Randoms

[Slar]

I have been selected for a random drug test this morning. I shall pass with flying colors no doubt, but it still pisses me off. pun

It feels like an invasion of privacy to me, but I realize that many companies are pretty much forced into based on the current political climate when it comes to drug and alcohol use. Anyone else been randomized recently?

[PrfctTimeOfDay]

I've had to take them before getting hired, but not while currently being employed. I saw a piece recently on a company in michigan that has banned smoking and they randomly test for nicotine; if positive, you are immediately fired.

[REMgirl]

I'm self-employed. I hate when I make myself pee in a cup!

:p

[frizgolf]

I have been selected for a random drug test this morning. I shall pass with flying colors no doubt, but it still pisses me off. pun

It feels like an invasion of privacy to me, but I realize that many companies are pretty much forced into based on the current political climate when it comes to drug and alcohol use. Anyone else been randomized recently?
pisses
me
off...


Oh, I see your invisitext, now.
Har!

[purple_octopus]

I'm subject to random drug testing, but have never been picked for it. Not that it matters to me, since I don't do drugs. The way I see it, I am paid well, and agreeing to random drug testing was a condition of the job offer I accepted. If I cared that much, I wouldn't work here. And frankly, much of the work done here is not free of risk. I do not like the idea of a druggie being in charge of my safety.

(However, I do think it's unfair that someone could smoke pot on their own time and still test positive. But if a cokehead gets high on the weekend, he/she could easily pass a random drug test mid-week. I don't care what people do on their own time, I just don't want high people at work.)

[juggles]

I find it stunning that the courts seem to have no problem with random drug testing. Very, very disturbing.

And PO, I see your point that you knowingly agreed to work for a company under these parameters, but few of us have the luxury of turning down a job because we disagree with their drug testing policy.

[Seattle93]

**Disclaimer: I'm very left-leaning and am all for the legalization of certain drugs**



I pass no judgment on anyone who smokes pot. I've done it and many of my friends (past & present) do so. I think it is bullshit that it is illegal. I learned however 8 - 10 years ago, that most illicit substances don't agree with me and that I'm better off without them.


That said, I have no problem with an employer having random drug testing.


Several people I work with have been randomly selected for drug screenings.


Any company has the right to set their own policies and restrictions regarding their employees. Most companies are "at will" in terms of employment meaning that you can leave at will and they can terminate employment at will. Unless you sign a contract that specifically includes language exempting you from random drug screenings, then you have to face the music when you fail.


It's a pain in the ass, but sometimes you have to bite the bullet. Do something illegal, whether or not you agree with the legality, and you face the consequences of your actions.

[Slar]

It's a pain in the ass, but sometimes you have to bite the bullet. Do something illegal, whether or not you agree with the legality, and you face the consequences of your actions.The worst part was having to sit through over 15 minutes of 'The Price is Right' while waiting in the lounge. :eek:

[juggles]

A lot of what I take issue with over random drug testing is the idea that an employer can restrict your behavior, legal or not, off the clock. I find this especially disturbing with legal activities such as smoking. I understand the whole "at will" thing and I tend to agree with it, but it seems like an employer should at least have to present a reasonable concern (i.e. safety, security) before they can do something as invasive as testing for what you may have ingested when you weren't working for them.

And by the way, I have no qualms with a zero tolerance policy for working under the influence of anything. That's indefensible.

Oh, and for the record, I don't smoke or use anything illicit, so this is purely a matter of principle for me.

[Homsar]

My job isn't even important enough to require a drug test.

[markalot]

Should they be able to deny you employer sponsored healthcare, or raise your rates if you smoke? Now you say they shouldn't be able to monitor what you do on your free time, but what if you did drugs 5 hours before work and were still under it's effects? The line is kind of fuzzy, isn't it? What liability is the company under if you do something that hurts them or someone else?

[juggles]

Should they be able to deny you employer sponsored healthcare, or raise your rates if you smoke? Now you say they shouldn't be able to monitor what you do on your free time, but what if you did drugs 5 hours before work and were still under it's effects? The line is kind of fuzzy, isn't it? What liability is the company under if you do something that hurts them or someone else?

I could probably be ok with them denying healthcare or raising rates for a smoker, but not loss of employment. But the healthcare argument seems like a potentially very slippery slope. If it's OK to tell an employee he can't smoke, what else can his employer make him do or not do in the name of insurance premiums?

If you did drugs 5 hours before work and you're still under its effects, the drugs are affecting your on-the-job performance. I don't think there's anything fuzzy about that line. I don't have a problem with someone being disciplined or fired for showing up to work hungover if it reduces their productivity, even if they're not technically drunk.

If we're talking about someone who flies planes for a living or guards the state penitentiary, well, that's different. Then you can claim a legitimate concern over safety and security. But if you work in an office, I don't know why your boss needs to know how you spend your weekends.

But I freely admit that I'm a bit conflicted on this issue because I tend to agree with Seattle on the "at will" thing. I also agree with him on legalization, but that's another thread.

[markalot]

I could probably be ok with them denying healthcare or raising rates for a smoker, but not loss of employment. But the healthcare argument seems like a potentially very slippery slope. If it's OK to tell an employee he can't smoke, what else can his employer make him do or not do in the name of insurance premiums?

Yea, I agree with the slippery slope concern. I like to eat fried food, but too much fried food can lead to serious health problems as I get older. Food, though, is a necessity where smoking is recreational. But that distinction could open up another can of worms.

Because smoking has been universally recognized as bad for you I think it's ok for employers to restrict or ban it for their workers. Where I work smokers now have to pay a higher premium in order to keep the costs down for the rest of us. It's amazing how a little incentive can change peoples habits.

[juggles]

To take this discussion on a very different tack, is random drug testing even smart business? Especially if we're talking about white collar jobs, is there enough loss of productivity due to drug use to justify the hassle and expense of testing? Perhaps, but it seems unlikely. Random testing seems like a solution looking for a problem in most companies. And how much do you want your hiring and firing policies tied to things other than job performance? If you've got an employee that does his or her job well, is it worth it to have to replace them because they smoke grass on their weekends? Maybe someone who works in HR can explain this to me. I'm guessing maybe companies who test get a break on libility insurance or something. Otherwise, in a cost/benefit kind of way, I'm not sure it makes sense.

[juggles]

And what about drug testing of employers? I've got one regular client who's a whole lot easier to deal with when he's high. I'd be all for testing that son-of-a-bitch to make sure he's baked like a potato before I show up for work.

[frizgolf]

Slippery slope indeed.
I smoke (cigars), and take two breaks a day to do it, and everyone knows it.
I also show up for work every day, on time, as opposed to a few non-smokers I know who are otherwise hypochondriacs.
So, now, I would be charged a higher health premium than those who abuse the sick time benefit, bringing bogus doctors' excuses for phantom illnesses? I can count on one hand the times I've needed a doctor in the last ten years, other than regular scheduled checkups.
Do I get a pass for this?
Is the anti-smoking movement just another Hip Trend? I've had The Look from passers-by on the street when I'm burning a stogie. This look comes from people who seem to have no qualms sucking car exhaust as they walk the street.
How much of this whole anti-smoking issue is a legitimate health concern versus the bandwagon syndrome?