Drug testing in the office? Say what?

I don't take drugs. If I did outside of work and my drugs had no effect on my ability to do the job - it's none of their god damn business.

Over my cold, dead body... guess I won;t be working for any American SuperMeagCorps then. ;)
 
Borris said:
I will not work for a company that holds no faith in their employees honesty.
Click to expand...

But you're not an employee, you're a man who has applied to work for them. They have to be sure that you are suited to the job.

In my view there is nothing morally wrong with asking for someone to complete a drugs test. I'd bet my (parents') house that statistically drug users are not as good at their jobs or more stable in their jobs as non drug users. If you were a footballer would you refuse a drugs test testing for performance enhancing drugs? Then why refuse a test for one that will test for drugs that will lower your performance?
 
I agree Borris. I feel that drug testing should only be carried out if carrying out your job could affect others. Airline Pilot for example.

I would consider a drug test for a job that does not directly affect the safefy of others to be a breach of my rights and would also tell them to stuff it (I can't say if i'd actually have the guts to turn it down, will probably find out one day). I had one very experienced colleague leave my old company (from when I used to work in the US).

He was an industry leader, real smart guy who had been in the same field his whole life. He was one of those people who retained his common sense despite almost scary intelligence and everyone got on well with him.

He got to the final stages of a highly reputable job (VP level) with an industry leader that isn't a household name. Turned it down flat because he was asked to do a drug test (he was a 58 year old with 4 kids who didn't even drink coffee). They said they would forget the test but he still walked away in disgust.

Was one of the best things that he could have done he decided - in the end he eventually decided to retire early and leave the rat race.
 
Borris said:
I've recently been interviewing for, among other places, a US financial company.

I've been to see them a few times, and spoken to a few of their big cheeses in Chicago.

Things have been positive, and they are keen to get things moving along.

Then I get hit with, what I consider to be, a bombshell. They require all employees (even consultants) to undergo drug tests.

So I told them (with a certain degree of tact), that they could shove their drug testing up their sanctimonious, fat, septics tank *****s.

I don't take drugs (except for booze and the occasional fag), and generally do not condone the use of them (although not in a fanatical way).

Is it short-sighted of me to strand on a principle that effectively shuts a potential door on my career path?
Click to expand...

You ask for opinions and then get semi-upset (from your replies) when people post an opinion that goes against you.
That opinion being yes, you are being extremely short-sighted.

Then you say you hadn't made it clear in your OP that this wasn't the only option open to you and hadn't made that clear....
Could you possibly make it clear what it is you want people to say in this thread?

If you really want honest opinions then you need to stop getting upset when they go against yours.
If you're really not bothered about the job you've passed up on maybe you need to re-phrase your original post so that you get a different set of answers (less personal) to your question.
 
These tests are stupid, all you do it get your clean mate to **** in a small bottle, you take the bottle with you to the toilets (you can hide it in your pants or whatever) and voilla.

:D
 
homerio said:
I'd bet my (parents') house that statistically drug users are not as good at their jobs or more stable in their jobs as non drug users.
Click to expand...

Ben Johnson, 1988, Seoul Olympics. He took drugs, and was better at his job than any other man on the planet.

Now, if you'd like to email me, we'll see about getting that house transferred.
 
stoofa said:
You ask for opinions and then get semi-upset (from your replies) when people post an opinion that goes against you.
That opinion being yes, you are being extremely short-sighted.

Then you say you hadn't made it clear in your OP that this wasn't the only option open to you and hadn't made that clear....
Could you possibly make it clear what it is you want people to say in this thread?

If you really want honest opinions then you need to stop getting upset when they go against yours.
If you're really not bothered about the job you've passed up on maybe you need to re-phrase your original post so that you get a different set of answers (less personal) to your question.
Click to expand...

Whoa nelly! I don't see any evidence of Borris getting upset (semi or not), and he said in the OP that it wasn't the only place he's been to see. I think you've taken an unnecessarily aggressive stance here.
 
I can actually see where they are coming from, if an employee is taking drugs it can affect their work performance.
It also makes them a higher potential security risk than a non user, as if you are taking drugs there is a chance it can be used to blackmail you, or at some point the habit gets out of hand and you may be tempted to steal from the company to fund the habit.


Personally I would (if I wanted the job and didn't take drugs) agree to it, but under protest.
 
Werewolf said:
and you may be tempted to steal from the company to fund the habit.
Click to expand...

Well by the time you reach that state it would be quite clear what you are doing, but I see what you mean, I am sure that there are ways to check if someone is doing ok and still not require a drug test. They can be fooled anyway, it's not like it's something hard to do, you won't have your boss looking at your manhood while you are fillig up the cup! I do dissagree with the consept but I would still do it anyway.
 
robmiller said:
Has it been proven :confused: Where?
Click to expand...


Probably scientifically, try taking a spliff and see how long you can concentrate on your work...its not easy to do and not only that your eyes show it as well.

Actually forget that take any sort of drugs and im sure you would find it hard to concentrate on some work.
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
I can actually see where they are coming from, if an employee is taking drugs it can affect their work performance.
It also makes them a higher potential security risk than a non user, as if you are taking drugs there is a chance it can be used to blackmail you, or at some point the habit gets out of hand and you may be tempted to steal from the company to fund the habit.


Personally I would (if I wanted the job and didn't take drugs) agree to it, but under protest.
Click to expand...

There's adifference between 'can affect' and 'will affect'.

I wouldnt have an issue if they said 'If you perform poorly we *may* ask you to take a drugs test', but to pre-emptively do it is an assumption of guilt with no evidence.
 
Spawn said:
Probably scientifically, try taking a spliff and see how long you can stay awake for or concentrate on your work...its not easy to do and not only that your eyes show it as well.
Click to expand...

Ok I shall try it now.

Feeling fine.

Feeling good.

No problems.

Anyone want some cake?
 
Remember that these drugs are illegal. They dont want employees who are at risk of being arrested and failing to turn up to do their job. Also the whole issue of embarresing the company or as previously mentioned blackmail.
 
fatiain said:
When they start paying me for 24 hours in the day as opposed to the 12 they currently pay me for, that's when they can dictate what I do outside of work.
Click to expand...


The problem being is that i dont think they really care what you do outside work as long as its not in your bloodstream therefore causing you to suffer the effects of the drugs the next day. As far as i know certain drugs can stay in the bloodstream for quite a bit of time even if you have stopped. Marajuana if i recall correctly can stay in the bloodstream for quite a few hrs, think its something like 8 hrs or more and thats after you have stopped inhaling it. But again i could be talking out of my ass as i cant really remember tbh:p.

Most probably this company is trying to limit the potential risk of drug taking and its effect on its workforce and their workload i think.
 
I have taken drugs of one sort or another all my life and i think its a good policy.
Most of the druggys i have known i certainly wouldn't want to employ and having a test on interview would make sure i don't get lumbered with one.
All those that take drugs hide behind normality but they are NOT normal they are incomplete beings who need a substance to be complete. I should know.

We should all be doing all we can to stop drug usage. Its detrimental to a productive society and needs to be controlled and eventually stamped out.
Drugs are Bad. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom