Drug testing in the office? Say what?

All those opposed to drug testing might as well give up any chance of getting work in the US if you decide to try.

EVERY place I have ever worked at has had a mandatory pre-employment drug screening test. The results of which were necessary before any employment offers could be completed.

It is standard policy for employers to test for the useage of illegal drugs. And I applaud them for it. I won't go into any lengthy explanations, but let's just say from personal experience I won't work anywhere NEAR anyone that's under the influence. And by under the influence I mean both by being high AND the aftermath thereof......
 
Mickey_D said:
Rotty, by the same channel of thinking, it's not illegal in some countries to fiddle with children. Does that mean it makes it right because they went elsewhere to do it?
Click to expand...

No one said it would be right, they just said it would be legal where it happened and no business of your employer.
 
Mickey_D said:
Rotty, by the same channel of thinking, it's not illegal in some countries to fiddle with children. Does that mean it makes it right because they went elsewhere to do it?
Click to expand...

as I see it if you nip over to Amsterdam and have a legal smoke then you are breaking no laws and there is no victim , in your scenario there is a victim ,

in your scenario you would still have committed a crime under UK law
 
Cueball said:
Their company, their rules. When will people understand this?
Click to expand...

I don't think people here have a problem with comprehension, the question is whether a principled stand was worthwhile.

It isn't about whether the company has the right to enforce drug-testing but whether it is right to have the policy. Different viewpoints come to different conclusions, I personally don't think it is right but I'm not about to say they can't have the policy because it isn't my company to determine for.
 
Mr Jack said:
But drug tests don't test for being the drugs themselves they test for the breakdown products. Which has the bizarre side effect that the drug they're best at testing for is dope which leaves breakdown products in your urine for six weeks - long, long after there is any measurably affect from your body. Oh, and they also pick up some prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs as well.
Click to expand...
Which is why you take a sensitive and sensible approach to dealing with positives. But, when my company's future is heavily dependent on contracts where drug-testing is mandatory, I am NOT relying on an employee's honesty to come forward and own up to being a drug user.

Mr Jack said:
They shouldn't. They have the right to have you turn up for work and be capable of doing your job; what you do outside of work is exactly none of their business.
Click to expand...
When an employees activities outside work have a direct bearing on their ability to do their job, and on their ability to lose me contracts, it absolutely is my business what they do.

At the end of the day, I really don't give a flying fig whether people like this policy or not. It is non-negotiable. Any prospective employee agrees or they can forget working for me. Sure, many people will tell me to stick the job. They're very welcome to do that. If you look back, my response to Borris' opening question was that I thought he was right to walk away from the job if it bothered him. But what you have to realise is that any company boss has to look at what's right for the company, and that isn't always what suits an employees sensitivities. So, I have a drug (and no smoking) policy. It's clear, it's up-front and open, and it absolutely isn't open to any variation or amendment. It is central to any job offer. Anyone that isn't willing to go along with it, well, thanks for your time, but there's nothing available for you.

I've had a few people walk away rather than agree to this. Some may do so on principle .... but I'd bet some have done so because they know, or suspect, they'd fail. So be it.

But the concensus from employees is that they have no problem with it, or at least, no problem large enough that it outweighs the other benefits. My staff turnover rate is virtually nil. I've had a few go because of family reasons (like moving States), or retire, but none that I can think of go because they weren't happy with the company or because they got a better offer. That should tell you something, and it certainly tells me something - I'm doing something right.
 
Mickey_D said:
Rotty, by the same channel of thinking, it's not illegal in some countries to fiddle with children. Does that mean it makes it right because they went elsewhere to do it?
Click to expand...

Appeal to emotion. Paedophilia and drug use are totally different ball games and the former has no place in a discussion of the latter.

Mickey_D said:
but let's just say from personal experience I won't work anywhere NEAR anyone that's under the influence. And by under the influence I mean both by being high AND the aftermath thereof......
Click to expand...

What aftermath would that be?

Cueball said:
Their company, their rules. When will people understand this?
Click to expand...

When it becomes true :confused:

Where would you personally place a limit on what companies can do to their current and prospective employees? Or is there not one, because hey it's their company they make the rules!!!
 
robmiller said:
... Where would you personally place a limit on what companies can do to their current and prospective employees? Or is there not one, because hey it's their company they make the rules!!!
Click to expand...
The limit is where the law puts discrimination into illegality. Until then, any offer is at the employer's discretion. There are a number of things I'm not allowed to use as a determining factor (even assuming I wanted to, which I don't). But unless it's illegal to do so, a company is entitled to use whatever criteria it likes to decide who to employ. Nobody, but nobody, has a right to a job with any given employer. It's an offer of a job, which the applicant can then accept or decline. If I decide I don't trust people wearing polka-dot ties, so be it.

Getting rid of people after you've hired them is rather different. But, providing the contract is open and fair, there's a lot you can do there. I had my employee contract challenged in court. Because the company ethos was what it is, and because the contract was very clear and the employee had signed it, guess who won? :D
 
robmiller said:
1.Appeal to emotion. Paedophilia and drug use are totally different ball games and the former has no place in a discussion of the latter.

2.What aftermath would that be?

3.Where would you personally place a limit on what companies can do to their current and prospective employees? Or is there not one, because hey it's their company they make the rules!!!
Click to expand...

1. Not an appeal to emotion, just the first thing that came to mind. It could have been drunk driving, or any other activity that we find deplorable or otherwise illegal that are determined ok in another country...

2. The drug induced hangover, the lethargic attitude about everything, the inattention to detail, etc, etc, etc. All the after effects of being stoned. They create a distraction to others, and considering I work in an industrial environment, they are an absolute danger to themselves and others. People come to work in my environment stoned or hung over, PEOPLE DIE!!

3. I could care less so long as it protects me from idiots thinking that thier civil liberties (perceived or real) are more important than my safety. Or the cost of my health insurance. And considering I'm one of the First Response Team members, I'm directly involved when one of said idiots mangles themselves in a piece of machinery or tries to restart an already working heart with a zap of electricity from an arc welder, or lights himself on fire with an oxyacetelyne torch, or rivets his hand to a stove, or cuts two fingers off with a bandsaw.

And yes, all of the above have happened at my company. And guess what? A mandatory OSHA after-incident drug test revealed in EVERY incident that the injured were under the influence. NOT ONE sober person has been injured at Woodmaster since it opened. EVERY injury reported has resulted in a positive result from a drug test.
 
Mickey_D said:
1. Not an appeal to emotion, just the first thing that came to mind. It could have been drunk driving, or any other activity that we find deplorable or otherwise illegal that are determined ok in another country...
Click to expand...

It's still totally irrelevant.

Mickey_D said:
2. The drug induced hangover, the lethargic attitude about everything, the inattention to detail, etc, etc, etc. All the after effects of being stoned. They create a distraction to others, and considering I work in an industrial environment, they are an absolute danger to themselves and others. People come to work in my environment stoned or hung over, PEOPLE DIE!!
Click to expand...

So you would advocate employers banning their employees from using alcohol, right? After all, it produces much more of a hangover, is much more commonly used and has more of a debilitating effect than a lot of drugs.
 
robmiller said:
So you would advocate employers banning their employees from using alcohol, right? After all, it produces much more of a hangover, is much more commonly used and has more of a debilitating effect than a lot of drugs.
Click to expand...


Company policy states that if you come to work under the influence of alcohol,you will be sent home. And under the influence means hungover, too. And I agree with it whole heartedly.

If a person chooses to drink or do drugs, that's thier option. But when it affects me at work, then send them home. With a severe reprimand. And if it happens more than once in a quarter, give them a permenant vacation. Which is EXACTLY what the company policy is.

If you want to drink, fine. But if you can't STOP drinking with enough recovery time before you have to go to work, THEN DON'T DRINK!!! Not too hard to figure out. And yet there are idiots out there that will still come to work legally drunk after a football party on Sunday......


As Sequoia has pointed out - it doesn't matter two whits what your or my opinions are, the companies have the right to do it. If you show me a company that's not in it to make money, I'll show you a bridge I have to sell you. And when people getting hurt or killed on the job due to drug or alcohol effects, it costs these companies HUGE sums of money. Something costs a company money, they find a way to get rid of it. If that involves testing your employees for drug use, then you test them. If it involves sending them home because you can smell alcohol on thier breath, then they get a day off. And as with ANY detrimental behaviour, if you can prevent it before it happens, all the better. Which is what testing for drug use does. Prevents drug related accidents/incidents from happening BEFORE they occour.
 
Zero hour has passed, and I made my decision, and accepted that if I was to take this position, I would accede to a drug screen.

My only provisos being that I was fully informed of the method of testing, what they were testing for, why they were testing (essentially, I wanted their full policy), who would see the results and what would happen to them afterwards.

I also made it clear that I was deeply unhappy with being forced to make this decision, and that I disagreed with it whoelheartedly as a matter of principle.

Half a day after my decision, I receive a call from my people (the consultancy that I am contracting through), informing me that they had contacted HR in the US, and informed them of my decision and my feelings on the subject.

I have now been excused any drug screening at all, based partly on my feelings and partly on the fact that I will not be a permanent employee.

So how confused do I feel? I have basically shown that my convictions aren't as strong as I would have liked, only to find out that it was all moot.

I'm also happy that the company I wil be working for are conscientious and flexible enough to make such a concession.

I am also disappointed that there has a cloud over me, suggesting that I might have had something to hide by not wanting to take a test - Not wanting to have the cupboards of my life opened for inspection does not equate to having skeletons in there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom