing someone for a failed drug test for smoking some pot on Friday night when they don't have to be to work until Monday (taken out that it is illegal).
    Edit: Not to mention that Alcohol is much more responsible for "dangerous people"
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,972
    PJPOWER wrote:
    So you should start going to bars and seeing if employees are there and firing them because they are drunk........even though they don't have to work for the next 3 days? That's pretty much the same thing as firing someone for a failed drug test for smoking some pot on Friday night when they don't have to be to work until Monday (taken out that it is illegal).


    Yep...if you take out legality. ;)

    I understand what you are saying...but people do get other people hurt because they were high on the job. That is unexceptable to me.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    I'm against it. I think it is invasion of one's privacy.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,972
    Collin wrote:
    I'm against it. I think it is invasion of one's privacy.


    And I think getting someone else's hand cut off is quite an invasion of their privacy. ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Yep...if you take out legality. ;)

    I understand what you are saying...but people do get other people hurt because they were high on the job. That is unexceptable to me.
    And I completely agree with you there. But drug testing isn't always an efficiant way to weed those out that are high on the job. Drug testing is not going to stop someone from comming to work after some shrooms (that don't show up on almost ANY standard drug test), or drunk, or the person that abuses his perscription of hydrocodone. If it is going to be enforced, the technology needs to be up to standards to make it actually worthwhile. As of now, I don't believe it is.
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    cincybearcat wrote:
    And I think getting someone else's hand cut off is quite an invasion of their privacy. ;)

    I agree but don't see the connection here.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    I actually use to work for a place (CPS) where we were constantly having to give people drug tests and they were not very reliable at all. Even when you were continually tested these people it was hit or miss depending on whether or not they were actually methed up at the time you tested them........Don't see how random testing can be efficiant what so ever. Seems like a waste of money to me............u know how much a GOOD drug screening actually costs?
  • trappedinmyradio
    trappedinmyradio Posts: 1,189
    Collin wrote:
    I'm against it. I think it is invasion of one's privacy.

    how?

    to respond to a thread above. pot out of work and drinking on a night when you have the next day off is not a problem and most workplaces are aware of that. what they are concerned about is drug abuse coming to work with employees and employees suffering the effects of drug abuse while on the job. the focus of a good organization is performance/productivity...and safety. i am not for meddling in private lives...what a worker does at home is their business, as long as that private stuff doesn't work its way into the work environment. a lot of organizations test during the annual physical and then they test for cause (when there is a workplace incident). what's the problem with that?
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • trappedinmyradio
    trappedinmyradio Posts: 1,189
    PJPOWER wrote:
    I actually use to work for a place (CPS) where we were constantly having to give people drug tests and they were not very reliable at all. Even when you were continually tested these people it was hit or miss depending on whether or not they were actually methed up at the time you tested them........Don't see how random testing can be efficiant what so ever. Seems like a waste of money to me............u know how much a GOOD drug screening actually costs?

    what kind of test did you use? there are testing methods which are very bad at testing for amphetamines...and then there are testing methods which are very good at testing for amphetamines...you have to tailor your testing to the type of problems you face at your workplace. you wouldn't use a test that is only good at detecting marijuana use if the problem at your workplace is opiates...
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • Collin
    Collin Posts: 4,931
    trappedinmyradio wrote:
    how?

    What I do in my free time is my business.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • trappedinmyradio
    trappedinmyradio Posts: 1,189
    Collin wrote:
    What I do in my free time is my business.

    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...
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    trappedinmyradio wrote:
    how?

    to respond to a thread above. pot out of work and drinking on a night when you have the next day off is not a problem and most workplaces are aware of that. what they are concerned about is drug abuse coming to work with employees and employees suffering the effects of drug abuse while on the job. the focus of a good organization is performance/productivity...and safety. i am not for meddling in private lives...what a worker does at home is their business, as long as that private stuff doesn't work its way into the work environment. a lot of organizations test during the annual physical and then they test for cause (when there is a workplace incident). what's the problem with that?

    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...
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    trappedinmyradio wrote:
    what kind of test did you use? there are testing methods which are very bad at testing for amphetamines...and then there are testing methods which are very good at testing for amphetamines...you have to tailor your testing to the type of problems you face at your workplace. you wouldn't use a test that is only good at detecting marijuana use if the problem at your workplace is opiates...
    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.........

Categories