Drug Testing BULLSHIT

[FirstLight]

I have always thought that Drug Testing is Unconstitutional. And yes, while it makes sense in heavy equipment operations, for admin. work, filing or answering phones...it is ridiculous to me.

So the guy who goes on a bender all weekend and whose blood or urine is clean by monday can do whatever...but if I smoke a joint it is in my body for a month and I am the one who gets penalized? bullshit!

I have recently re-connected with a temp agency I used to do work for about 10 years ago...and in their NEW! 13 page application and reference and background check, is a form about drug testing... saying that "some" places want their temps tested, and if you test positive, you will be INELIGIBLE. Not just for that particular job, but for ALL positions for 6 months!

Why can't I tell these employers that I refuse to submit to these tests?
Why don't I have the OPTION to refuse and sign a waiver or something?
where are MY rights?


oh, so sorry...I am just a Prole...I have none.

(...THIS is why I need to make my freelancing business work for ME, because this is straight up bullshit and I am NOT working for a fucking PRISON system...)

:rant:
we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

[virgogal]

1. Welcome to the "we know best" nanny state.

[dflprincess]

100. No - "Nanny" state sounds like they're doing something to protect us

- this is a control issue and making sure we know our place in the food chain.

[eppur_se_muova]

219. More like the "you will obey your father!" authoritarian control freak state. nt

[Echo In Light]

252. Obedient suckers buckle like belts, don't they?

[StarfarerBill]

240. This is capitalism shackling us with yet another degrading chain...

...while they snort coke, gobble "prescription" drugs by the fistful, and chase them down with expensive liquor.

[SammyWinstonJack]

302. +1

:thumbsup:

[DWilliamsamh]

257. Nanny "state?" I didn't see a "state" component here.

Both the employer and employee have right of refusal. Don't get me wrong - I think it makes no sense to hold employees responsible for their off hours actions as a condition of employment - but I fail to see anything even vaguely unconstitutional about it - especially if the policy was stated up front.

[liberation]

287. Well, it could be viewed as an intromission in privacy

Since the employer is inquiring and somewhat dictating what their employee can or can't do with his or her personal life even when not on the clock. To me that seems like walking a very tight rope of unconstitutionality.

We could make a similar defense for segregated businesses, right? I mean no body was "forcing" any black person to take the bus, or to enter the dinners which were for whites only. Yet I don't see anyone in the XXI century thinking that would be even remotely constitutional due to the clear aspect of discrimination.

My point is that, I don't believe the "rights" of private enterprise should be able to trump (or gain priority over) the social contract of the nation as described by our constitution.

[DWilliamsamh]

328. No it isn't the same as segregation....

Segregation is illegal (now). I am not saying I AGREE with the drug laws. I am just saying employers are entirely withing their rights to refuse to employ people engaged in illegal activity. Last time I checked, smoking pot, snorting coke, smoking crack etc etc etc are ILLEGAL.


If you don't like the law, you fight to change it and follow it until it does. If you chose to break the law (whether through sit ins in the legally segregated south, or through taking illegal drugs) you have to EXPECT to suffer legal and social including employment) consequences. If it is a matter of principle for you, principled stands are NOT guaranteed to be penalty free by the constitution. After all do you think none of the freedom riders lost their jobs?


Jesus. Why is that such a hard concept for people here to understand?

[DWilliamsamh]

329. P.S. There is no social contract that says you can take illegal drugs.

[Dorian Gray]

360. It could be viewed that way

or it could be viewed as the employer protecting themselves in case the employee made a drug induced mistake on the job.

I have never had to be drug tested for any of the jobs that I've held in my life. Which is strange.

[imdjh]

299. There is a state component in Florida because the drug testing is related to workers comp.

[conscious evolution]

368. That is what makes it unconstitutional

When the state mandates it it is no longer a private employers decision to test.

[liberation]

280. It is not "nanny state" since it is not mandated by the Federal government...

... the correct term would be welcome to the "neoplantation"

[FiveGoodMen]

2. It's always been the War On Freedom

And more than one low-down, worthless, devil's-cock-sucking piece of shit unrec'd! (You know who you are!)

[Systematic Chaos]

3. Who in the HELL un-rec'ed this thread??

I just brought it back to zero for you.

Today is my day of fun with debt collectors and insurance companies.

Yours is a day of drug testing bullshit.

What phase is the moon in? Anyone know? :P

Oh, and while we're talking drug testing, the company my wife and I both used to work for started implementing that while I was still there. It was completely random testing. I never got asked to give a urine sample but my wife did, twice. The first time was during the first couple days of the routine testing. The "technician" (female, thank god) in the bathroom insisted on being in the stall with my wife while she peed! My wife, spark plug that she can be, raised hell about it and nearly got that lab employee fired. The policies were changed about 5 milliseconds later to include that the techs could only be in the bathroom proper but not the stalls during the tests.

Shoulda sued the assholes. We could have used the money. :P

[intheflow]

8. The moon is two days past full.

http://kalender-365.de/lunar-calendar.php

[AnotherDreamWeaver]

45. What are you smoking? My calendar and the one you post say it is today.

[Chan790]

137. I did, for one.

I stand by my unrec and I'm willing to put my name on it.

[uppityperson]

149. Why did you? interested in your reason.

[pattmarty]

223. Well, who gives a shit about your "name". Put a reason behind it, dipshit.

[Chan790]

232. A reason:

I think drug testing employees is eminently reasonable and am sick of all the "Oh noes, they can't do that...it's so unfair (which is just whiny to be frank) or illegal (hint: It's been before both US circuit courts and SCOTUS enough times for me to simply be able to dismiss that argument with "Well, You're wrong.") that they want to make me take a drug test for this job." It's pretty much impossible at this point to be able to argue that drug testing is unconstitutional without talking out one's own ass. It's simply a dead issue...there are some who want to try to argue that it isn't but they're just beating this dead horse into ground equine.

If you don't want to take the drug test, don't apply for that job. It's...just...that...simple. Nobody is going to force you. In fact, they can't even administer you the friggin' test without you signing a release to allow them to. If you don't want to take the test, don't sign the release and take a pass on the potential employment. Or...stop smoking weed.

It's not hard...I knew at 22 that I was applying for a job that required me to take and pass a drug test so I stopped doing drugs. You too can be the sort of person who passes a drug screening test.

Quit being so goddamned whiny, it's unbecoming.

[StarfarerBill]

242. It is in fact unconstitutional (see the Fourth Amendment)...

...and it is also a fact that our right to a job trumps their legal privilege to hang a Damocles sword of testing over the job being offered.

I've been fortunate to not have had to take a drug test since boot camp, but with the way this economy is going I'll have to apply for a job one day that will require it...and I'll probably submit, though still I'm hoping I'll the courage to tell them where to stick that little cup.

Finally, quit being such an apologist for the bosses; it's demeaning.

[DWilliamsamh]

267. The fourth amendment (and the rest of the constitution) apply to ...

GOVERNMENT ACTIONS. A private employer can place restrictions against illegal activity (and it IS illegal to do schedule drugs without a prescription. And you are free not to work for that employer. It has been through the courts too many times to list.

If you choose to ignore that - then you have consequences, like being fired or not being hired in the first place. There is no such thing as a constitutional right to life with out consequences - good and bad.

[Prospero1]

272. the problem with your argument is this....

if an employer can make giving up your rights a condition of employment what's to prevent them from making demands such as:
- you can't post your opinions online or write letters to the editor that we don't approve
- you can't vote if you work for us
- you can't have an abortion if you work for us
- you can't be a member of x religion

Do you see where this leads? These bastards get away with it because of the war on some drug users.

[DWilliamsamh]

277. Re-read my post:

Try responding to what I actually wrote: And employer can make a condition of employment that their employees (prospective or current) not engage in ILLEGAL activities.

All your examples are of legal activities and of COURSE those things would be illegal for an employer to control or prohibit as a condition of employment.

And just to repeat a point that was made by another: the drug testing by an employer is only via consent. Don't want to consent? Don't. Taking a principled stand is not without consequence either. Just ask folks who spend time in jail expressing themselves in civil disobedience actions. If they can accept that that jail is a possible outcome of their principled actions - why shouldn't those who can't or won't be tested, accept that there are consequences for their principles?

[Prospero1]

347. have to concede the point....

but it's still a slippery slope:
- tax evasion is illegal so we want your tax returns
- child/spouse abuse is illegal so we're sending inspectors to your home to make sure kids/spouse are ok
- child porn is illegal so we want to inspect your home PCs

If you are doing your job and not breaking any laws AT WORK they should have to stay the hell out of your life outside the workplace.
How would a prospective employer react if I were to say "Many Companies commit tax and accounting fraud. I'd like to audit your books so I can make sure you're not a bunch of crooks". I don't think I could require a breach of corporate privacy.

[Gedankenaustausch]

354. I 100% agree totally

!If you are doing your job and not breaking any laws AT WORK they should have to stay the hell out of your life outside the workplace."-- I feel the exact same way. It sucks that the rights in this situation are with the business and not with the worker. I believe that you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to do outside the job place if it doesn't interfere with your work. It just sucks that workers have no legal protection whatsoever in this case.

[Gedankenaustausch]

326. there's one problem here

which is that the posting of opinions online is protected, (although some companies may take action against you for posting frowned upon comments if they were done during working hours by hiding under the 'you are supposed to be working, not posting.' Which if I were in the position, whether i liked the comment or not, they aren't supposed to be online writing opinions during work hours, voting is protected, having an abortion is protected, as well as freedom of religion. there is no freedom to do drugs. you have the choice to do it. but it's not a protected right per the laws.

[StarfarerBill]

343. Governments at all levels *and* employers are bound by the same laws

A search without reasonable cause (drug-testing) is unconstitutional; the onus is on the employer to follow law and end drug-testing, not on the potential employee to prove they are drug-free. Now if middle- and upper-middle-class people were willing to be routinely tested for high blood alcohol and prescription drug levels in their workplaces, you might have an argument...

And while we're on the subject: numerous antebellum courts ruled that African-Americans were not full citizens and therefore not protected by the Constitution; it took the Fourteenth Amendment to make their citizenship concrete. Therefore, it is quite likely that any and all courts ruling in favor of employer-instigated drug-testing are also wrong; let's hope it won't take another constitutional amendment to set things right.

[DWilliamsamh]

349. SCOTUS (before the conservative shift even) says you are wrong. (N/T)

[quiller4]

383. CourSeveral levels of court have already ruled on this. You may

not agree with their rulings but they are the law of the land. It is quite common for mid and upper management to be tested and more than a few brokers, accountants and attorneys have lost jobs for failed tests.

[DWilliamsamh]

268. Honest question based on this:

"Our right to a job...."

Let me ask you a question: Did you have a "right" to your job in the military? Why did that "right" not apply? Or are you of the opinion that only those who carried a gun for a living in the service "had" to submit? The fact is you made a choice then and you are making a choice now. And if you have to (because of the economy) make a different choice in the future. The bottom line is there is a choice to be made, and we all must make them. You said so your self. I would have thought your military training would have taught you that.

[StarfarerBill]

345. Of course we as human beings have a right to a job paying a living wage...

...as well as to health care, education, housing, recreation, etc. The United Nations has stipulated such in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the United States is a signatory. Only those in economic/political power in this country prevent these rights from being implemented.

As for military service: any capable person has a right to defend their country; that's a given. But no authority, public or otherwise, has a right to presuppose illicit drug-use and test on that presupposition; that includes the armed forces. I was 18 when I joined, and I'm 45 now; had I known then what I know now, I would never have joined, voluntarily or otherwise, unless this country was in immediate danger of being attacked and occupied, which it was not...that is what I learned from my enlistment.

[DWilliamsamh]

351. Well thanks for your service any way...sincerely.

But the laws that govern us are those that are promulgated under the US Constitution. And there is no right to employment, much less a right to employment with a company that follows principles that have been found consistent with our constitution by the SCOTUS, regardless of whether or not you agree with those policies. You seem to be making the argument that a company has no right to do what it can to insure that its employees are not itinerant law breakers. Would you be making the same arguments against a company's right not to hire those whom they can gather evidence that shows they enjoy robbing convenience stores on their free time? Sans convictions?

[davidpdx]

357. Right now there is a case in the Korean Constitutional Court

Dealing with drug testing of someone who wants to get a visa for teaching in Korea. They make getting a drug test and background check mandatory to get an E2 visa which is a condition of employment. Korea is a signatory of the US Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well.

Personally I believe that Korea does have the right to deny visas to someone who has does drugs. The case was heard before the HRC and they basically turned down they basically refused to rule on that part of the case because of the legal case before the Consitutional Court.

[Chan790]

279. I'm not an apologist for the bosses as I'm self-employed...

a freelancer. A writer of minutia. (Copy writing, grant writing, script doctoring, ad-copy, press releases, tech writing, short journalism.) The boss I demean myself to tends to share my opinions and knows I can't write well when he has a hangover or is stoned. How'd I get there? I sucked it up and peed in a cup to work as a shitty entry-level AA, learned the business and started my own shop after a lot of detours. Responsibility, it's a real blast. :eyes:

None-the-less, you're still wrong...the fourth amendment argument has been presented and rejected on more than one occasion. It's why I am now going to laugh and mock and ridicule you. It's the sort of bad argument put forth by a 3rd grader caught cheating on his spelling test for why he should be given an A+ which is subsequently picked-up and repeated by his classmates to no greater effect. A thousand shouting voices do not a truth make. There is no 4th amendment violation here no matter how many times you say it.

And you have no right to a job. None. Neither stated nor implied or inferred. You want a promise of a job, move to Cuba...they've got 0% unemployment...of course if they catch you smoking marijuana they'll just throw you into some festering rot-hole until you expire of some treatable malady.

[DWilliamsamh]

330. AMEN!! (n/t)

[DWilliamsamh]

263. +1 My thoughts exactly...there are trade-offs in this life.

If you don't like the consequences that go along with your casual use of drugs - then stop using drugs casually. It is cut and dried. The bitching about the system, or "the man," or "conservatives" keeping you down just sounds like someone who want to be able to have all the positives and none of the negatives. Life doesn't work that way.

Every door that opens closes a door, and vice versa. In this case you have a clearly foreseeable door to open and know darn well which door(s) will close. Free will isn't free of consequences. People who don't understand/accept that need to grow the f up.

[pattmarty]

224. Who gives a shit about your "name"? Put a fucking reason behind it.

[JNelson6563]

171. Some asshole, no doubt.

But I gave it a rec taking it to 107. :toast:

[FirstLight]

4. ...and if I refuse to SUBMIT...i am the one that is S.O.L

I want to tell them that I don't DO those tess because I think they are unconstitutional...but they will politely show me the door because PLENTY of folks are willing to bend over and give a sample of bodily fluids...

UGH
it used to piss me off as it strted to become 'vogue' for employers to do this a few years ago...but it is more and more of a way that employers are using this to KEEP people from even applying for jobs ...

I guess i need to look for some "green friendly" employers list somewhere..?

[Dreamer Tatum]

71. If it makes you feel better

I worked at two places that allowed weed (and whatever else looks like it, I guess) but disallowed anything else.

Oh, and the results of those tests are PHI, so no one else can use them against you.

[anigbrowl]

101. Offer to sue them for sexual harrassment. Say you're offended by their urine fetish.

That should confuse them. Or even better, consider taking the test and then say the test technician behaved inappropriately towards you...obviously this works better if you know you are going to get a clean test.

More fun ways to mess with drug warriors:

- other outrage; keep up with the pee fetish thing and ask them if you're expected to give them a piece of your underwear or something too. Make them prove it's a policy and not some creepy idea of the interviewer/supervisor

- ask about the lab's accreditation, and who certifies the reliability of thier testing

- know you're clean, the deliberately induce a false positive. Bonus points if you can do it with a prescription: http://www.ipassedmydrugtest.com/false_positives.asp

- demand to see your supervisor's test results, or better yet request they take the test with you; of course, you need to seem like an enthusiast about drug testing to pull this one off

- offer to perform the test right there in their office. Express your enthusiasm for 'whipping it out right now' if you feel you can get away with it

[ThomThom]

213. This is why we need a real socialist work place

As it is now there is no democracy in the work place, employer can be as totalitarian as they wish. If we had more worker owned places of employment, where workers had a real voice in operations this bullshit would end. The idea that a pot smoker is more impaired than someone that drinks heavily on their time off is ludicrous. People with hang-overs in the morning are not creative problem solvers they are dead weight. If we were to follow the German example and bring democracy to the work place many other problems like polluting the commons and sending jobs overseas would go away. Socializing the work place is a positive for democracy.

[Abq_Sarah]

337. Well, it does tend to thin the herd

Since my employees must remain drug free while in my employ, it helps if a recreational drug user doesn't waste my time submitting an application.

Anyone who doesn't want to take the test has a right to refuse. They don't have a right to force me to employ them.

[Dreamer Tatum]

5. You CAN tell them you won't submit. Just don't apply.

Why should you be able to dictate your personal terms of employment to a potential employer?

Not getting it.

[wroberts189]

11. Because what someone does on their own time off is no ones business.

And the test is so cheap they are making everyone take them more and more.

Not only that they can take a look at how healthy you are. Liver function down? Kidney function abnormal.....you are out.

Cannot raise those group premiums.

[CrispyQ]

16. I always wondered what else they tested.

I think it costs more to test more, but even so, what's to stop them? At the very least they probably test every female 50 & under for pregnancy.

I worked for a CFO once. When I was hired the company didn't drug test. During my employment there, they started drug testing. She said it was because they couldn't afford to have 'stoners' who weren't productive working for them. She would have shit a brick if she knew I smoked every night. She told me often I was the best admin she'd ever had. Anyway, I asked her about the smokers, who take several breaks a day & how different was that? She conceded my point, but of course, drug testing still went on.


on edit: Love your profile comment! :rofl:

[jmm]

66. Employers have been busted testing for stuff beside drug use-

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform_technology-and-liberty/privacy-america-workplace-drug-testing

The lab procedure is a second invasion of privacy. Urinalysis reveals not only the presence of illegal drugs, but also the existence of many other physical and medical conditions, including genetic predisposition to disease - or pregnancy. In 1988, the Washington, D.C. Police Department admitted it used urine samples collected for drug tests to screen female employees for pregnancy - without their knowledge or consent.

I have a friend who was on an HCG diet. She mentioned to me that during part of it she had to take a pregnancy test to prove that it left her system. Even if I agreed with drug testing, which I don't, drugs aren't the only thing that can show up as a false positive on these tests.

[wroberts189]

278. thx...nt

[DWilliamsamh]

281. Yes and that is an abuse...and I BET was punished with a settlement

But those abuses don't make refusing to employ active drug users (casual or addicts makes no diff) illegal, or testing to be sure, abusive. Again - if they go outside the tests CONSENTED to, they should be penalized BIG time - as a deterrent to future abuse by them and other organizations.

[wroberts189]

306. The problem with this argument is that there are jobs just raining down upon us.

Like a Monsoon.

Or we should all be models of perfection.


We are not. Face it.

[DWilliamsamh]

331. So then suck it up, and put your bong away. Drop the needle in the trash

And stop snorting coke (or whatever your illegal substance of choice). And get about the job of adults: being a responsible citizen who takes whatever job he/she can to get the bills paid as best they can (including starting your own business selling fruit by the freeway - since that is the only sure fire entrepreneurial endeavor open to people who are high all the time).

[wroberts189]

353. I am straight as an arrow and own two small biz's....

My wife has a cigarette once a day.

I take a shot of Vodka when dealing with bills.

I am lucky ..own a house ..somehow mange to pay bills.

I do not need a job... I work 14 hours a day sitting behind a computer.

I have no "dog in this fight". It is an invasion of privacy. One we all should defend.


Damn it ..defend your privacy!

[DWilliamsamh]

358. Read the rest of my posts on the matter.

I made it clear that I don't think generalized drug testing is a good or necessary thing. I also think the legislature should be lobbied to change the law.

My only point is that it isn't "unconstitutional" - especially since those tested have a choice. Don't consent and get on with finding a place that comports with their personal values. No amount of whining will change those facts until the law is changed.

[conscious evolution]

369. It is unconstitutional

One of the state mandated requirements for running a business is having workmans compensation insurance for employees.To get WC insurance you have to force employees to take drug tests.Because of that it becomes a state mandated test,therefore in violation of Fourth Amendment.

[DWilliamsamh]

372. Sorry SCOTUS says you are wrong. (N/T)

[conscious evolution]

373. Link to their decision please

[wroberts189]

370. You are correct ...we need better laws... but we do have a few...

As more and more employers do it soon it will become the norm... it is a slippery slope.. soon DNA risk assessments will be able to be made without you knowing. They will hire you to put a life policy on you if they think you will die soon. ..Or they will only hire the healthiest of us.

It is hard enough to get a job when you get old... after 40 your body has some wear and tear. After 50 you start to slow down. There are laws against age discrimination and more but but most find it hard to prove it.:

http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_practices.html


Discriminatory Practices

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:

* hiring and firing;
* compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
* transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
* job advertisements;
* recruitment;
* testing;
* use of company facilities;
* training and apprenticeship programs;
* fringe benefits;
* pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
* other terms and conditions of employment.

Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:

* harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age;
* retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices;
* employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities; and
* denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group.

Employers are required to post notices to all employees advising them of their rights under the laws EEOC enforces and their right to be free from retaliation. Such notices must be accessible, as needed, to persons with visual or other disabilities that affect reading.

Note: Many states and municipalities also have enacted protections against discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. For information, please contact the EEOC District Office nearest you.
Other Discriminatory Practices Under Federal EEO Laws
Title VII

Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.
National Origin Discrimination

* It is illegal to discriminate against an individual because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group.
* A rule requiring that employees speak only English on the job may violate Title VII unless an employer shows that the requirement is necessary for conducting business. If the employer believes such a rule is necessary, employees must be informed when English is required and the consequences for violating the rule.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 requires employers to assure that employees hired are legally authorized to work in the U.S. However, an employer who requests employment verification only for individuals of a particular national origin, or individuals who appear to be or sound foreign, may violate both Title VII and IRCA; verification must be obtained from all applicants and employees. Employers who impose citizenship requirements or give preferences to U.S. citizens in hiring or employment opportunities also may violate IRCA.

Additional information about IRCA may be obtained from the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices at 1-800-255-7688 (voice), 1-800-237-2515 (TTY for employees/applicants) or 1-800-362-2735 (TTY for employers) or at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc.

[DWilliamsamh]

374. I totally agree....

As we have gained the ability to screen for all kinds of things, including drug use, the law has not kept up with common decency and protections for what most people consider private information. Fight the power to make change absolutely.

All I was saying to others here is don't be pissed off if you engage in actual illegal activity and get sanctioned (criminally or socially) since you knew damn well it was illegal. Grey areas are one thing, but the use of illegal drugs and the testing people for them, for employment purposed, are red letter law now - supported by SCOTUS. There is no sense complaining about a settle issue - go do something.

[wroberts189]

376. That dog is my favorite Family guy character...

A great show.

A little humor...


420

http://www.hulu.com/watch/68574/family-guy-420#s-p1-so-i0

[jmm]

344. I would have less objections to drug testing if abuses like that didn't happen.

I've never used an illegal drug but I have refused on principle to be drug tested a couple of times. Once I still got the job. The other time I has already been working at a store for awhile when they instituted a new policy to test everyone. I reminded my boss that I was the best sales person in the store, had never been late or called out, and let her know that if I took it then after it came back negative I would quit. She then decided I could be grandfathered out and the policy would only apply to new staff.

It's very debatable whether or not pre-employment drug testing has any proven benefits but it is expensive-

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=crs

Testing workers for drug-use is expensive. Data on costs of the Federal
employee drug-testing program indicate that between April 1989 and March
1990, 153 of 28,872 employees in 38 executive branch agencies tested positive
for drug-use. This works out to 0.5 percent of employees tested, at a cost of
approximately $77,000 per employee testing positive for drugs, or approximately
$400 on average per each employee tested (costs varied by agency). (TMs is
based on data in an unpublished staff report prepared by the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee on
the Civil Service.)

If somebody acts like they're high at work then it shouldn't matter if they are or aren't since they aren't being productive. I shouldn't have to be watched pissing in a cup so I can hand my urine over to a company that potentially could be running testing I'm not aware of. If we could guarantee that they were honest about only testing for drugs there is still the issue of false positives. A sample can show up as suspicious simply because somebody drank too much water. Many companies don't come out and tell people they won't be hired because they failed a drug test. They simply say they went with someone else and the person who failed the test doesn't get a chance to defend themself.

[DWilliamsamh]

346. I am sympathetic to your points and actually agree on principle

But that doesn't change my point that there is nothing illegal in a company deciding that they will not hire or keep employed those who take your stand on things. Abuse by testing for things not consented to is just that: abuse. The companies engaged in such practices should be severely penalized, civilly and criminally to the maximum extent of the law.

I admire your principled stand and it works for you because you have the luxury of knowing your skills and hard work have made you a valuable employee to companies that don't have hard and fast requirements for drug testing. I also applaud your willingness to accept the consequences of your principles. That is more than I can say for a lot of the whiners in this thread.

And just to repeat - I don't think drug testing is necessary in generic employment. I would welcome a law banning it in all but occupations where the public safety is at risk. Furthermore I feel that any substance an adult chooses to put in their body is their own business. It is just that it IS illegal to take banned scheduled drugs, and there are legal and social consequences, one of which is complications in employment.

[wroberts189]

249. I know a quite a few brilliant productive people that smoke in the off hours.

Thanks for the note.

They are always the ones that get along well with others. They are always the ones who can stay calm ..or calm things down in difficult situations.

They are always meticulous. Some are in high level programming jobs. Typing so fast I am amazed.

If my business ever grows big enough to hire I will do no testing. Why...? I could fire you on the spot for almost any reason anyway.

There is no cause for this gross violation of privacy.

They just screw themselves out of good employees.


Thanks for the sig note.. I worry it is a little vulgar.

[liberation]

284. The best programmer I have ever known, used to write the most amazing code after some legendary

hot boxing sessions. An amazing chap, always delivered on time, and was a pleasure to work with. I actually miss working with him at that lab. He pulled some legendary debugging sessions, in which he would stay up all night and would submit the code to the repository first thing in the morning, so we had our bugs ironed for the working day. He had some interesting moments, in which we could not figure out his code (he would not leave too many comments) but it would pass all regression tests and it was so baroquely tight that we could not possibly optimize it further. To this day, I was told there are plenty of his code in the system with plenty of comments that say "do not touch this, it works, we don't know why, but it does carry on."


Obviously hard core drugs would have a fairly negative effect in productivity. But honestly, among technical/creative folks... it has been my experience that MJ usually works as a performance enhancement drug, so I would have assumed any private company would be all about that. For some people, believe it or not... it helps them focus and deliver a far better product. Heck, even great scientist like the late Karl Sagan made no qualms about using MJ as part of their "academic" repertoire when trying to find out a creative solution when stuck during a difficult problem.

Probably, part of the problem is that MBAs tend to the of the cokehead persuasion (ever noticed how they don't have to pee in the cup?), and their job requires little to no mental production. So they don't get why anyone who has to "think" for a living would need something that helps them concentrate and dig deeper in their creative repertoire. They also don't seem to get the fact that whatever I do in my own time, it IS MY OWN F*CKING GOD DAMNED BUSINESS. So I much rather have these business types concentrate on running their own, which looking at the current state of the economy they seem to do a piss poor job at, before trying to dictate other people's personal business.

[wroberts189]

298. good post and story..thx for the note. nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

20. If a private employer doesn't want a drug user, that's their right

Pretty cut and dried.

[vadawg]

46. hell yes, if you want to keep doing drugs then you have the choice not to work there anymore

never understand why people dont get it.

[rd_kent]

60. But THAT attitude is what the problem is.

Drinking alcohol is MUCH WORSE for a person that smoking pot. There has been ZERO cases of a person overdosing or dieing from pot. How many from booze?


Like it or not, booze is a drug. Pot should be just a legal as booze.

[vadawg]

67. until then its illegal, and an empoyer has a right to not employ a doper..

[shanti]

81. a doper....

:eyes: booze makes one a dope too.

[vadawg]

83. then if the company dosent want to hire boozers then thats their right as well

[harmonicon]

163. nope - it's legal to get as drunk as you want on your own free time (nt)

[SammyWinstonJack]

307. +1 nt

[Grinchie]

153. Another salient point from Vadawg

My aren't you the Pro Vaccinating, War on Drugs kind of guy!

Your comments that I've seen so far paint you as a Freeper in Democratic clothing, because you are nothing but a Faux News Parrot in the two threads I've seen you on.

[fascisthunter]

192. ding

[hfojvt]

235. Democrats and progressives are anti-vaccinating?

that's news to me. Also, not every Democrat is pro-pot or pro-legalization. I remember watching the 1992 'debate' when they were asked about drug legalization and all three of them - Bush Sr, Clinton, and Perot answered 'absolutely not'. Presumably their position reflected the will of the voters.

[Jax]

262. +1,000,000

pathetically transparent with the right wing bs posts from day one.

[liberation]

290. I guess the antivaccination folks are to the left... as the creationist are to the right.

Not that I agree with Vadawg views at all. But come on... what about the pro vaccinating dopers? eh?

[Joe Fields]

181. ..."a doper." ???????

Just a little judgmental today?

[hfojvt]

238. drug-testing started with the Federal Government

and it is pushed by the Federal Government. Employers are required to have a drug testing policy.

It gets pretty stupid too, imo. For exanple, one year I had three drug tests. I got a job that required a drug test. Then they laid off all their temps after I was there for 6 days. So then I went back to the jello factory as a temp. Then I interviewed for a Post Office job. Had to take a drug test to even go to the interview. Couldn't use the results of the drug test I took just a month ago. (Also didn't get hired into what sounded like a crappy job as a sub for the Post Office). Then a couple months later the jello factory changed temp services and the new service required drug tests (and also took away our benefits as I was about two months away from getting a weeks' vacation at the old temp service where they also paid $50 for holidays). Can't use the results from my last two drug tests.

I have never done any drugs, but I consider all of those tests to be first a waste of my time, and second an affront to my integrity and dignity. "We don't believe you are drug free so we are making you pee in a bottle for us" I would say employers should pay me $50 for every test I pass. If they are not willing to bet $50 that I will fail, then don't waste my time.

Of course, I don't have any say in the matter, as I am just a peon who gets pee-od.

I still like the editorial cartoon from Doug Marlette where it shows Ed Meese taking a whiz on the Bill of Rights (as the Reagan administration began drug testing) and Reagan says to him "No, you are supposed to pee in the bottle"

[reggie the dog]

250. ok so they do not want a "doper" but what about your average

well rounded responsible occasional cannabis smoker?

[TCJ70]

247. And showing up to work drunk has it's consequences...

...at most, if not all, jobs as well.

[AllTooEasy]

303. Agreed...booze is a drug...so test for that too!

I don't have a problem with that. Employees have rights, but so do employers. Freedom goes both ways.

Plus, why are we progressives protecting substance abusers? Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all in the ass!!!

[rd_kent]

316. Yeah, fuck all those that consume booze....

even the ones that consume in moderation. Fuck 'em, right?

[DWilliamsamh]

332. But it isn't.

Shoulda coulda woulda is worth the weight of exactly as many electrons it takes to transmit this post. SHOULD MJ be legal? I think so. Should ALL drugs be legal to adults who choose to indulge? Yep. But the plain fact is they aren't. Many employers don't give a rats ass if you engage in illegal drug use. Many also don't care if you drunk drive and kill a family of three - as long as you are able to do your job, and aren't in the can too long when you get arrested.

But many DO care, and it is their prerogative to shit can you (or not hire you) if they find you are doing illegal drugs (or any other illegal activity). And you are free to find an employer who doesn't give a shit. I notice no one is making the argument that if someone chooses to rape kids when they aren't at work, that it's none of their employer's business.

[Grassy Knoll]

91. Exactly, and what way is she spinning, look again....

[Canuckistanian]

96. She's not spinning

But my monitor is......

[Occulus]

154. What does it mean if I can perceive her, at will, spinning in either direction?

Because I can, and it creeps me the fuck out.

[October]

183. Counter-clockwise = left brain/Clockwise = right brain

Initially, I see her as counter-clockwise. No surprise for me -- I'm an artist.

However, I too, can make the switch and have her turning clockwise.

It's fun.

[JonLP24]

185. How the hell do you make it switch?

It seems so obvious she is going counter-clockwise. I'm going to be stuck on that post for another 10 minutes but she is obviously going counter clockwise watch her left leg it is pointed out and from 12:00 it rotates left. I swear!

[Thor_MN]

187. Scroll all of her except her foot offscreen

Once you have her foot turning the other way, it's easier.

[JonLP24]

156. Counter clockwise

I honestly don't see any other direction. :shrug:

[burrfoot]

173. grrr...

I only see her going clockwise. Are you supposed to be able to see it going both ways?

EDIT: Aha! I love it!

[fasttense]

184. Wow, what a champ, an employer is just so great to give us jobs.

Even the word give implies that we don't have to work. As if we don't work our a**es off for them. As if it's some kid of gift where you get money for doing nothing. What a scam.

Take this shitty job, get low wages for your all consuming work and be grateful for it.

It truly is amazing how people have bought into the concept that the employer is doing you a favor by letting you work your a** off for them. How kind. "Please, Sir, May I have more."

[Dreamer Tatum]

204. In your world, maybe. Not mine

I've had great jobs that were rewarding and fulfilling. I'm sorry if your experience has been different.

[DWilliamsamh]

333. Soooo...start you own business, make lots of money (since it is so easy)

and make sure all your employees know they are free to be as high as they want to be on illegal drugs.

But why stop at dugs? Why not make sure you hire everyone regardless of their criminal activity - off business hours of course. After all what business is it of yours if they choose to rob convenience stores, or sexually assault folks (adults only please) to get their adrenaline going or to calm their minds? After all that is their personal choice right? I'm sure their arrests and court time will never effect you.

[CrispyQ]

216. Read post #66, above, about how employers abuse the drug test.

Although they aren't supposed to, they can also test for pregnancy & any number of big pharma drugs & deem you an unacceptable risk due to health or mental issues. I get the impression you wouldn't object to that, though. :eyes:

[eridani]

117. It's not about that. It's to get the sheep used to being invaded and sheared

Guess you haven't considered that if they have your blood and piss, they can now check for all kinds of health conditions, and even genetic vulnerabilities.

[Dreamer Tatum]

141. Then. Don't. Participate. nt

[wroberts189]

260. Participate? How do you earn a living then?

Live in a cardboard box under a bridge?

There is no choice. You get a job or die in the USA.

Its just like ex cons... no one wants to hire them. But if they have no job guess what they are going to do?

What about medical reasons for such activity? Same thing ..no job? Perfect resume ..good references.. college educated ..no job for you because you did something harmless on your own time a month ago.

[Dreamer Tatum]

285. By not taking drugs and qualifying for private sector jobs.

I know how frustrating simple things must seem, but there you are.

[wroberts189]

296. You ever have a drink? How would you like to get body scanned every morning?

And then that morning comes ...the beer you had with your wife at some restaurant last night shows up on the smell sensor ...?

[Dreamer Tatum]

304. I've never been tested for booze. I've never known anyone tested for booze.

I doubt that anyone other than people applying for driving jobs, or jobs working heavy machinery, is tested for booze.

[Flaneur]

318. Funny, that, if employers were actually concerned about impairment.

If they were, they would be testing for alcohol.

Hmm, maybe it's not really about impairment after all. Maybe it's about one more venue for inflicting drug war bullshit on people.

Test for impairment, not metabolites!

[Dreamer Tatum]

320. Alcohol=legal, drugs currently ~= legal

I guess you need the blunt force trauma to see the difference.

[Flaneur]

348. I understand the difference between legal and illegal drugs.

But that's not the stated rationale for random drug testing on the job. The rationale is productivity and safety.

Testing for illicit drugs, but not alcohol, undermines that rationale. Alcohol is, after all, the most widely abused drug, licit or otherwise.

You could argue that employers don't want employees who commit (victimless) crimes, but then again, you don't see employers claiming the right to follow you around after work to see if you're burgling houses or something.

[wroberts189]

321. Suppose someday you are? After all unemployment is at what around 10%?

The point is that they should not be looking into our private lives.

What happens when you show up for a interview with a 100 or more other people?

You think they will hire you with a note about your meds. over someone without meds.?

[kedrys]

361. I'm a computer jockey and I got tested for booze as well as drugs

in my last job in the States. Once, they popped me the day after my birthday, but I had stopped drinking before 3am, and as the helpful "nurse" explained to me, unless I went on an insane bender and kept drinking until sunrise, a 11am breathalyzer test would not have registered it. I scored exactly 0.000 on that one. Still bullshit though.

[DWilliamsamh]

336. Harmless? I guess you don't see the stories on the news about drug gangs and killings huh?

Like it or not, purchase of illegal drugs supports criminal gangs responsible for most of the murder and mayhem in our cities and small towns and farm communities.

From the perspective of "what I do with/to my own body is my business," I agree with you. Drugs shouldn't be illegal to use as an adult. I also think if you want to kill yourself (and no I am not saying using drugs is always killing yourself) have at it Hoss. It is your body. But until it IS legal to go buy your drug of choice in a store, your purchase DOES contribute to murder and mayhem. You might not LIKE to hear that but it is undeniably true.

[Flaneur]

138. That's because workers don't have rights.

At least those employed by state, local, and federal government are protected from theis unreasonable, unwarranted seizure of their own body fluids.

If employers are concerned about employee safety or productivity, they should test for impairment, not metabolites.

Just because it's cut and dried, or legal in the private sector, doesn't mean it's right.

[Dreamer Tatum]

142. So work for the government...problem solved. Badaboom,badabing nt

[Flaneur]

246. What are you, the Chamber of Commerce?

Simply kowtowing to the almighty private sector employer doesn't seem especially progressive.

[SammyWinstonJack]

310. Government ass kisser. Great job, eh?

:evilgrin:

[wroberts189]

322. According to him/her the Gov. is just raining down WG-12 and GS-10 jobs on us.

No pee test necessary.

[wroberts189]

261. Sorry the Gov. tests as well. BTW You know any Gov. jobs available to all? nt

[Flaneur]

265. Wrong. Only some government positions are drug testable.

Those having to do with public safety and security.

All other government employees are protected against random drug tests by the Fourth Amendment's bar against unreasonable, unwarranted searches.

We have protections against the state, but not against private employers.

[wroberts189]

269. you are splitting hairs ..and you are wrong pee tests are widespread now.

And growing fast thanks to it being so cheap.

No not everyone in Gov. is tested yet ...but it is getting there. Except for congress and judges of course.


Hell ..a court just struck down mandatory pee testing for a High School chess club and band.


A CHESS CLUB!

Judge bars drug tests for students in band, chess club
There is no evidence that illicit substances are used to enhance a student's flute playing, Northern California judge writes.


http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/07/local/me-injunction7


You want this?

[Flaneur]

291. No, I'm not wrong or splitting hairs.

There are some specified government jobs with public safety or security implications. Drug testing is allowed for people in those positions.

Otherwise, employees of state, local, and federal governments are protected against unwarranted searches by the Fourth Amendment, which protects us from the government. The DEA agent gets drug tested; the employee of the Department of Education does not.

It's the same reasoning that has led a federal appeals court to block the Michigan law demanding drug testing of welfare recipients. The Fourth Amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures applies.

The Supreme Court has set a lower standard for school kids because, well, because "we have to protect the kids." But even there, the high court has limited testing first to athletes then to kids involved in extracurricular activities. It has not okayed the random suspicionless drug testing of all students.

We have no such Fourth Amendment right against private employers. Our only recourse is to organize. Or refuse to work for asshole companies that demand our urine.

[wroberts189]

295. Sorry ..I come from a different Gov. background...

Sounds like what you are saying is or should be correct. But I certainly cannot speak as an authority on the matter ..I concede on that. :)

But it is a slippery slope... ):

[Flaneur]

308. Just because I say it's legal doesn't mean I approve of it. I don't.

[quiller4]

384. If you want to wokr in a military or VA hospital you will need to pass

a pre-employment drug test.

[Flaneur]

309. Or simply refuse to work for companies that treat me like a criminal suspect.

That's what I do.

[wroberts189]

323. Problem is that list gets shorter every year. nt

[Joe Fields]

180. A private employer has absolutely NO right interfering in a person's

private life.

THAT'S CUT AND DRIED.

If you think differently, then you, too have been brainwashed.

[Dreamer Tatum]

199. Until you give them that right by signing on the dotted line. nt

[wroberts189]

264. Dotted line or not people fully qualified should not have their privacy violated. nt

[wroberts189]

215. +1

[wroberts189]

255. What about if they are on doctor prescribed meds?

Or they are old ... or Gay?


They can fire you for almost any reason anyway.. even made up ones.


Flying a plane is one thing... but working at Home Depot is another.

As a large corporation I say they have no such right to dictate what happens when you go home from work. They benefit from our system, our taxes, our police and fire dept. ..and they should honor our right to privacy.

You give up that right and its open season on all but the healthiest and youngest.

[Dreamer Tatum]

286. Then, just like school, bring a note.

Old people are a protected class. How would an employer know that an applicant is gay?

You have an inalienable right to privacy, of course. Unless you agree to allow your employer to
drug test and conduct background searches.

Jesus, why is this so hard for otherwise smart people to comprehend?

[wroberts189]

297. You bring a note you don't get hired... nt

[Dreamer Tatum]

301. As a note-bringer, I can tell you that is FALSE nt

[Fedja]

327. Seems you hate America

Belgium: can be justified only when relevant to employment relationship. The test result is given to the occupational doctor, not the employer. The doctor is only allowed to inform the employer whether or not the person is fit for work, not the result of the drug test.

Czech Republic: The employer (only the management staff) is allowed to make a breath or saliva test. (limits the test to "intoxicated while at work" cases)

Denmark: The measures have to be necessary and proportionate otherwise they will be deemed unlawful. (limits to relevant professions)

Germany: Routine tests are not allowed except in dangerous or security-sensitive workplaces.

Estonia: An employer suspends an employee who is intoxicated by from work for that day (shift)

Greece: A law of 1997 permits testing of private individuals at the pre-employment stage, for Security Services.

Spain: The employer will guarantee to his employees a periodic surveillance of their state of health in function of the inherent risks to the job

France: According to art. R242-23, the doctor is only allowed to inform the employer whether or not the person is fit for work, not the result of the test. Also limited to cases when the job involves tasks demanding in both safety and behaviour, both at the recruitment and regular health check stage.

Ireland: requires employees not to be under the influence at work, and to submit to drug tests if reasonable.

Italy: obliges employers of addicts with a permanent contract to keep these posts open for up to 3 years (without pay) while the addict is rehabilitated.

Cyprus: Under this law, a company doctor may make certain tests in order only to ensure that the health of an employee is not affected by the use of or coming into contact with dangerous substances.

Finland: Only a general conclusion on the health of an employee (fit, fit with restrictions, or not fit) can be given to the employer.

Norway: Subjection to medical examinations (eg drug testing) is a serious interference with the personal integrity of the employee/ job applicant and should only be executed when strictly necessary.

I could list a dozen more....




These are all countries which offer to their population SIGNIFICANTLY more freedom than you wish upon your fellow citizens. The land of the free doesn't look so free to me. Your country was founded specifically to provide the people with freedoms they were denied on the old continent, and your main concern is to protect the freedom of the private enterprise by trampling on the freedoms of the people.

[davidpdx]

355. And you can find dozens where employment or pre-employment

drug and alcohol testing are done including South Korea where I live.

[Fedja]

362. Very true.

Let's make sure we model ourselves in line with the most restrictive regimes. Hell, let's see how North Korea does it.

[davidpdx]

379. Welcome to strawman

Would you like a drink with that?


I usually don't go around telling other countries how to make their laws. If you want to change the laws in YOUR country, then fine. However, you can't dictate how laws are written in other countries.

[sohndrsmith]

339. Is it also their right to refuse/deny/know about legal prescription medication

that causes a false positive? Some employers use a "quick test" and will not do a secondary confirm (more $), which is an automatic disqualification. Several prescription drugs will cause a "false positive" and many have no effect on much less need to be divulged in relation to most jobs.

That - I believe IS very much discrimination/invasion of privacy. It should be federal law that drug screens are done by licensed facilities and false positives from legal properly prescribed medication never disclosed to employers. IF, however, the medication has any affect or limitation to the person or the job he/she is applying to, then the testing facility should disclose that - but I don't think, necessarily, they should divulge the exact medication or the reason for it - unless it would be a serious safety issue for the job in question. It shouldn't be divulged if it isn't a safety or serious impairment matter. Most medicines, properly taken, do neither. They wouldn't be prescribed unless they were helpful, not hindering.

Unfortunately, at the moment, the employer makes the rules and can ask for (and get) far more information if he/she so desires. Or disqualify a good potential hire because of a quick test that doesn't discern well enough. That shouldn't be legal in my opinion.

[FirstLight]

23. Exactly!

What if I am on anti-psychotics or high blood presure meds? NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!!!

[shanti]

80. they can tell your liver/kidney function from a piss test?

i did not know that...

[Dreamer Tatum]

85. Enzymes. Your piss is an incredible store of information about you.

But it tastes terrible, I'm told.

[wroberts189]

225. Well I am not certain but they can tell a lot of things. If they ask for piss they can ask for blood

Slippery slope... What corporation is going to give up an opportunity to screen their employees for health issues to keep their HC costs down?


And what happens when they all start doing it?

Anti-depressants.. Hypertension .. etc etc... You will find yourself unable to get a job....

[liberalhistorian]

234. If the pilot of my plane or the driver of my bus, train or cab

has been drinking, injecting, snorting or smoking "on their own time" shortly before they're scheduled to be on the job, then it IS my and the employer's business. If an administrative worker responsible for my important paperwork has been drinking, injecting, snorting or smoking "on their own time" shortly before they're scheduled to be on the job, then it IS my and the employer's business. If a police/fire officer responsible for my and my family's safety and that of the community, particularly if they're driving, has been doing funny stuff "on their own time" shortly before they're scheduled to be on the job, then it IS my and the employer's business. If a construction worker working on my house has been doing funny stuff "on their own time" shortly before they're scheduled to be on the job, then it IS my and the employer's business. Etc., etc., etc., etc.

We do not live on individual islands or in a vacuum. What we do "on our own time" often affects the lives, properties and safety of those we share our communities with. You do not have the right to endanger others with the limitless pursuit of "freedom."

[wroberts189]

325. I do not know anyone who wants their pilots to show up high.

I am not talking public safety issues ...I am talking sales clerk. Coffee server. Stock boy. I am talking invasion of privacy.

You will never stop a pilot from getting stoned or drunk before a flight. Perhaps if you got a blood test before each flight. I am sure the Airlines would be happy to spend that money.

Amtrak as well.. and they might want to scan them for texting cell phones as well.

But that is not the case here.. we are talking pre-employment pee tests. You want the truth about someone? Get a polygraph. Perhaps Sodium Penathol. In the end how is that to stop them if they decide to have a little fun before the next flight? It does not... and the ones that do such stuff get caught in other ways if not by crashing. But you will not stop it with a pee test.

And if that pilot has a couple days off and gets home ..it is fine with me if he sparks up while off duty for a while. As long as he is ready for duty when that time comes.

They drink do they not? Hell I just saw a movie about Air traffic controllers (John Cusak) and boy did that bunch liked to get drunk every night...off duty. Where is the outrage about that?

The problem is being tagged for something you might have done a week ago for a low level position at a retail store.

No one here is talking about sparking one up inside the cockpit or the rec room before you fly 300 people to England.

The funny thing about my "limitless pursuit of "freedom" is that there was once a time where there were no such things as these "tests" and they were not needed at all.

In the military there were random pee tests ..but people still smoked. I lived in a dorm where on Friday you could see the smoke coming out the window... a dorm room right above the Majors office.

[FirstLight]

22. When 100% of employers require it, there isn't much choice

THAT's where the angst comes from...EVERYONE requires it, even for TEMP jobs? WTF?

[vadawg]

41. +1

[nashville_brook]

53. unreasonable search -- employers have no right to my blood or urine or personal life

creates an environment of employer entitlement -- should an employer also disqualify you for having a child, b/c you might be sleepy on occasion, or need to take time off for a sick kid?

false positives -- many drug tests are notoriously unreliable, and employees have no way to examine or counter charges that could injure their livelihood for their entire career.

pragmatism -- if drugs are a problem, you wouldn't need a chemical test to know it. if you need a chemical test to prove a drug "problem" then, there's obviously not a problem worth solving.

employers have a right to employees who aren't high on the job -- what they do on the weekend or six months ago is NONE OF THEIR DAMN BUSINESS

[Dreamer Tatum]

65. Sigh. When you submit to the test, it becomes their business.

It's a simple concept. As soon as you agree to piss in the cup, whatever they can glean from that piss is not only their business, but their evidence. Sorry you don't like it.

[nashville_brook]

118. here's a concept that i fully expect won't be so simple for you: we don't have to give up a job

in order to have a life. and, it's up to us to push back against this shit. if your choice is to stand firm with business interests who are infringing on my rights, then i'll contest your position. period.

for me, this is something worth fighting for. obviously not you. and that's fine -- liberty isn't for everyone.

[Dreamer Tatum]

125. Oh horseshit

I hate to break this to you, but your right to walk around drunk or high does not supersede a private employer's right not to hire you because you walk around drunk or high.

No one is infringing on your rights with a piss test. If you want to get fucked up, find a job that lets you do that.

[Fedja]

147. Really?!

Would you say the same thing about being gay? Or a woman? Or black?

None of the above, including me smoking weed on a weekend, affect one's job.

[Dreamer Tatum]

195. That is completely ridiculous

Not worth the bandwidth.

[nashville_brook]

335. that's an interesting claim from someone who's blown so much "bandwidth" in this thread.

:rofl:

[DWilliamsamh]

341. None of "those things" are illegal.

Hey here's a clue: robbing convenience stores or raping women in your off hours doesn't effect your job either. Should employers hire you if THOSE things are your recreational activities?

[Fedja]

352. Do you get asked about it much?

And if you wanna get technical, having THC in your system isn't illegal. Possession and distribution is.

[DWilliamsamh]

359. Yes people DO get asked about it much...

It is called a background check. Or do you think only convictions come up on criminal records searches? Grow up.

[Fedja]

363. Interesting.

Where I live, those are illegal if the position doesn't make it very relevant (security, education jobs, etc).

Let's just scratch privacy alltogether when dealing with corporations. Hell, let's make them pop into your bedroom randomly to see if you prefer missionary or doggy style. That's not relevant to employment, but hell, they already did a criminal background check and and a blood test, why would you complain?

[DWilliamsamh]

364. You are a laugh riot!!

"unless it is relevant?" Name me a job where it isn't "relevant." Go ahead. I bet you stumped after towel guy at the car wash, and selling fruit by the freeway. A record of theft, assault, drug use, embezzlement and a host of other things are "relevant" to working at fucking WALMART, much less any place that requires any kind of responsibility to customers beyond greeting them at the door or drying their cars.

Here is is an idea - instead of arguing that no one should have to be a good citizen (and I don't mean college educated)in order to get a job, how about we encourage people to live/work within the LAW or expect there to be consequences for their actions beyond their jail or probation terms? And just so you know I know from whence I speak. I know few are perfect and some of us are even less so myself included. I have long since understood that the stupid illegal things I got caught doing in my former years have closed off certain occupations that I would otherwise like and be very good at. Guess what? Tough shit for me. But you pick up and move on to something else, if you are a realistic adult.

Here's one more suggestion: if you don't like the law (drug or otherwise) - advocate CHANGING THE LAW, not breaking it. In the mean time quit your useless illogical whining about how unfair it is that some employers, with reputations to uphold and assets to protect, won't hire people who show they can't or won't live within the law.

[Fedja]

365. You assume much too much.

Let's take it from the top:
1) The presence of drugs in one's body is not illegal
2) While only SOME employers may test for drugs, the law allows ALL employers to do so
2.a) This is the law I would be a proponent of changing
3) I've held several jobs where my recreational use of marijuana during off-hours did not hinder my performance in the workplace. These jobs included professional language jobs, marketing, technical copywriting, translation, project management, etc.
3.a) My employers often if not most of the time learned of my free time activities after employing me, and none objected.
4) What I do in my living room on Saturday bears no impact on my performance at work during the week. If I do not fulfill expectations in the workplace, I understand my employer would terminate me.


Now your post reads to me like you were a hardline heroin fiend or a crackhead. Clearly, someone with a crack habit is not employable in many workplaces. My point is that he is not employable because his PERFORMANCE is sub-par, not because of what he does in his private life.

Barring someone because of a THC test is the same as barring them for being gay or female. Your bias in assuming a recreational pot smoker can only work bagging at Wal-mart is painfully obvious. I present you with the proof:

Studies show that 39.8 percent of the U.S. population has tried marijuana at least once. This number peaks up to some 55% in the 35-50 age group category. I assume half of the US population bags groceries at Wal-mart, including Bill Clinton and Obama, to name just 2 visible culprits.


Nobody's laughing about totalitarian ideas being praised on the left. Least of all me.

[DWilliamsamh]

366. WOW!! You are deep into the right wing tactics weeds there buddy.

1) I never said YOU did drugs and/or suffered any consequences thereof. BTW - glad you haven't suffered.

2) I say it over and over again: I AGREE WITH YOU on changing the law.

3) What you do on your off time certainly DOES have the potential to impact your employer. If you get arrested and don't have bail money - or even if you do you will be lost to them for at least the days you need to be in court. Again, I am very happy you have not been unfortunate enough to be arrested under drug laws.

4) Drug testing by an employer is consensual: you don't consent? All I am saying is they don't have to consent to employ you. Move it along son, move it along. Find another employer who doesn't do drug testing. They are out there.

4) I have also consistently said in this thread and elsewhere that I think drug laws are ridiculous. Prohibition doesn't work and just create criminal organizations seeking to profit, and that enforce there "territories" and market shares through violence and general mayhem.



But here's the clincher - at the same time you accuse me of incorrectly assuming too much about you (which I DIDN'T), you throw out the assumption that I must have been (or maybe still am) a hard core heroin or crack addict. You couldn't be more wrong. Never done a controlled substance beyond MJ (though I'd still like to try 'shrooms some time). My heaviest period of use was in college and I think I might have averaged about ten tokes a year. If heroin and crack where legal tomorrow I wouldn't get any closer to them than I have so far in my 43 years on the planet, which is to say - not even in the same building.

Get over your immature attitude that your behavior bears no consequences, and no one should ever question your off hours illegal recreation. As I have asked others (and you) are you saying that if your kicks were had through holding up liquor stores, your employer would have no right to fire you because of it? I am only making this point about the consequences for BREAKING THE LAW. You can split hairs all you wish... the fact is in order for you to HAVE the illegal controlled substance in your blood you had to interact with a distributor. You either bought it, or he gave it to you. That is furtherance of criminal activity. You are no angel. Yo are breaking the law.

The desirability of drug laws is another question all together.

[Fedja]

367. Sigh

And what I said was that having traces of drugs in your system is NOT illegal. Your argument about getting arrested and not having bail money is patently ridicuous. :) That's about as relevant as having arms with which one might batter someone and get arrested.

The point is that the law allows a gross intrusion into privacy and medical records of an individual. If the only argument supporting this is "you might someday get arrested", or "you may have at one point committed a crime", and that's fine and dandy, society as a whole is in deep trouble.

It is in fact not fine and dandy, not matter how it's spun. And if choice solves the problem, why are there anti discrimination laws? If you don't like your boss paying women less than men or grabbing your crotch daily, you can always quit.

[DWilliamsamh]

375. OMG you are just saying the same thing over and over: doesn't make it true

"And what I said was that having traces of drugs in your system is NOT illegal. Your argument about getting arrested and not having bail money is patently ridiculous. That's about as relevant as having arms with which one might batter someone and get arrested.

And just how did you get the illegal substance into your system? You TOOK It. Which means you bought it, or it was DISTRIBUTED TO YOU in some way. That is illegal. Just because you don't get "caught" doesn't mean its not. And just because you haven't YET gotten caught doesn't mean you won't. DUH

The point is that the law allows a gross intrusion into privacy and medical records of an individual. If the only argument supporting this is "you might someday get arrested", or "you may have at one point committed a crime", and that's fine and dandy, society as a whole is in deep trouble.

I DON"T DISAGREE WITH YOU. ALL I AM SAYING IS IT IS THE LAW AS IT STANDS AND YOU MUST TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR DECISIONS. IF YOU GET CAUGHT OR LOSE A JOB BECAUSE YOU TESTED POSITIVE YOU HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF.

I figured maybe if I shout you might finally hear what I have said in this thread and to you multiple times

It is in fact not fine and dandy, not matter how it's spun. And if choice solves the problem, why are there anti discrimination laws? If you don't like your boss paying women less than men or grabbing your crotch daily, you can always quit."

What part of "those things, such as being a woman or being Black or Hispanic or Homosexual etc., etc., aren't illegal" aren't you understanding. You keep comparing illegal activity to LEGAL activity. Your argument sucks because of it. Grow up. Lots of people do it, didn't work on your mother and it doesn't work here either.

[Fedja]

377. And you're not? :)

"And just how did you get the illegal substance into your system? You TOOK It. Which means you bought it, or it was DISTRIBUTED TO YOU in some way. That is illegal. Just because you don't get "caught" doesn't mean its not. And just because you haven't YET gotten caught doesn't mean you won't. DUH"

That wouldn't even pass on court TV, much actual a proper court.

"What part of "those things, such as being a woman or being Black or Hispanic or Homosexual etc., etc., aren't illegal" aren't you understanding."

What part of "having THC in one's system is not illegal" are you not understanding?

[DWilliamsamh]

380. You my 'friend" are an idiot.

My point about the process of getting THC (or cocaine metabolites, or heroine metabolites etc etc ) in your blood wasn't about convicting you in a court of law. It was about an employer drawing the reasonable conclusion from that fact, that you (in the general sense) are engaged in illegal activity. It is also reasonable to assume that since you are engaged in such activity - at the very least you may in be arrested in the future and at the very least miss a few days work do to the legal process. Further more these "things" always seem to happen at inconvenient times. At worst you will be in prison for a few months to a few years, and the employer will have to go to the time and expense of hiring another person, not to mention another round of training expenses for the new employee. Can you REALLY not see why a company would just decide to avoid those scenarios if at all possible?

I have news for you - as this person's employer (or potential employer) I would be MORE likely to hire someone with a felony conviction record that has been out of trouble for a number of years, than someone who was (based on the positive blood test) actively engaged in illegal - possibly felony conduct. The active criminal, or the inactive former criminal? And YES - IF I was an employer who has a testing policy - given similar resumes - I would "go with someone else" rather than one who refused to be tested. Which is MOST likely to be arrested?

You may fee free to call me a "fascist," based on my realistic real world based view of the law and the nature of employment.

[Fedja]

381. I don't throw around derogatory labels as easily as you

So no, not calling you a fascist.

It's inifinitely sad that you took that windy effort to explain why taking away someone's rights and privacy is a good idea. There's a reason most developed countries ban arbitrary employment testing, and it's because civilized societies don't accept your poor arguments as valid. I suppose we're all idiots.

Note: Statistically, a black man is more likely to be wrongly arrested and jailed than a white man. Given equal resumes, would you take that into account?

[DWilliamsamh]

382. Ok... I'm done with you.

When you join the reality based world try again.


I have made the difference between my (and your) ideal situation (drug laws being repealed, and no drug testing for jobs that don't involve safety) and the REAL world (the current state of LAWS in this country and consequences for breaking them) clear in darn near every post in this thread. Yet you ignore that dichotomy. When you grow up you might just be worth talking to. Good night.

[Fedja]

385. Good night

No harm done. :)

My ideal situation is fine, actually. Where I live and work right now, my boss would be fined in the area of $100.000 if he demanded I get a drug test. Well, that and/or jailed.

As you well know, laws apply fully until challenged. A challenge may result in a change of interpretation or repeal of said law.

Your rejection of the so-called "ideal situation" was clear in your rabid argumentation of how an absence of employment drug test limitation is both acceptable and sensible. An argument rejected my most of the developed world. You may have stated that you'd like drug laws changed, but you argued the point that you consider the process as it is today sensible. So the only thing you made clear is that you stand behind the state protecting corporate interests before the right of the people. While I don't think that makes you a 'fascist', your constant attempts to disqualify my statements with insults are another thing.

Don't feel obliged to answer, as you're not even capable of debating a position. Trumpet on, while I enjoy my freedom. And when you or someone dear to you is pissing in a cup, remember. I stood up for your freedoms louder than you did for your own.

[JonLP24]

172. Drug tests doesn't determine if you're kind of the guy

that likes to "walk around drunk" same with "walk around high". I know you can't show up to work drunk and if you do that is suspected of being drunk on duty so to speak. A UA supersedes that and makes employees prove their innocence even if they haven't done anything wrong in the first place including not walking around high at work.

[reggie the dog]

251. just not in the USA. Here in France my piss is part of my private medical life

They do not do drug tests here because drug use is a health issue and bosses have no right to know about our private lives insofar as it has no effect on our work.

[Dreamer Tatum]

305. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

[reggie the dog]

311. The HDI is more important than money in my opinion

look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

also you have to count in that France has a 35 hour work week.

[Chan790]

143. Sorry, you're wrong.

You have no legal right to commit an illegal act.

[JonLP24]

170. I think what the poster is arguing

against employers using drug testing. It is the only thing they use to determine an 'illegal act' and it's the only thing they makes you 'prove your innocence' even if they are not suspected. Also several common over the counter drugs can 'cause false positives and it's unfair. 3 days max for a salt-like water soluble drug like cocaine while cannabis which is less harmful then alcohol or tobacco is in there for 3-4 months. Coming up positive on a drug test for something someone did 3-4 weeks ago is not doing something illegal. If that person showed up with a bag and pipe(the only two drug laws there is--nothing about being high except in public as well as dealing) then that would be illegal.

Again it's not advocating the right to continue to do something illegal because I could be into armed robbery but my employer would have no way of knowing unless I had a prior which they look for in criminal checks(If they are so concerned about cannabis users--why not check for convictions for possession and/or paraphernalia? They have no way if I'm not identity theft, trespassing, dui, etc.

[nashville_brook]

334. well put. it's a simple of matter of human dignity.

thanks for the assist.

[DWilliamsamh]

340. How about this refuse and fully expect the consequences and accept them

That is what responsible adults do in order to made a statement of conscience. Just don't expect to win that law suit. It's been tried multiple times. The only way you will "win" is when th law changes. So go WORK for what you want.

[Flaneur]

139. Sorry you're so at peace with this invasion of personal privacy.

[Dreamer Tatum]

140. Your privacy is uniquely, permanently ensured by not pissing in the cup

Criminy. Simple frickin concept.

[Joe Fields]

182. I suppose you don't mind then, if that same prospective employer

gleans your myspace, facebook, twitter account, scans what else you browse on the web, crawl completely inside your personal financial picture, etc....


Where do YOU draw the line, or are you fine with all of that?

[FirstLight]

221. exactly! ...and am against credit checks as well...

what business is it of theirs that i am struggling to pay off student loans?

and as far as the whole meme of "just don't take the test" - it is not about ONE person standing there ALONE trying to make a stand for their rights...this is about a MOVEMENT against employers having insight into the PERSONAL lives of their employees...

And you know, all these ways of 'investigating' employees STILL doesn't prevent fraud, or embezzelment, or accidents, etc...it is all just a way of ensuring the CONTROL of the Sheeple.... be grateful you have a job, and don't complain when we take your blood or subject you to psych evals or credit checks or ...?
Besides...since when has a credit check helped deter the likes of the Wall Street schemers...? I am sure they have stellar credit and can snort a LOT of coke on their salaries!

where DO we as a people draw the line?


Perhaps this is generational, I think some of the boomers, etc are more likely to submit and those from Gen X and younger are more likely to say "screw you!"

[Chan790]

236. I've been told point blank that if I want the job...

I've got to agree to all of that before; I told them to fuck off. That's my right, just as it's someone's right to refuse to take the piss test and not get the job. If enough people refuse to meet an employers' unreasonable demands, they'll either be forced to abandon those demands or to do without the personnel they need.

There is however neither an issue of legality or fairness here...which is what most of the anti-testing posters seem to be arguing. I'm losing my mind here...the legal issue is cut-and-dried with enough circuit-court and SCOTUS decisions behind it that anybody arguing "legality" or "invasion of privacy" should be laughed off DU. Nobody has ever been promised "fairness" in anything except by Faux News. (They lied.) There is no right to fairness...this isn't kindergarten, shit just ain't fair. Grow up, deal with it and break out the pitchforks and torches if need be. Whining on the internet is beyond emo-lameness though.

[Flaneur]

248. So it's my piss or my job, and you're just fine with that?

Do you work for the Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association?

[Sinti]

227. Do you make money in drug testing?

Are you a salesman for such services or something? You are an extremely vocal proponent of it - seems a little strange. It's one thing to tell people "get over it once" quite another to repeatedly attempt to school those who disagree with your position. You must have a dog in the fight.

[Dreamer Tatum]

288. No, I don't shill for drug tests. I'm just incredulous that people think

that no private employer should have the right to know if a prospective employee is a drug user.

People actually believe that their rights supersede the rights of others, just because the counterparty
is a company. But to each his own, I suppose. Getting high must be a critically important aspect of life for
people to sacrifice so much for it.

[Sinti]

293. I didn't intend to say you were a "shill"

I inquired if you were in the business of urinalysis testing, or insurance, or something that would cause you to feel so strongly in favor of urine testing.

Corporations are not people, and thus have NO rights. If the counter-party is a corp, sorry, my rights obviously would supersede them, as I am a human being. A corporation is a legal structure, the sooner we get that codified in law the better. If we do not, it will be the downfall of this nation. Obviously, it's not illegal to urine test people, but I think it's awfully bad form.

Honestly, if a place of employment (I only speak for myself) is going to urine test me, they have no real interest in using my skills. It's not about the drugs, it's about the test. I could pass the test, but I'm not about to pee in a cup for your job. A skilled, and loyal workforce makes it possible (in most cases) for a company to be in business at all. We have forgotten that no labor = no business.

Submitting to a test means I'm no more than a cog that can be easily replaced. I've never even applied for a job that required urinalysis. Being a human being, who is valued for skills, intellect, ability, etc, is more important than getting whatever job you're offering. It's a violation of my person.

As I said in the other thread, it's like a slum landlord. They make you believe that you can't do better, and should be grateful. At any company that does urinalysis testing i would expect to be treated poorly in all other aspects. Fortunately, my business requires skills that are apparently hard to find and cannot be outsourced to a foreign country - they tried and failed miserably.

What else does a prospective employer have the "right to know" about a person's private affairs?

[Dreamer Tatum]

300. I respect your well-argued position

My experience has been that the test is a formality, and I've never been asked to do a followup. I don't mind submitting to tests because I don't use drugs at all, and I don't have the luxury of allowing my livelihood to suffer while I stand on principle. I have people who depend on me for food and shelter, and they don't want to hear any idealistic bullshit about evil corporate this and violation of my rights that. I think people who are willing to break their pick on this issue are either independently wealthy, sporadically employed, or have attitude problems that show up in areas other than drug testing. Everyone else either finds another job or submits to the test.

[Sinti]

312. Fair enough - I do realize my good fortune

in never having been in the position of having to submit to such things in order to make a living. I don't know how committed I'd be if I couldn't feed my son without giving up my individual rights.

[Sinti]

294. oops-double post n/t

[Realityhack]

258. "what they do on the weekend or six months ago is NONE OF THEIR DAMN BUSINESS"

Actually it is. It can reflect on their company and it also demonstrates a lack of respect for laws and regulations. You are essentially saying you will do as you please as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (in your opinion) without regard for any external rules. That is something the employer may very much wish to know.

[freedom fighter jh]

168. There has to be a limit to what an employer can expect of an employee. n/t

[wroberts189]

6. I remember a time where the tests were so expensive no one did them.

And yet now we have to ... for all positions?


Land of the Free home of the Brave?

[tjwash]

7. Ronnie Raygun started that fucking horse-shit with the military in the early 80's

More of Nancy and his "war on drugs" crap. And then it just jumped from there in to the private sector, and got worse and more draconian.

There are a few fortune 500's that still refuse to do it though.

[MrScorpio]

178. Ronnie's hands were politically tied

Back in 1981 when it was found out that some dead crewmen had marijuana in their systems after that crash on the USS Nimitz, it was only a matter of time before weed smoking GIs started to become an extinct species.

I know that the weed smoking didn't cause that accident, but really, it did make the military look bad. One thing that the military hates is looking bad.

[Enthusiast]

212. I think Ronnie's motive was because

marijuana smoking was associated with left leaning political thought-at that time. Since then it has become apparent that just as many rednecks smoke dope as liberals.

[aikoaiko]

9. I hear you, but I stopped smoking pot and taking illegal drugs when I got my 1st real job

I miss it, but I like my job so much more than getting baked.

[JBoris]

12. +1. I don't even get drug tested. I quit so I could do my job to my full potential.

[madokie]

10. I never had to work where I was given a drug test

[intheflow]

13. Nothing prohibits you from refusing any given assignment

with a temp agency. I temped on and off for about 15 years. After about 5 years I told them I'd only take temp jobs in non-profits and at colleges just because I couldn't stand the corporate bullshit any more. They were very good at honoring my requests since most people don't want to work at those places due to lower pay rates.

[Ian David]

14. I'm all in favor of mandatory drug testing at work, but only under the following conditions

1) Every time an employee is tested, the CEO and Executives are also tested.
2) All members of Congress are tested weekly.

And if Congress doesn't like it, they can ban mandatory drug testing for everyone else.

[FiveGoodMen]

19. That's fair in the sense that cutting off someone's right hand makes it fair to all those already

missing a hand.

[Brickbat]

37. I totally agree.

[stray cat]

15. Currently you want the right to break the law without getting caught?

a joint is not yet legal

[KamaAina]

17. It is in a number of states

for medical MJ patients.

Their pee would turn the same shade of purple or whatever as that of any other user.

edit: Also, it is not a temp agency's business to enforce the law.

[FirstLight]

25. Thank you...

and my beef isn;t about the RIGHT to break the law (asshole) it is that others who drink all weekend or use meth on friday can still test clean, while I am the one who gets busted because of the chemistry of the thing... (and usually the alcoholic or the meth user will have issues that DO interfere with work, while I have yet to have my weekend pastimes interfere with MY job)


drug testing is BULLSHIT - it is NOT my employers busines WHAT I do when not at work...whether it be online porn or smokin a dube and yes, they will soon start testing for other "habits" you just watch...

[Blacksheep214]

378. Well Said!

Every problem with pot is on account of it being illegal!

Well fuck that! I've been smoking pot for 38 years and am sharper than ever, starting a new branch of electronics with unfamiliar equipment. I was bored in my last job which I could do by rote or stoned. I don't show up stoned. I smoke at night and have a great nights sleep.

Not like the hangovers I had when I was drinking almost every night.

If I owned a company I would want pot smokers but not drinkers.

[vadawg]

47. then you just show a script from the doc, same as if you tested for oxy or percocet

and the agency are not enforcing the law, they are enforcing their own standards which they are entitled to do, same as if you hired a babysitter and required a drugs test, if they refuse you dont have to hire them...

[Luminous Animal]

113. They've no business knowing what kinds of therapeutic

drugs I take.

[vadawg]

127. yes they do if it interferes with your job, or if they are hiring you

and its a condition of hiring, if your not happy with with the conditions then you dont have to apply for the job..

[Luminous Animal]

130. If I'm not performing, they can fire me.

Again, an employer has no business knowing what disease or afflictions I may have. I have no business knowing the diseases and afflictions of my employees. All I need to know is whether they can execute their job and to the satisfaction of everyone who works with them.

[stlsaxman]

160. bingo!

[The Gunslinger]

63. maybe your employer should put a camera in your car........

to ensure your not breaking the law by speeding.

[Luminous Animal]

112. Our employer is not law enforcement.

When they come up with test to determine whether or not you have, over the weekend; jay-walked, executed a rolling stop, rode a bike on the side-walk, or exceeded the speed limit, they will do it.

And, as an employer, I resent federal & state governments using me as an arm of law enforcement in other cases. For instance, it should be up to the Feds to prove that the people working for me are legally allowed to work in the U.S., not me. It should be up the State to keep do the paperwork necessary to keep track of dead beat parents, not me.

[stlsaxman]

161. bingo x2!

[Fedja]

148. Being black and in school used to break the law

Not all laws are good and some need to be overthrown.

[JonLP24]

175. I can be into identity theft and my employer has no way of determining that

or regularly check up on that unless I get arrested by police -- same with cannabis. Our employers are not parole officers and we shouldn't have to forced to prove our innocence unless *suspected*.

[fascisthunter]

196. oh brother

[ixion]

18. Drug Testing is wildly unconstitutional, in my opinion

and I've turned down several jobs over the years because they were going to test.

[Dreamer Tatum]

24. On what grounds? nt

[ixion]

26. invasion of privacy

[Dreamer Tatum]

31. No one's invading your privacy, particularly the government

Amazing what people think the Constitution says vs, what it actually says.

[ixion]

33. so, what part of the 4th amendment are you unclear on?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I think it's pretty clear.

[DatManFromNawlins]

36. I think you need to retake Civics class

Because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[ixion]

40. ...

:rofl:

[Dreamer Tatum]

43. Breathtaking display of a hierarchy of ignorance...perhaps even willful

Sad.

[ixion]

44. no, what's sad

are folks like you who believe you have a right to pry into people's private affairs.

[Dreamer Tatum]

51. I don't have any right that you don't give me when you agree to work for me

If you want to work for The Man, you might have to put down the bowl. If the bowl is that important to you, then find a bowl-friendly employer or start your own business.

[ixion]

77. nope

if you ask me whether I prefer men or women, I can sue you. Why should drugs be any different?

[Dreamer Tatum]

84. Goddamn it, is this THAT hard for you?

If you sign on a line that says I as an employer have the right to ask your sexual orientation, then YOU CAN'T SUE ME.

WHEN YOU TAKE A DRUG TEST, YOU SIGN FOR IT. YOUR SIGNATURE CONFERS RIGHTS UPON THE EMPLOYER.

[ixion]

162. Can your parents hear you in the basement when you type all in caps?

Just curious.

[Dreamer Tatum]

197. I can't help it that you're from Missouri

as in, "He's from Missouri...you'll have to SHOW him."

[ixion]

206. Wouldn't be hard to show people something

with your head shoved so far up your own arse?

[Dreamer Tatum]

209. You just violated my 49th Amendment rights!

I mean, so long as you're making up rights out of thin air, why can't I?


:eyes:


You're dead, son. Go get yourself buried.

[SOS]

243. The tests are for two purposes

1. To eliminate cannabis users. All other drugs will be out of your system in 24 hours because the body recognizes them as toxins (alcohol, nicotine, cocaine etc).
The body recognizes THC as food (a fat molecule) and stores the THC in the liver. Thus anyone can beat a drug test (other than a pot smoker) if they can manage a day off their drug of choice.
Hire the alcoholic, coke snorter rather than the weekend toker. Great hiring practice!

2. Health insurance. If you test positive for a legal drug such as nicotine you won't be hired either because they think you will cost them on the insurance.

But you are correct. If they ask, just say no. Both myself and my wife have refused pre-hiring drug tests, because we do not trust anyone who shows us no trust.
Worked out great.
We're both independently employed now and don't have to put up with any of this stupid BS.

[reggie the dog]

256. You get off telling others how to live their lives don't you!

Just like a slave master in the old days.

[Dreamer Tatum]

275. I don't give a shit what you do

Until you ask me to care by (a) applying for my jobs, and (b) submitting to the piss test.

I'm not a slave master. Are you a slave?

[reggie the dog]

282. no, because I live in a free country where my boss cannot use

my piss to fire me. I left the USA 6 years ago.

[msanthrope]

62. What's sad is the state of your civics education.

Here's what you missed in government class the day you and your buds were getting baked behind the gym:

The 4th amendment applies to the state and its agents. Not to private employers.

Get it?

I'll repeat it again.

4th amendment does not apply here.

[ixion]

75. well, yes it does, actually

This is from the Bill of Rights. I am a free citizen of this country, which was founded on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. One of those rights is the Right to Privacy. Just like an employer is not entitled to ask sexual orientation, neither should they be allowed to ask about personal lifestyle choices. A corporation is not a special entity. In fact, my status as an individual is given more weight in the Constitution than a corporation, which is nothing more than a legal construct.

And, incidentally, the reason corporations give for drug testing is that it is required by law. A law made by our corrupt government, and a law that is an invasion of privacy.

I'll let you get back to your fascist daydreams now.

[kelly1mm]

86. Businesses cannot ask about sexual orientation

not because it is unconstitutional, but rather that the congress used its power under the commerce clause to outlaw that type of questioning. They are both "against the law" but different sources of "law". The congress/state legislatures could outlaw drug testing if they want too as well. Better to start there if you want to change the status quo.

[msanthrope]

88. Your 'logic' is a PSA for putting down the bong and paying

attention in school.


I'm gonna go back to my fascist daydreams, now....

[Nay]

158. Although I agree that it is dumb to still have weed illegal, it is NOT

illegal for private employers to drug test. The Bill of Rights applies only to government entities, not private ones. It is not comparable to asking about sexual orientation -- the Federal govt has made discrimination by private companies illegal for several "protected" areas: gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, etc., so private employers cannot discriminate against you for those reasons. Note that pot smoking is not a category. Nor do any of the categories involve anything illegal on its face.

I personally agree with you completely that it is stupid to still harass pot smokers, but it's not illegal to do so.

[ixion]

164. Thanks...

I understand your point, however I guess my premise is that just because it's not on that list, doesn't mean it shouldn't be there.

50 years ago, drug testing was largely unheard of. The government paved the way for drug testing with the stupid, ill-conceived 'war' on drugs, and some corporations have taken advantage of the demonizing of pot smokers to implement this invasive breach of privacy.

Yes, I understand that it's legal for them to test now, but I don't believe that it should be legal.

[ixion]

190. here's the thing:

I understand what you are saying, in principle. What I find interesting is that you imply this distinct separation between the government's 'war' on drugs and corporate drug testing.

The two are most inextricably related. This is the point of our contention, I believe.

[Dreamer Tatum]

203. Way to move the goalposts

The point of your contention, until you were humiliated, was the 4th Amendment.

The War on Drugs has nothing to do with the issue at hand. As an employer, I don't want people who take drugs working for me. I've turned away great candidates because they wouldn't take a piss test, or they failed it. No harm, no foul. I'll find another person, and they'll find another job.

[ixion]

205. humiliated? By you?

Hardly.

Just because the fascists control things right now, that doesn't make it right.

I'm sure your place of business is equally as dismal and depressing.

[Dreamer Tatum]

207. By everyone, as I imagined you are fairly often nt

[ixion]

210. heh...shows what you know

a whole-lotta nothin'.

[Chan790]

145. Your ignorance is no laughing matter, son. n/t

[demwing]

208. What you "think" on this topic is irrelevant. What is your constitutional basis?

that's the kicker here...

[kelly1mm]

56. Just in case you did not know, the 4th amendment only

applies to government actors/actions only, just like the other BOR amendments. This is often misunderstood like when a private entity does not like something you say - you can't claim the protections of the 1st amendment. This basic understanding of constitutional law is often missing in many discussions - both here on DU and in other forums.

[ThoughtCriminal]

78. Correct. But the government does have a roll

in protecting the rights of citizens from abuse by employers. For example, Employee Polygraph Protection Act:

http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-eppa.htm

Unfortunately, the swing of pro-corporate government has made implementation of these protections far less common. In particular, there is a lack of courage regarding the absurdities of "war on drugs". So, while I would agree that the 4th Amendment may not apply to testing by private employers, there is ample precedent for restricting and regulating how drug tests are used and applied and protecting workers from an abusive and flawed system.

[kelly1mm]

87. Congress can use the commerce clause to regulate/outlaw

almost anything. Does not make what the congress regulates/outlaws "unconstitutional", which is what the poster I replied to had stated. Words have meanings - especially legal terms.

[ixion]

79. and who mandated drug testing: the government

thanks for helping to prove my point.

[kelly1mm]

89. The government does mandate some drug testing but not

across the board. For government drug testing to be constitutional it must be rationally related to an important state interest (may be a lesser/higher standard I don't recall off the top of my head) but the point is that the government cannot just test you (or it's own employees) willy nilly like the private sector can. I agree that the government's getting into the drug testing business drove the cost down so low that it made it available to business at little cost.

[tammywammy]

106. 4 of the 6 jobs I've had didn't drug test

I started working in 1997. I have a part-time job every other weekend right now that I wasn't drug tested for. My real job I was, but then that comes with the territory of being around classified information. The other job I was tested at was a car dealership. I worked in accounting there. You just needed to be clean when you were hired, and be sober during the day, a lot of the techs and sales men smoked pot after work.

When I managed a coffee shop when you were hired you signed a release for random drug testing but we never did it. The owner once asked me if I thought we should do drug testing and I told him "only if you want it to just be me and you running this place." I worked at Starbucks for 3 years and an amusement park for the 3 years before that while I was in high school, never tested at either of those places.

[Common Sense Party]

283. Perhaps you can't see it through all the weed haze.

The 4th amendment is a limit on GOVERNMENTAL powers. The government/authorities can't do an unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

We're talking here about a voluntary interchange between an employer and a potential employee. The employer wants a safe working environment, and wants to make sure people who do illegal drugs aren't in the workforce. Employer asks potential employee to pee in a cup. Potential employee can choose to pee or not to pee. (That is the question.)

There's no unreasonable search, no unreasonable seizure, the government has not even entered into it, much less kicked down any doors. The 4th Amendment has nothing to do with this.

[tekisui]

27. Unreasonable search and seizure.

Cops can't come into your home and search before a job. No one should have the authority to take fluids from my body in a search. It is done through coercion, not consent, too.

[Dreamer Tatum]

30. Normative statements aren't arguments

Cops are the Government. A private employer is just that...private. And they're not focing you to do anything. Just stay home and don't apply if you don't want a test taken.

[alarimer]

35. Why should corporations be able to do things the government can't?

I mean they get away with all kinds of unconstitutional bullshit and all we can say is that the law doesn't apply there? Why the fuck not? What kind of stupid fucking democracy do we live in that allows this sort of bullshit?

[DatManFromNawlins]

39. The kind that says that employers choose their employees

[Dreamer Tatum]

42. So all you have is normative polemic

I was hoping for an actual discussion.

[tekisui]

64. The 4th amendment protects the

right of the individual. The right, in the 4th, attaches to the person. It is not, literally, a restriction attached to the government, as the 1st is.

[Dreamer Tatum]

68. So, 20 or so years of drug testing, millions of people tested, and no one but you thought of that?

I've seen this argument before, and it's bogus. ALL rights "attach to the individual." All of the Amendments refer strictly to government activity, not the private sector. Otherwise we'd be using Amendments against each other all day long.

[davidpdx]

356. They don't understand simple English

It's not the government that is doing the search.

[kelly1mm]

57. Posted above, but again, just in case you did not know, the 4th

amendment applies to govenment actors/actions only, just like the other BOR amendments. This is often misunderstood like when a private entity does not like something you say - you can't claim the protections of the 1st amendment. This basic understanding of constitutional law is often missing in many discussions - both here on DU and in other forums.

[tekisui]

61. Oh, I know.

But, reading the 4th, it is not written as a limit on government action. It is written as a right to an individual.

Where the 1st says Congress can make no law .....

The 4th says "the right of the people to be secure in their persons....against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....."

I see a difference, and while Case Law may not be supportive of that reading, yet, I think it is still a valid argument.

The right attaches to the individual rather than limit the government, in this case.

[msanthrope]

69. No, you don't know.

The 4th is most assuredly written as a limit on government action, as is the rest of the Bill of Rights.

And yes, 'Case Law' is not supportive of your reading. Not for 2 centuries, now.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. For all employees or just some?

[ixion]

34. For All People

not just some...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. So that would include cops, secret service agents, doctors, paramedics?

Can you think of any job that it would be okay to require random drug testing?

[ixion]

58. yeah, Congress

everyone else can do what they want.

[jimlup]

21. We claim to be a free society and to hold it as the most important virtue yet

Given the most trivial test we fail badly. I guess I'm old to enough now to just consider it ironic. We apparently believe in the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor - nothing more.

[FirstLight]

28. CHA-CHING! winner!

The Employers/Corporations have the rest of us over a barrell...especialy in the current Job market. They can ask you to sign away the rights to your first born child and you have no choice if you need the job...

I am just pissed that it seems so cut & dried to so many people
"Just don't apply for that job"

uh...well, when they ALL test, where's the choice?

"just don't smoke pot"

well, maybe even a 'prescription' doesn't fly legally with an employer and a no tolerance policy
...and maybe it isn't JUST about POT

There are so many reasons this is just wrong in my eyes...someone upthread comented that they can look at your liver levels, wha other meds you take, pregnancy, etc...
It is supposed to be illegal for an employer to ask medical questions during an interview...why is this not illegal too?

MY body fluids, my business...period

[vadawg]

48. sorry but its not your business, its the empoyers business of you are using any drugs

especially drugs that may effect your performance or the safety of others.

[The Gunslinger]

76. a lot of things "may" effect performance or safety

Should they be allowed to put cameras in our homes to make sure their underlings go to sleep early enough to ensure proper performance. Maybe tell you what you have to eat to ensure proper performance. where does the freedom end?

[vadawg]

92. what freedom is being taken away, you have the freedom to apply to the company or put away the bong

cant get much more freedom than that....

[JonLP24]

108. Keeping the bong and applying for the job

is more freedom than those options. You said "cant get much more freedom than that" so I was addressing a possibility which is more freer then that.

[vadawg]

120. not really, cause then you are taking away the freedom of the guy doing the hiring

he dosent want anyone doing drugs on his payroll, so he has the freedom to not hire you if you wont take a piss test, you have the freedom to give up the bong and take the piss test or to walk away.... personally i dont care if you do drugs, but i dont want my babysitter doing it and if i found out she was then i would fire her.

[JonLP24]

123. They have plenty of freedom when it comes to hiring

I'm talking about personal freedoms which is more important than some company that is risking losing very good employees by using a drug test for prior use. So you administer drug tests on baby sitters? :shrug: Not that I have a problem with it, but it's unusual. However consider the number of people are good people that happen to use cannabis, in fact many of them probably post on this board -- same with people who like to drink beer. They are a good and bad people but the same holds true for sober people.

[vadawg]

128. yup but i as an employer have the right to not hire someone who uses drugs

yup maybe there are great people who use drugs, but maybe the employer dosent want them on his payroll, for whatever reason. I for one dont want to rely on someone who is ripped out no matter what drug they are using, my life depends on the guys around me and i dont want anyone with an altered state of reality no matter how groovy that might be.

[JonLP24]

129. As long as they aren't using on said job

Otherwise their free time doesn't affect you one bit. Same with alcohol. As long as they aren't drunk at work around you and use during their free time doesn't affect you either.

[vadawg]

132. sorry but yes it does, you might not like it but what employees do in their spare time effects their

employer, it dosent even have to be illegal shit that effects them it can be the sports you play, or other aspects of your life, they all affect the employer to some extent, most they dont care about but when it comes to illegal shit or shit that would effect their insurance then they really care..

[JonLP24]

133. I may not like it?

In fact it doesn't bother me at all because I know it's not true. I understand sports because you can get injured and miss work but I never met an employer that prohibited sports. However if I do sit back and watch a sport on TV on Sunday and drink several beers(I personally don't drink--it makes me sick, dizzy, and stupid) and ready for work sober you're not hurt in any way, trust me. Same thing if I used some cannabis to enjoy the game and was sober ready for work. We can go back and forth saying yes it does, no it doesn't but from personal experience whether someone uses alcohol or cannabis has no impact on your safety or whatever unless they're drunk or high while at work and you obviously feel differently.

[vadawg]

134. if you cant see that being involved in an illegal activity may effect your employer

then you have never seen the TV or read a paper and dont understand how companies hate bad publicity no matter how minor it may be...

[JonLP24]

136. I'm not seeing it really

You can't detect every possible illegal activity someone is involved in and someone that may possess a small amount of cannabis is very low on the totem pole when it comes to illegal activity. Many places have it on one of the lowest ends of law enforcement. So whatever the effect is.. is very minuscule and you might want to look for other methods to see what kind of serious illegal activity they may be into. Fair is fair.

[JonLP24]

102. What about the person

that after a long day of work smokes a joint but is sober all day? It can't be any worse than people that work construction and drink a 6 pack when they get home.

[vadawg]

104. well according to the law it is, one is legal one is not

unless under medical supervision...

[JonLP24]

107. I wasn't talking about the law

I was talking about performance and endangering others. Using Cannabis after work instead of drinking beer can't be any worse when it comes to performance or endangering others. As long as you aren't under the influence while you're at work. A drug test won't weed out those that like to drink before work.

[vadawg]

109. well the law is a big part of it, a lot of companies just dont want people who break the law working

for them, its just a fact rightly or wrongly they may feel you will possess on their premises or whatever, its a fear companies have and they have a right to weed people out of their selection process for drug use...

[JonLP24]

110. I know

I was addressing the performance or endangering others aspect of it which alcohol can have more endangering effects. About the law I know it's against the law which I disagree with. I'm against drug testing for specifically Cannabis primarily because it's unfair. It stays in your system for 1-4 weeks and while cocaine or some other salt-like water soluble substance only stays in there for up to 3 days you can be a user of hard core drug and pass more drug tests then the guy who uses Cannabis. Same example when I was in the Army. Very few people used Cannabis during their time there(except on leave where most people used) but people would often use cocaine, etc on a Friday night or on start of a 4 day weekend and they will be clean come Monday or Tuesday.

[Mopar151]

111. You mean like antihistamines/cold medicines?

How about steroids like prednisone? Heavy antipsychotics? Sedative hypnotics, like Ambien?
'Cuz I've seen them all abused, in heavy industrial settings, and they all scared me more than somebody who smoked like Chong last night.

[vadawg]

114. yup dosent matter what drug it is, if it is going to endanger me by you using it then i dont want yo

working with me, if im going to get busted because you had it on you when i gave you a life then i dont want you in my car. similar to what the companies think...

[juno jones]

193. Add in Hangovers.

The boys around me drink all night and come in hungover sometimes. They are mopey and sometimes careless. A good throbbing hangover is far more debilitaing than a toke or two the night before.

I'm in the dream profession here. We pretty much all smoke and only the big corps test- and who wants to work at a corporate chain restaurant?...No one sane to begin with. They get the meth heads who always test clean, unless they're too tweeked to give a shit anymore. It's that production, assembly line beast to feed...

[Mopar151]

350. What I really love

Is getting a sanctimonious lecture on the need for drug testing from someone in the midst of withdrawal from their own jones - Or sucking down prednisone from an inhaler so they can keep smokin' butts.

[The Gunslinger]

74. agreed

It's amazing how many on the "left" are so willing to stand up and fight for the rights of the corporations to in interfere with your life.

[mithnanthy]

32. a friend used a product...

called Bee Clean, bought at a head shop. All natural ingredients, cleans in 90 min up to 5 hours. $20. It's amazing what people have to do to get and keep a job or insurance.

[Kansas Wyatt]

38. I know it DECREASES my employer's Insurance cost by drug testing.

Electrician and I don't drink or do drugs, so it doesn't bother me.

You might consider WHO is really pushing this before you blame your employer, because it may be their insurer charging less if they have testing.

[WyLoochka]

270. You are right there

Insurance companies give a "credit" of 5-10% off the premium to businesses that establish drug testing programs.

[The Straight Story]

49. YOUR rights? Your body, your choice back in the day - now it is your body, my choice

We gave up rights to our bodies when we caved in to those who want to control us and where we eat/drink for our own safety - because we need others to guide us and protect us.

Sit back and let us help you make the right choices, because we know better.

[ThoughtCriminal]

50. Let's take an example

Let's say that a test is 98% accurate (2% false positives) and that 2% of the population actually do abuse drugs.

What are the odds that a positive test has actually identified a drug abuser?

Answer: 50%

[vadawg]

52. huh, id say the odds are that 2 out of 100 who test positive are not users, not the %50 you posit.

[ThoughtCriminal]

54. That's because you haved ignored the false positives

A test that is 98% accurate is going to show two false positives out of 100 non-users.

The problem is that companies that use and support the testing don't care if the innocent get fired too.

[Dreamer Tatum]

59. I don't think you gave enough info to calculate those odds, but you are approaching correctness.

You left out the probability of a positive test. You need that to apply Bayes.

[ThoughtCriminal]

70. It's a bit simplified in my example

Assume that there is a 100% chance of detecting an actual user and a two percent chance of a false positive and that out of a group of 100 employees two are actual users. Testing all 100 employees is likely to result in four employees getting fired - two actual users and two innocent. So only 50% of the positive results would actually be non-users.

Now, the level of drug use might be higher than 2% (I worry more about alcohol abuse, but that's not what they are testing for), and the testing companies are not likely to admit 2% false positives. But I think this points to a problem with the statistics of drug testing.

[Dreamer Tatum]

82. I get what you're saying but you messed up a little

Bayes is:

P(U|+)= P(+|U)P(U) / (P(+|U)P(U) + P(+|NU)P(NU))


So if 10% are users, and the test is 98% accurate, then P(U|+) = 83%. That's a pretty good test - if you're a user, it takes you from 10% on a randomly sampled basis to 83%.

Now if there are only 1% users, then P(U|+) = 33%.

That looks like a worse test, but in terms of lift over random, it's actually better than the first test, when there were more users!

Still, it says that a test that is 98% correct still only gets it right a third of the time.

That preserves the spirit of your point, I believe.

[Patiod]

218. Does it "detect" second-hand smoke?

I don't smoke, but my SO does. During the winter, I'm sure I get some of his smoke. I used to get high, so I know how it feels, and the second-hand smoke has ABSOLUTELY no impact on my mind. But would a test find me "guilty"? Ugh.

[winyanstaz]

72. Hell I know of employers that test for drugs...but use them themselves...

Most rich people that do drugs..do cocaine and the laws and penalties are lighter for cocaine then street cocaine/crack.
This means the rich man plays and the poor man pays.

[Liquorice]

73. I'm against it on principle too. It is an invasion of privacy. Strangely enough,

the federal government doesn't test for drugs unless the job is driving, air traffic control, etc. As far as I know, state governments rarely test either, at least in my state. It's the private corporations that love to do drug testing.

[Hippo_Tron]

90. Probably not unconstitutional but I would support legislating limiting its uses

[Blacksheep214]

93. Another name for a drug test is intelligence test!

Are you smart enough to pass?

I don't need to justify my life to anyone but after a year and a half job search, being straight allowed too much time to dwell on the bad.

A job came up which had a mandatory piss test. After some research, I spent 20 bucks on a bottle of Quick Fix artificial urine. They rarely watch you pee I learned. The temp strip showed 96 degrees as I squirted it into the bottle. Let some regular loose for sound effects and that's it. I passed and have the job. The clinic was part of a major hospital, not some rinky dink operation.

Now I am partnered with an alcoholic.

Go figure!

[Fearless]

94. My suggestion is to move to a state that decriminalized it and sue.

Of course, that would be fantasy world scenario. Few could afford the move. The law suit will happen eventually though.

[kelly1mm]

99. And what would be your cause of action or claim? nt

[Fearless]

245. In a state where marajuana is decriminalized...

Make the case that barring those who test positive from a job is a discriminatory practice. It will be a few years yet before such a ruling could be made in this country, but it will happen eventually.

[ThoughtCriminal]

105. Some states have laws restricting drug tests

In addition to California, seven states have enacted protective
legislation that restricts drug testing in the private workplace and
gives employees some measure of protection from unfair and unreliable
testing: Montana, Iowa, Vermont and Rhode Island have banned all
random or blanket drug testing of employees (that is, testing without
probable cause or reasonable suspicion), and Minnesota, Maine and
Connecticut permit random testing only of employees in "safety
sensitive" positions. The laws in these states also mandate
confirmatory testing, use of certified laboratories, confidentiality
of test results and other procedural protections. While they are not
perfect, these new laws place significant limits on employers'
otherwise unfettered authority to test and give employees the power
to resist unwarranted invasions of privacy.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp02.htm

[The Midway Rebel]

95. Drug testing IS bullshit! It also warfare against the working class and poor.

My mother worked for the HR department for a medium sized midwest municipality for a span of 15 years. She had to order thousands of folks to go pee pee in a cup. She said most folks caught by the UA screen were marijuana smokers. She saw many (otherwise) law abiding, tax paying, hard working folks lose a job or not get hired because some machine, rightly or wrongly, detected a few metabolites of THC in their piss.

Refuse to surrender your Constitutional protections of freedom of religion, freedom from warrantless searches and freedom from self incrimination for the purpose of employment. Just say NO! You may have to live the life of a pauper, but you should pursue your happiness. You certainly will be in good company!



:toast:

[ThoughtCriminal]

97. ACLU Position

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp02.htm

Excerpts:
"The American Civil Liberties Union opposes indiscriminate urine
testing because the process is both unfair and unnecessary. It is
unfair to force workers who are not even suspected of using drugs,
and whose job performance is satisfactory, to "prove" their innocence
through a degrading and uncertain procedure that violates personal
privacy. Such tests are unnecessary because they cannot detect
impairment and, thus, in no way enhance an employer's ability to
evaluate or predict job performance"

"The drug screens used by most companies are not reliable. These
tests yield false positive results at least 10 percent, and possibly
as much as 30 percent, of the time. Experts concede that the tests
are unreliable. At a recent conference, 120 forensic scientists,
including some who worked for manufacturers of drug tests, were
asked, "Is there anybody who would submit urine for drug testing if
his career, reputation, freedom or livelihood depended on it?" Not a
single hand was raised. Although more accurate tests are available,
they are expensive and infrequently used. And even the more accurate
tests can yield inaccurate results due to laboratory error. A survey
by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, a government agency, found
that 20 percent of the labs surveyed mistakenly reported the presence
of illegal drugs in drug-free urine samples. Unreliability also stems
from the tendency of drug screens to confuse similar chemical
compounds. For example, codeine and Vicks Formula 44-M have been
known to produce positive results for heroin, Advil for marijuana,
and Nyquil for amphetamines."

[Patriot 76]

98. It's all about fucking over people who choose to smoke weed.

It's about restricting employment and putting people in jail for what the uppity types decide to be bad for you.

Par for the course with the Authority types

[Sparkly]

103. Here's where I differ.

(I haven't read any other replies, so I'm not trying to rehash anything -- no pun intended -- and don't have any newfound insights from the thread.)

1. I don't think it's actually unconstitutional, because there is no right guaranteed by the constitution to gain employment while breaking laws.

2. The laws -- I understand, and agree, with the idea that marijuana should be legal.

3. As a "socialist" sort, and someone with a heroin addict in the family, I welcome drug testing IF the results are used to provide help to people.

4. "Helping people" means there's publicly-funded and publicly-available treatment to offer them.

Imagine yourself as an employer, rather than as an employee. Personally, I'd consider a positive THC the least of my concerns; alcohol, although legal, would be a concern if it reached the level of abuse/addiction. But drugs like coke, crack, meth, heroin? I wouldn't take a chance. Would you? Is it unconstitutional to make such hiring decisions? Should someone lose their business from lawsuits or criminal charges for making such decisions, in efforts to protect their own life's work?

[the other one]

115. Drugs are bad. Don't do drugs.

M'kay?

[madville]

116. We treat drunks and druggies equally, they both get shown the door

We've had three incidents in the last year:

One guy was suspected of stealing from the company. On some inside info we drug tested everyone across the board and he popped positive for cocaine and marijuana. Fired him.

Had another guy showing up late, spaced out, disinterested in work. Got another tip and drug tested everyone, he popped for marijuana, Fired him.

Another guy showed up reeking of alcohol some days, real slacker, you could tell he was hung over most of the time. One of our customers (a law enforcement agency) breathalyzed him when he pulled up in a work van because they could smell it on him. He was .07 BAC and the company owners asked him to take a voluntary drug test, he agreed. Tested positive for marijuana. Fired him.

I don't have anything against pot but we can't do it with the background checks, insurance, and clearances that this job requires. We don't tolerate drunks on the job either, at least give yourself 24 hours to sober up. Unfortunately pot is illegal so it is zero tolerance along with all other illegal drugs.

The company has no problem with blanket drug testing because the reliable core of employees are either church going teetotalers or retired military/ex-law enforcement. They know they won't pop and use blanket tests to catch suspected users (usually lower tier installers). They're usually just using the positive drug tests to get rid of inept employees.

[The Midway Rebel]

124. Yes, people who steal, people who are late, slackers, appear to be spaced out

or otherwise judged to be inept are definitely stoners and therefore should be ferreted out with a UA and fired. Especially if they are "low tier installers". People who are "the reliable core of employees are either church going teetotalers or retired military/ex-law enforcement" would never do anything wrong, fucked up or illegal. :sarcasm:

In your post, you claim not to have anything against pot and I assume its users. You indeed may not. But your company sure does.

[JonLP24]

126. I don't know about ex-law enforcement -- they probably don't

but former Military... :rofl: College doesn't hold a candle to the drunken parties in the barracks and drug use is common, especially the harder stuff because it leaves your system much quicker then Cannabis.

[Luminous Animal]

135. You could have fired each and every one of them without a drug test.

[TransitJohn]

119. Urinalysis and anti-pot stance in the workplace

It's all about maintaining corporate insurance profits. If you are involved in a workplace mishap or accident, and come up hot for having been stoned a couple of weeks ago, your employer's insurance company can avoid paying out a claim!

[Webster Green]

121. Employers lose if they eliminate pot smokers from their work force..

Drug testing is absurd. You can do coke and heroin and get drunker than shit and still piss clean for their dumb-ass test. Pot smokers can test positive weeks after use, so they are fucked, unless they cheat on the test.

I left one job interview where the potential employer was just as frustrated as I was that a test was required by their insurance company. He really wanted to hire me, because he needed someone with experience, and I had that. He didn't give a shit if I smoked pot.

Another time, I signed up with a temp agency to do construction work. They said I had to take a drug test. I asked if I could take the test in about six weeks, and they agreed and hired me. I wound up working at Disney World in Orlando, doing steel framing on huge buildings there. This was supposed to be a completely drug-free workplace, but the parking lot at lunchtime smelled like fucking Woodstock. I swear, if you eliminated all the pot smokers from the construction trades, nothing would ever get built. :hippie: :rofl:

[juno jones]

201. Restaurants too.

All the best cooks have chinese eyes...:rofl:

[earcandle]

122. I can dig it. Its good to be independent. Be a proud independent!

[SlingBlade]

131. Yep. This is real man, Thanks !

[PJPhreak]

144. My feelings on this subject....

[smoochpooch]

146. There used to be this old anti-pot PSA

It was in an operating room, and the surgeon was smoking a joint, giggling and leaning over the camera with a scalpel. A voice asked something like, "You wouldn't want your doctor to smoke pot would you?"

My response is that I would rather have him high as a fucking kite than drunk (of course, neither would be acceptable). The issue to me is the hypocrisy that smoking pot is somehow inherently dangerous, yet the damage done by alcohol is ignored or glossed over.

[TheKentuckian]

150. I see the authoritarians and nanny staters (aka the truth behind the lies) are out again.

Sure, it makes perfect sense to dredge the nation looking for someone that smokes some herb but crackheads and meth lovers are great employees. Plus, its just stupid because somebody you know has clean pee anyway. The whole thing is systemic fraud and welfare for a narrow industry.

[Hubert Flottz]

151. THEY...don't want you to smoke pot and jump out the...

window like Art Linkletter's daughter did...

[Grinchie]

152. Here's a suggestion

Sell all your stuff and get a pile of cash. Then look around for work exchanges at farms. They always are looking for people willing to work in exchange for a place to stay and food. Only work in Organic farms and collectives, the people are nicer.

Save your money and have fun. Work in the open air and travel the world. Discard the rat race and join the alternative of work for fun, and living life to is best.

These places do exist, and they exist in some of the most beautiful places on the planet.

You won't get rich, but you will certainly learn a lot about the earth, community, and agriculture.

[Wizard777]

155. You don't even have to use drugs to fail the test.

If you use Goldenseal to clean your blood. You fail the test even if no drugs are found. Some places will fire you even if you are using the Goldenseal under a doctors care. Basically what the lab is saying, to make this hokey test work. We also have to prohibit you from using legal substances that can be very good for you. So here at the lab we are willing to place your health at risk to make our hokey test work.

[Richardo]

157. You can't go without a smoke long enought to pass a test to get a JOB?

Bit of a prioritization problem there?

[harmonicon]

169. some people really are that stupid (nt)

[uncle ray]

241. your point would be valid if MJ's presence in the body was any indication of impairment.

why the fuck SHOULD i go a month without smoking to prove to some employer that i'm good enough? how about the fact that i've been a model employee my entire working life? never been fired or even laid off "because it's slow". every employer i've ever had has said i had a job there if i wanted to come back. i've never even been written up, warned, or had any kind of disciplinary action of any kind. i'm the highest skilled person on my shift, if something goes wrong, i'm the guy they come to to fix it, and i'm a goddamned stoner. a potential employer is free to contact any of my old bosses, test me on how i do my job, etc. but he's not getting my piss because i know, as well as the thousands of other smokers out there who excel at what they do, that going clean for a month to pass a piss test proves nothing about an employees worth to the company. apparantly is just eats at some straight people to know that there are those of us out there that can partake in recreational substances and not just do an acceptable job, but actually do better than many of the "high on life" people. any of them are free to take my job from me, some have tried, none have succeeded.

so yeah, there is a priority problem, but it's not the smokers that have it.

there's a saying i learned. heard it in a Sublime song, some old rasta quote or something:

"i work good, and i work fine, but first take care of head."

[Richardo]

244. My point's valid because the rule for getting a job says you have to pass a drug screen.

If the rule were "you have to have green hair" I wouldn't bitch about not getting the job if I didn't dye my hair.

[uncle ray]

254. you merely have a priorities problem if you refuse to dye your hair for that job.

suck it up, dye your hair and don't worry about why your employer demands you dye your hair green when it has nothing to do with your job.

[Richardo]

266. So we agree

...suck it up, put down the bowl and don't worry about why your employer demands you pass a screen when it has nothing to do with your job.

[era veteran]

159. The Police smoke lots of weed

Working M.O.D. shift at a hotel hosting a mounted police convention. Night housekeeper radioed that people smoking in a non smoking suite. I went, door wide open, and I figured tobacco, but no, a big fat joint in an ashtray. Police,2 in uniform, standing around. I said excuse me this IS non smoking room. I picked up ashtray with joint and walked out. They didn't say shit & I smoked their cop weed later that night. Hypocrites & pussies. The saleswoman who sold the package said three different cops asked her if she wanted to smoke at their closing night party. I wouldn't care except they bust people and fuck up their lives. So, this begs the question : Why don't they piss test cops?

[Enthusiast]

217. I watched a Columbus Ohio

police officer toke up at a concert intermission while he was on duty in uniform. I can't remember the artist now(early 1970s), might have been Santana. There were several thousand concert goers standing around in little circles passing joints. In the circle next to ours there stood the cop happily toking and passing the joint along. Funny.

[era veteran]

233. This was about 10 years ago.

They were getting drunk & acting like it was the first time they had been away from home. Anybody who wants to be a cop probably shouldn't, they should be drafted. What a sick culture they live in.

[Enthusiast]

237. Oh yeah.

I've seen every sort of abuse by law enforcement.

[SHRED]

165. Marijuana has no realtime under the influence test

They test for when it was in your system at sometime in the past.

They like it that way.

[SHRED]

166. Busting people for using weed...

...via a urine test does nothing to increase safety...for ANY job.

[kedrys]

167. Again, I'm in a more civilized country

When the company where I now work made me an offer, I accepted (on Thursday), and I started on Monday. No "offer is contingent on jumping through all our bullshit hoops" nonsense. I actually had to ask "um, no background check? no drug testing?" They chuckled and said no. Canadian privacy laws are mercifully uptight on the side of the individual.

Imagine my (happy) shock a couple of months into the job when we had a luncheon on the premises, with several bottles of wine in attendance, in the middle of the day, as such things go. The entire department spent the last 3 hours of the day with a nice buzz, and you know what? Stuff got done - a little bit slower, but done, and done well. That never would have happened anywhere I worked in the previous 10 years in the States.

And speaking of which, I was getting tested every three months at my last statesides job. The only random that was involved was which order the individuals in your cohort would go get tested. If you didn't pick up the phone when they called you, they sent you and your boss a written memo. If you refused, you got terminated right then and there.

One guy in his fifties had a monster headache once (just before I started working there), and took one of his wife's codeine-laced aspirins. He got popped for his drug test a couple of days later, and of course the test came back positive. When they found out the codeine wasn't his, they made him report for mandatory drug testing once a month for a year. :wow:

Now this guy had been with the company for ages, and never had a blotch on his record.

The kicker is, whenever our department wanted to illustrate the evils of drugs, he gave the spiel and commended the company for trying to keep us all safe. Of course, we were in an IT department, so I guess we could have tried to use our computers to drill for oil and gotten hurt or something. :grr:

I get codeine over the counter up here. I don't get drug-tested. At all.

Much more civilized.

[JonLP24]

174. Incredible

it seems so unreal that I'd like to live there. :hi:

[kedrys]

177. I had forgotten how mellow it can be at times

Not that the country's perfect, of course - that fucktard Harper is still the PM - but laws protecting individuals are stringent and not to be messed with. Another example of that is the set of laws having to do with residential leasing, which is heavily biased in favor of the renter, not the landlord. It's pretty amazing.

:hi:

[RedstDem]

176. Your liberties have been sold

Don't take it personally, it's all about money.
The insurance companies knock the rates down to companies that drug test, and drug testing companies price is less than the companies just paying higher fees to avoid it.

Yes Virginia, your liberties are for sale. our privacy's should be completely gone by the end of the next right wing administration.

[mudplanet]

179. Marijuana is the only drug that drug tests can detect.

If you wait three to five days after smoking crack, snorting coke, taking oxycontin, heroin, whatever, it leaves your system and you will pass these tests with flying colors.

It really is bullshit.

[mn9driver]

186. This camel's head was allowed in the tent years ago.

The whole concept of needing probable cause for a drug test was tossed out the window for certain types of jobs. Then, it was tossed out the window for students on athletic teams. Then it was tossed out the window for students in the chess club and drama club. Then it was tossed out the window for just about any type of job.

This is the classic example of the slippery slope. It won't be long before drug testing is rquired to renew your drivers license, get a mortgage, or go grocery shopping. We brought it on ourselves by not protesting--and even encouraging--the revocation of 4th amendment rights for a few. Now it's our turn.

[juno jones]

188. The weirdest thing.

Yesterday I was listening to Canadian radio (we often do up here, the vancouver rock stations are better than our local ones) and noted something strange. They had an ad for their state job exchange for drivers for the olympics and beyond. They listed the driver's licensing requirements...not a peep about drug testing as a requirement.

Then again they also carry advertisments for a shop called 'cottonmouths' and ads for a seed exchange which seems to include certain other seeds as well.

God, I wish we had a sane drug policy in this country.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

189. [idea] So don't do drugs illegally. [/idea]

If you don't like the terms of employment regarding drug policy:
a) Don't apply
b) Join a union
c) discuss terms of employment with boss
d) Quit

[bluescribbler]

191. Been there, done that, burned the t-shirt

When drug testing in the workplace first took hold, in the late 1980's, (thank you Saint Ronnie), it was only done in places where public safety or large amounts of money were a consideration. By the early 1990's, when it was almost impossible to get in the door of any company except through a temp agency, (fucking parasites), drug testing didn't come into play until the employer wanted to bring you in direct. Now you have to piss into a cup for any temp job. :mad: :grr:

I mean, it makes sense to test cops and airline pilots, even bank tellers, but mechanical assemblers? The thought police are coming to get you.

*Edited for spelling.*

[Javaman]

194. Until the pot lobby gets as strong as the alcohol lobby, nothing will change.

so I suppose you are up for a drug test?

[FirstLight]

276. Boy, ain't THAT the truth!

no, not up for a test as of yet, but getting tired of seeing it everywhere...and the TEMP thing was a bit too much. Especilly being suspended for 6 months from temping if you come up positive. It has always galled me that the only thing that shows up is usually pot...unles someone is a real alcoholic, tweeker or worse.

It is a debte that brings out the best & worst of our society, and, it is a debate about whether your employer OWNS you or not, at least it is to me. I guess I have always had an issue with 'the man' - between this and credit checks and facebook stalking....it seems we are more like slaves to the machine more & more.

And I can't WAIT till the pot lobby is stronger than the rest! lol!
I was just thinking it will be a diferent world when my generation (genX and beyond) is finally in 'real' power, we may get some of those changes we need so desperately.

[butterfly77]

198. K&R!!!

I am tired of hearing this bull about Marijua when every one can get it if they want it. How can you legislate or tell someone they have used a drug if they didn't but they were in the area of someone smoking and got a contact from the smoke.

[Vilis Veritas]

200. Someone makes money off the piss test...nt

[fascisthunter]

202. I think people should wear collars that can tell our employers

and government if we ingest something illegal or toxic on our own time. After all, we are property of our employers, according to a few on this thread.

[ooglymoogly]

211. Odd how the freepers crawl from under their rocks on a post like this....kr nt.

[backtoblue]

214. Employers get discounts from health insurance companies for drug testing.

That fact alone is alarming because of all the health problems that can be detected by a urine sample. I have worked a lot of jobs in my life and worked with ALOT of people who smoked pot. Not once have I ever witnessed someone who was a smoker fall and break his leg on the job because he/she got high the weekend before.

With that being said, I have witnessed co-workers coming to work with the flu and spreading it to others because they couldn't afford their fucking co-pays or didn't have insurance at all.

[NorCalDem]

220. I can't wait for...

employers to start gathering financial information on potential employees in the future. Your bank accounts, your mortgage and it's rate, etc.

Clearly, a person's ability to stay in the house they currently live in and/or not end up homeless in the streets is critical when it comes to job performance (far more so than booze or occasional weed use), so according to Dreamer Tatum and Chan790 that information should be readily accessible to potential employers. Your FICO score should determine work eligibility.

As DT would say, "if you want to work for the man, you take the man's mortgage's rates."

Am i right?!?

(I don't care too much for this debate, it's stupid, but man there are some freeperish DU'er on this board....)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

226. FYI, your credit score (as well as other factors you listed) CAN affect work eligability.

Depending upon the employer, of course.

[FirstLight]

229. yep...

so I suppose that I will just have to leave the country if I want to be FREE? (ya, lots of freeperish thoughts and arguments here, very disturbing...)

I don't have a good enough credit score to live here, so I must be deported to some socialist country like Canada ...?

[Stumbler]

222. Yes, it is Bullshit!

Quick anecdote: Back in high school I applied to work the front desk at a hotel chain, who warned me about doing a drug screening prior to my hiring. I assumed it was a UA, so I flushed my system and quit smoking for about 2 weeks. Into my third week of employment, my boss told me it was time to do the drug screening... in his office. It turned out the company who owned the hotel ALSO owned a company that does drug screenings, so they were able to perform the more expensive, and more effective, 'hair sample.' Long story short, I stayed on the job until the results came back about 3 weeks later, at which point I was told my job was going to be terminated.

I asked my boss if there were any special circumstances we could use, as I had learned my duties and performed my job beyond their expectations. My boss agreed, but said there was no alternative; the company had a zero-tolerance policy for drug use. He then followed it up with, get this: "It's too bad, really... You're the best employee who's taken that position out of the last six."

That's when I learned it was a stacked deck against pot-smokers. If I had been binge-drinking, or taking god-knows-what pharmaceuticals after work, I'd probably've kept the job. But I lost the job, even though I out-qualified and out-performed the previous candidates. Bullshit!!

[AngryOldDem]

228. I totally agree.

If I **show up** stoned for my job, then by all means -- fire my ass.

But if I choose to blaze up on a weekend, on my own time, then what I do on Saturday should have no bearing on what I do on Monday.

My former employer was just starting to randomly conduct drug tests. To my mind, there should be probable cause for this before it is done -- such as unexplained drop in job performance, an accident on the job, repeated absenteeism, etc. Unfortunately, I don't think there's much you can do because if you refuse, I'm sure some companies would see that as grounds for dismissal, especially in at-will employment states.

[slackmaster]

230. DILUTE! DILUTE!

OK.

[Qutzupalotl]

271. That will show in the test.

Too much water = failed test. You will have to retest and not drink as much water. It's a red flag.

On edit: maybe dilute for several days beforehand if you can, but not day of.

[slackmaster]

319. I had a "too dilute" result on an initial screening once, in fact the ONLY time I've been tested

I told them I had to drink lots of water on the advice of my doctor, which is true.

They declined to make me repeat the test.

The best thing to do is not use illegal drugs at all for as long as you possibly can. There are also a few things you can do to fine-tune it on test day, like not submitting the first urine of the day or from the beginning of the stream.

[MindPilot]

231. The reason employers drug test is because of federal contracting rules

The guidelines for being awarded a federal contract require a "drug-free workplace". Since a lot of companies at some point will do business with the federal government--and that business is fairly lucrative--they need to be able to demonstrate that they are in compliance with the federal guidelines. The easiest and cheapest way to do that is to have a drug-testing program.

Like many other things, it is quite simply about the money.

[EvilAL]

239. I agree,

and I'd like to see a few "random" Monday morning breathalyzers for management.

[DWilliamsamh]

253. I hate to say this because I agree drug testing for PLENTY of jobs are bullshit

But the answer is you DO have the right to refuse to be tested for those jobs. And the employer has the right to not hire you based on your refusal. It is pretty simple really. You both have right of refusal.

[reggie the dog]

259. Drug testing is mainly an American thing

In most EU countries employers cannot drug test unless they susupect that you are under the influence at work, and then they can only do a test to see if you are actually high at that moment, otherwise it is an invasion of privacy.

[ut oh]

292. Not surprizing given that

American is by the corporation and for the corporations... Fuck the people...

[Abq_Sarah]

338. It's also by and for the trial lawyers

Many employers drug test because of the liability issues in our ambulance chasing society.

[Therellas]

273. it makes perfect sense if you think about it........

(but that WOULD be a prerequisite)
in a society where corporations take out secret life insurance policy on employees,
its safe to say they don't really care about their "well being"
to say the least.
lol
cannabis actually will prolong your life.
that hurts the bottom line.

[RedCappedBandit]

274. One must wonder if..

the people advocating for drug testing would mind if a prospective employer required private medical information.

[NICO9000]

289. The "War on Drugs" has always been a "War on People"

Employers who are more fixated on drug testing than on your actual achievements are control freaks. If you're just applying for some shitty office job, there's no reason why they need to test your pee, especially for pot. I've known plenty of people who smoke weed daily and somehow managed to get up in the morning to go to work and even get promoted once in a while (myself for one).

People who defend drug testing for jobs that do not endanger others need to mind their own business. To the poster who is a freelancer, how on earth can you talk? More than likely, he or she won't have to be tested. This is just another version of "I'm not doing anything wrong, so go ahead tap my phone and read my mail." Stop identifying with nosy companies and stand up for your fellow workers!

[FirstLight]

315. btw, freelancing is not my only gig

I need to do temp jobs or even "get a real job" in admin or something because I have to put food on the table and freelancing is not Cutting it
Unles i can figure out how to make THAT work for me...still in process...
So yes. I AM pissed about the concept of privacy invasion - because damn straight it effects me. Yet I'm also an idealist who wishes she could DO something to change said perception, that somehow, we as a people have to 'take it' because it is 'no big deal.' or 'for our own good.'

~~~
I've got some ideas coming from you guys posting here and all your infinite wisdom and sharing about this issue.
I see that I'm not the only one who wants to stand up for this. AND is isn't just about pot but it may soon BE, if CA decides to legalize & tax. What will happen to so many arguments here if that happens...?

look downthread for my follow up idea/question in a few... :)

[Bertha Venation]

313. This point has probably already been made.

The only reason the drinker gets by and the smoker does not is that MJ is currently illegal. If it weren't illegal to smoke pot, then you'd have a case against a prospective employer.

I agree with you - testing is bullshit. And I believe drugs - MJ, coke, heroin, hash - should be legal.

Recommended

[valerief]

314. What? You looking to have rights over your own body? Not in Merka, land of the Zygote-Worshippers.

[relayerbob]

317. Several myths exposed

While THC may be somewhat detectable for a couple of weeks (not a month except hair tests, which are seldom used), urine tests only measure to about 50 ppm, meaning you can smoke a small amount up to a day before without too much worry. They don't use the more expensive tests unless you fail the first test. Additionally, THC is not water soluble, so drink water until the urine is clear (about three or four glasses), and you'll be OK. Plus, the extra water is good for you. Frankly, with all the stress you are having maybe you *need* to smoke more.

[guardian]

324. Quit whining and deal with it.

If you don't like working under someone else's rules then be self employed and set up your own rules. An over litigious society is a big reason for restrictions/rules like this. If you don't like it, blame the people that sue over spilling coffee on their lap while driving.

[The Midway Rebel]

371. Some of us are dealing with it. Perhaps you would like to help.

http://www.mpp.org/federal-action/?log-event=sp2f-view-item&nid=94752681

[Indy Lurker]

342. The real issue is employment at will

Except for a very limited range of protections, such as race, gender, age (35-70), some medical conditions, in an at-will situation an employee can be terminated for any reason, or no reason at all.

Employees have been legally terminated for driving the wrong brand of vehicle.

The company I work for hires through a temp service, and if thing work out, you will be hired after 90 days if you can pass a background check, and a drug test. After 90 days, we already have a good ideal if you have a drug problem.

The drug test we use only shows drugs used in the last 5-7 days. If you can't keep clean for that long, we don't want you. In terms of the background check, we are only looking for violent crimes. Employers are responsible for employee safety, including the prevention of violence between employees. In terms of drug testing existing employees, I've only done this for two employee's who were obviously impaired. The test is done with saliva. One tested positive for alcohol, >.03, how much more the test doesn't say, but I would guess much higher. The other refused to be tested, and was terminated per company policy. Again, for the safety of other, in this case, in a manufacturing setting, impaired employees can't be allowed to work.

Good employees are still hard to find, the last thing I would want, is to lose a good employee to a random drug test.

[B Calm]

386. On the day that I retire, I plan to smoke a big fat one!