robmiller said:
You mean no smoking at all, or just no smoking whilst on your dime?
Carzy is right, I meant no smokers at all. If you smoke, I won't employ you, period.
But that needs to be taken in context. I don't want to give chapter and verse on this, not least because I've done it before and it's rather off topic, but here's the short version. My company has an ethos that centres on employee health. That means we provide basic gym facilities at work, pay for membership at local health clubs, pay for personal trainers for employees, have compimentary lunch accounts at local "healthy" restaurants, provide golf club membership, pay for regular sporting excursions from skiing to watersports, pay for regular medical checkups, and so forth. In other words, the ethos of the company is a sort of holistic approach to employee health - I do everything I can to encourage and support healthy living, and at considerable expense, I might add. Sure, this does all have some positive benefits in terms of employee attendance and productivity but not to the extent, as far as I can tell, that it is financially justified. Given that I go to the trouble, and expense, of providing all this, smoking is cerainly not within the ethos, and drug-taking is an absolute non-starter for me. Oh, and before any of the pedantic types out there pick me up on it, I'm talking about illegal 'recreational' drugs when I say "drugs", not medicines.
Evil-Penguin asked if we have a policy on alcohol. Policy, no. View, yes. My view is that alcohol
in moderation has no harmful effect on health and may even have some beneficial effects.
BUT .... I do expect people to be fit for work when they show up and if people roll in still nursing a hangover, it is very likely to be noticed and noted. I will not be impressed. We are, in a business sense, a fairly lean organisation with very little excess fat. If you aren't up to your job, it probably means someone else has to carry your load. That isn't fair on them. So, if someone starts to set a pattern of being unfit for work when they should be working, then I would certainly have a "word" with them about it and ultimately, if no improvement was achieved, the word would be "goodbye".
Another part of the ethos of the company is to pay well. I pay well above market rates and I do so because it keeps staff churn to a minimum. Because we are almost entirely specialists and highly qualified ones, recruitment is neither easy, fast nor cheap. The best way to avoid the inconvenience and expense of replacing people is to avoid doing so. That's part of the reason for the holistic approach and the benefits provided for it, and for the general level of pay and conditions. I ensure that staff are going to have a hard time finding alternative employment that provides as good a package. But the converse of that is that I expect staff to be responsible, and to pull their weight. They won't do that if they are under the influence of either drink or drugs. So if you work for me, you'll do very well out of it but you get potted on your own time and make sure you keep the hangover on your own time too.
Evil-Penguin 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.
I understand the point of view, but disagree with it. My reasons for objecting to drug-taking are complex and it's too late to go into all that. But the upshot of it is that it is absolutely antithetical to the ethos of my company and to my personal beliefs.
If people believe, as robmiller seems to, that drug-taking in their own time is entirely benign, then they should feel free to indulge. But for me, the issue isn't just about the absolute effect on job performance, it's about health as a whole. I will not employ drug users for the same reason I won't employ smokers, and my employment contracts place a binding obligation on staff not to commence either practice after employment commences. If you do, employment will be terminated. In practice, it isn't quite that absolute. Any existing employee that got into either smoking or drugs would be given any help possible to quit, providing they sincerely wished to do so. But, sooner or later, I expect results on that score. As I said earlier, we're not a social service and we aren't a rehab facility either. We'll help if we can, but it had better be matched by employee effort or else!
So, anyone is entitled to smoke or take drugs if they want, but don't expect any chance of employment from me if you do. Your choice.
)!