Drug testing in the office? Say what?
- Thread starter Borris
- Start date
No, I don't think it is. If you feel that strongly about it, why should you compromise? But, sometimes principles have a price. You just have shown you're prepared to pay it. Good on you.Borris said:
On the other hand, employee drug usage can be a problem and, depending on the company, it can be a very serious one. It isn't necessarily just about people like pilots, either, though that's evidently a clear-cut case. What about people operating dangerous equipment? What about those doing detailed testing where concentration and accuracy is critical? What about companies whose customers insist on drug-free employees? .... because then, one employee taking drugs could cost the company contracts or get it sued.
You have a right to refuse, and if you feel strongly about it, you should, But conversely, companies have a right to insist, and to decline to employ anybody that isn't willing to comply.
Some people have said that this indicates a distrust of employees by company bosses. Guess why bosses have that distrust? It's because, especially on this sort of issue, employees have been known to lie through their teeth. Maybe you, Borris, are trustworthy and never lie .... but how would a prospective employer know that? And do you really expect them to risk potentially severe consequences based on your say-so?
My company has a firm drug test policy. Every employee is tested before an offer is made, and every (and I mean EVERY) employee is subject to random testing thereafter. That includes me.
Soldato
So, if they said you have to take a test for AIDS, thats ok too? after all, they have insurance companies to deal with and there's bound to be someone who'll say that they don't want "that sort of person" working for them.
Or maybe they'll introduce a weigh in every Monday .....
I don't do drugs either and would tell them what to do with there tests but the worrying thing is that people think that the companies are justified; employers hire your time while you are being paid ..... not OWN you body and soul!!!
Or maybe they'll introduce a weigh in every Monday .....
I don't do drugs either and would tell them what to do with there tests but the worrying thing is that people think that the companies are justified; employers hire your time while you are being paid ..... not OWN you body and soul!!!
Nothing wrong with this, they can require you to take a drug test if you want to work there. If you don't want to take the test, fine, go away and someone else will gladly do it I'd imagine.
The employer should have the right to employ whoever they want. This idea that "whatever you do outside the office is none of the business" doesn't wash with me - as an employer they can't guarantee that at some point or other, it won't have a negative influence on your work.
Personally I'd love it if I applied for a job and they required drug testing, since that would increase the chances of me getting it (since some druggies would be dissuaded from applying or fail the test).
The employer should have the right to employ whoever they want. This idea that "whatever you do outside the office is none of the business" doesn't wash with me - as an employer they can't guarantee that at some point or other, it won't have a negative influence on your work.
Personally I'd love it if I applied for a job and they required drug testing, since that would increase the chances of me getting it (since some druggies would be dissuaded from applying or fail the test).
Employers hire your drug-free time.singist said:
As I said, employers are entitled to protect themselves. I'm not aware of any of the issues I mentioned from being under the influence of drugs as applying to AIDS sufferers, but if it did, then I'd feel justified in requiring testing for that too. I'm not a social service and expect employees to be able to be fully productive. Some posts have said they'd tell an employer like me where I can stick my drug tests, but it'll probably be the same place I'll tell them to stick their application, unless they're willing to submit to them.
People have a right to refuse to work for a company that requires drug tests. Companies have a right to ensure employees aren't drug users.
HangTime said:
I disagree, if a particular employer was racist, does s/he have the right to only employ people with the same colour skin as themselves? Afterall, such differences have no difference on the ability to perform a task.
I can remember haveing a conversation a few years back with my friends dad, he told me that throughout his life he'd tried pretty much every drug you can get, and that the important thing was keeping them separate from your life. Seemed pretty good advice, since he's probabaly the wealthiest person I know, and a decent bloke. I agree with what he said, it just obviously depends on the person and how well they can handle it. If a person were to take drugs once a month say, recreationally, I wouldn't think any worse of them, it's only a problem once it becoms an addiction.
I feel as long as it doesn't effect their ability to perform their job, then it shouldn't be a problem. If it's all out of their system by monday morning, and there are no remaining adverse effects on their performance, and it stays out of their system till the weekend, I don't see the problem.
Spawn said:
On sunday I couldn't get to sleep until 4am, and had to be up at 7, so was very tired, which adversely effected my productivity, so in a similar situation to you. Do you feel empolyees should be able to discriminate against people who have trouble sleeping?
Spawn said:
As I said before, there's a world of difference between companies regulating employees' conduct when they're at work, getting paid. Coming to work drunk or on drugs should be a sackable offense, and rightly so. However, employers have no right to specify what their employees do outside of work, except in some instances where they represent the company (a company sacking a celebrity who endorses their product when said celebrity is involved in a scandal, for example). Anything that doesn't affect the employee in question's performance is out of bounds of the employer, full stop.
malc30 said:
Whilst you made some good points, I'd like to address this one: Each user has their limits, and more potent cannabis will simply mean that users smoke less cannabis to achieve the same effects, meaning stronger cannabis is actually safer, since they'll inhale less smoke. Obviously the same doesn't apply to things like cocaine, where there is the possibility of overdose, but it does to those drugs where a vastly increased dose will result in relatively benign consequences.
Soldato
I don't think drug testing in the office is a good idea. I'd always do it at home.
Perhaps. But ....robmiller said:
My company does some government contracting and, for that purpose, drug testing is mandatory. Any employee that takes drugs not only puts their performance in question, but puts those contracts in question too. I am NOT risking losing those contracts just so that an employee can snort coke over the weekend and hope it's out of his/her system come Monday morning.
To take this one step further, and you'll no doubt think it's even worse, it isn't only drug takers that need not apply - it's smokers too. If you smoke, I won't employ you. If you lie about it to get the job and I find out, you get dismissed. The whole company is non-smoking, and everybody that works for me is delighted about that fact.
Sequoia said:
I think a key issue is whether or not taking drugs does actualy have an effect on the ability to perform a task. If it is taken infrequently, say someone takes a holiday, and undertakes in recreational drug use, and by the time they return, it no longer has any effects, but small traces could be still foundi n their blood, it would have had no effect on their performance, or on their job, or anyone else's. Whilst I understand in the case of your employer why drugs tests are mandatory, a company who doesn't deal with the government, and has no such requirements from it's clients, I don't feel that drugs tests should be a requirement providing that there are no detrimental effects on an individuals ability to perform their job.
Does your company have any policy on alcohol consumption? Whilst I wouldn't be supprised if companies had a problem with people coming in, unfit for work being hungover, I doubt that they would test if employees had been drinking at weekends? I guess the legality of which drug is being used is a large factor here rather than simply their performance.
Sequoia said:
Hmm, a toughie. It's hard to reconcile my opinion in that case, since it's hard to justify governments or employers testing employees for drugs when I believe most drugs should be legalised. Obviously you're in the right, since it would be ridiculous to jeopardise your entire company's interets in order to protect the (illegal) interests of your employees, but I'd rather their interests not be illegal and thus you not have to worry about it.
Also, to quickly address an earlier point of yours:
Can I ask why you introduced the measures at your company in the first place? Have you experienced workers whose performance was affected by drugs? It'd be nice to have the perspective from someone on the other side of the interview desk
You mean no smoking at all, or just no smoking whilst on your dime?
Carzy said:Oh, and, silly point, but of course all your employees are happy it's non-smoking. They don't smoke!
That's what I was going to say, but then I realised it's probably good for morale even if you employ smokers but ban smoking on the premises. Nobody resents the smokers for effectively getting paid breaks to go off and smoke and nobody has to endure the smell of smoke in the office.
The company is allowed to set down any legal requirements for potential employees. I dont know about current employees but were not talking about that.
If the company wants to make sure you do not take drugs than they can do that. Personally, I think its a great idea. Taking drugs is illegal whether you do it in your home or at work. No company wants to be associated with someone who commits illegal acts. If you take drugs than you are a risk of bad publicity, potential bad work, potential medical expenses, potential of not showing up. Why should any company hire someone with those risks? Especially when they can easily find someone who will agree to the drug test and pass?
As you answer the OP's question. You were very short sighted. You didnt give yourself any room to move around. Why didnt you ask to think about it? Hell, ya should have just agreed to it IMO, . I think you may have lost a potentialy great job for something very minor.
As for the company trusting its employees? Well, why should they trust you? I cant think of any reason of the bat why a company would trust someone they just hired or are thinking about hiring? What reason have you given them to trust you? Trust is not one of those things that gets handed out to everyone as they walk by. You have to work for it and earn it. Applying for a job with them and showing up in a tie is not going to get them to trust you.
Also, the reason for the drug test probably stems from a history of employees bad performance or publicity due to drugs.
What if you did do drugs and got arrested for possesion or whatever. Now you are probably going to miss a few days of work for the arrest and even more for the court etc. Plus now your head isnt on work. Its on the arrest, the charges, the fines and cost etc. Yea, I bet you dont have any drugs in your system but I bet your work isnt up to its normal levels with all that weighing in on you. Now the company is losing an employee for x number of days, its also losing productivity for however long this is on your shoulders.
If the company wants to make sure you do not take drugs than they can do that. Personally, I think its a great idea. Taking drugs is illegal whether you do it in your home or at work. No company wants to be associated with someone who commits illegal acts. If you take drugs than you are a risk of bad publicity, potential bad work, potential medical expenses, potential of not showing up. Why should any company hire someone with those risks? Especially when they can easily find someone who will agree to the drug test and pass?
As you answer the OP's question. You were very short sighted. You didnt give yourself any room to move around. Why didnt you ask to think about it? Hell, ya should have just agreed to it IMO, . I think you may have lost a potentialy great job for something very minor.
As for the company trusting its employees? Well, why should they trust you? I cant think of any reason of the bat why a company would trust someone they just hired or are thinking about hiring? What reason have you given them to trust you? Trust is not one of those things that gets handed out to everyone as they walk by. You have to work for it and earn it. Applying for a job with them and showing up in a tie is not going to get them to trust you.
Also, the reason for the drug test probably stems from a history of employees bad performance or publicity due to drugs.
What if you did do drugs and got arrested for possesion or whatever. Now you are probably going to miss a few days of work for the arrest and even more for the court etc. Plus now your head isnt on work. Its on the arrest, the charges, the fines and cost etc. Yea, I bet you dont have any drugs in your system but I bet your work isnt up to its normal levels with all that weighing in on you. Now the company is losing an employee for x number of days, its also losing productivity for however long this is on your shoulders.
Last edited:
Associate
Personally think it's fair enough because it can affect performance in the workplace, if you've nothing to be worried about then just accept it, and ask (if your on private healthcare) whether you can upgrade to a cute blonde nurse 
Stiff_Cookie said:
Why is it any of their concern, and why does drug use make someone an inherently untrustworthy person - and indeed the converse, why would passing a drug test show that the person is more trustworthy?
What a ridiculous argument. Would you support companies viewing your internet logs to see if you've downloaded anything illicit, or putting a device on your car to make sure you don't speed before they employ you? Both actions are illegal, and getting caught doing them would produce the same consequences as your drug example.
What about pregnancy? I should imagine a company takes a much more severe hit losing a woman for a few months than it does losing someone for a court appearance, if the drug user ever even appears in court.
The trouble with it is that it's very much the thin end of the wedge, and because it only adversely affects a minority (the drug users) it's generally accepted, all the while paving the way for future corporate invasions of privacy. To those who support drug testing, would you support the two examples I listed above (the downloading and speeding one)?
Stiff_Cookie said:
Sorry I gotta agree with rob, that argument could be applied to anything. Having changed that quote a little do you also think that its perfectly acceptable for a company to demand that you stay celabate and unatached to any partner?
Man of Honour
Its great to see how others minds work.
Makes me realise just how far i am off the mark sometimes. This has been a good thread for me so i am starring it up. So cheers op and thanks.
Makes me realise just how far i am off the mark sometimes. This has been a good thread for me so i am starring it up. So cheers op and thanks.