Pre-Employment Drug Screening and the Paranoia of False Positives

[Davros]

I also live in a part of the US that ranks among the highest in terms of cost of living and taxes.

And those taxes are still at their lowest levels in decades. Probably higher than Mitt Romney pays but still at historic lows.

On the surface maybe. We have some of the highest sales, property, and gas taxes. We have high state and city income taxes. Our food is more expensive than in most places in the country. If you don't make 40k its almost impossible to survive here. There's alot more too it than just Federal income taxes and until you try to make a living here, you're not in a position to determine whether our taxes are too high or too low.

I don't need to live there to see numbers on a list being higher or lower. And right now despite all the other expenses you have, your taxes are lower compared to where they have been in the past. They are also low compared to other developed nations. You don't have to pay a tax every year for your television do you?

 

[iguana_tonante]

until you try to make a living here, you're not in a position to determine whether our taxes are too high or too low.

And if you live in the US, you're not in a position to know what "high taxes" means. But it's ok, since you also get crappy, rationed services for your ridiculously low taxes.

 

[Scout101]

Yep, kinda makes it a moot point. Yay, our taxes are low! Wwe then pay for all that crap out of pocket that you would consider 'free' with your tax payments, so kinda a wash.

Instead of introducing yet ANOTHER strawman into this argument (racism, facism, tax rates, etc) how about we get back on the topic? (off-topic, but discussion in here has gone downhill lately, even from posters that didn't used to be like this. Instant hop to just calling everyone that has a different opinion Racist, Facist, Sexist, or whatever -ist or -ism lets people dismiss the argument instead of discussing it. WTF?)

I don't LOVE the drug testing, but can see the point. Seems kinda within their rights to not wanna hire a crackhead or regular pot smoker. Are they wrong for not wanting those individuals to be on the payroll, and wandering around their place of business? Alternative is what? Private investigator to follow you and see that you only smoke ONE joint a day, and it's after your shifts, so not an issue? It's the cheapest/easiest way to filter out the ones they deem obvious problems.

I can't do anything about it for my job even if I wanted to, though. Military clearance, so not only got tested before employment, I'm in a frequent random REtest pool. Annoying, but they're not going to find anything, so I really could give a shit, I guess.

Can argue whether pot should really be illegal, or why booze isn't considered more of an issue, but that's one for another thread, I suppose.

 

[clint g]

until you try to make a living here, you're not in a position to determine whether our taxes are too high or too low.

And if you live in the US, you're not in a position to know what "high taxes" means. But it's ok, since you also get crappy, rationed services for your ridiculously low taxes.

Indeed. When you get taxed like I do and don't get health care, decent roads, and may not get social security, I for one consider it high taxes

 

[Alidar Jarok]

i'm actually all for this...

much like in Florida, i'm for drug screening before people receive benefits from the government as well... sick of seeing people around who can work, but chose not to and just claim money of the government and spend it on drugs and booze...

M

Except that a belief that people use welfare to spend on drugs wasn't based in fact (as Florida found out as they had to refund massive amounts of money for those who did not test positive). Also, how would drug screens test for alcohol?

ETA:

By the way, I'm in the accounting/auditing industry, so I won't be flying any airplanes. However, the company does do contract work for state governments.

If the reason you are drug screened has to do with the contract work with state governments, that actually makes it constitutionally problematic. To me, it doesn't sound like you're in an industry where drug testing has any kind of compelling interest.

 

[Holdfast]

The UK permits randomised drug-testing of employees provided there's an appropriately phrased occupational health policy in place to authorise it. I think the same applies to breathalysing you for alcohol, but am not certain of that specifically. You have the right to refuse testing, but your employer also has the right to discipline you for the refusal, including sacking you if that's included in your contract. All of this obviously has to be in your contract, or it's not allowed. If the testing is non-randomised, there must be specific (non-discriminatory) reasons for targetting that subgroup (e.g. specific risks). Again, this must be spelt out in the contract & in the occupational health policy.

I'm not sure whether pre-employment drug-testing is allowed; I don't think it is but would welcome clarification by those who know the law better.

Frankly, while I would have very strong reservations about pre-employment testing as no contract/policy is technically in place to authorise it, I'm not concerned at all by testing once you're an employee and have signed a contract. You have a choice about whether you sign or not; no-one's forcing you to work there. As for the argument advanced upthread that this is a Hobson's choice of either working or starving, I would point out that illicit drug use is illegal and that personal actions come with consequences. If you choose to deliberately break the law, you implicitly agree to accept the consequences, which I'm afraid includes limiting your employment choices. Whether you disagree with the law of or not is pretty irrelevant to the reality of that situation. If you don't like the law, there are various options: run for office & change it; live in a country whose laws are more to your liking; or find a surreptitious but effective way to work around it (accepting that if you're caught out, it's a fair cop). Complaining about its perceived "unfairness" does very little constructive, it seems to me.

Testing for alcohol seems a bit more tenuous to me, as it is a legal substance, so some of the above arguments don't apply. But just because something is legal does not mean that you should always be permitted to do it at work. A workplace/company should retain the right to set in place reasonable rules to preserve productivity, safety and a corporate ethos of its liking, provided no laws are breached. If that includes not drinking at work - and this is spelt out in an legally-enforceable contract and occupational health policy - then so be it. Personally, from what I know of the specifics of the UK law, I think we get the balance about right.

 

[Starbreaker]

Geezus. Outside of the restaurant business, I've had to take a drug test for every job I've ever had. You just piss in a cup. People fail this test all the time though. Just don't do drugs. I don't understand why making sure you're not on drugs when you go to your first day of work is such an infringement on your civil liberties. I don't want the guy who is driving a forklift for the first day and lifting crates over my head to be whacked out on PCP.

I also don't have a problem with being forced to take a drug test after you get hurt at work if you want your employer's insurance to pay. If you come to work on heroin and cut your arm off with a saw, that's your own damn fault.

 

[iguana_tonante]

As for the argument advanced upthread that this is a Hobson's choice of either working or starving, I would point out that illicit drug use is illegal and that personal actions come with consequences. If you choose to deliberately break the law, you implicitly agree to accept the consequences, which I'm afraid includes limiting your employment choices. Whether you disagree with the law of or not is pretty irrelevant to the reality of that situation. If you don't like the law, there are various options: run for office & change it; live in a country whose laws are more to your liking; or find a surreptitious but effective way to work around it (accepting that if you're caught out, it's a fair cop). Complaining about its perceived "unfairness" does very little constructive, it seems to me.

For me, it's not about the fairness of the consequences, or if agree with laws against drug use or not. It's about giving companies the power to uphold the law, which should be reserved to the state (through the police forces).

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Geezus. Outside of the restaurant business, I've had to take a drug test for every job I've ever had. You just piss in a cup. People fail this test all the time though. Just don't do drugs. I don't understand why making sure you're not on drugs when you go to your first day of work is such an infringement on your civil liberties. I don't want the guy who is driving a forklift for the first day and lifting crates over my head to be whacked out on PCP.

The point is it's overly intrusive considering how ineffective it'll be. Do you care if the forklift driver is using marijuana on weekends rather than PCP on the job? To me, that makes a huge difference. And people on PCP on the job generally are not great at hiding it so there are other mechanisms than a drug screening (which won't catch it in time anyway).

 

[clint g]

As for the argument advanced upthread that this is a Hobson's choice of either working or starving, I would point out that illicit drug use is illegal and that personal actions come with consequences. If you choose to deliberately break the law, you implicitly agree to accept the consequences, which I'm afraid includes limiting your employment choices. Whether you disagree with the law of or not is pretty irrelevant to the reality of that situation. If you don't like the law, there are various options: run for office & change it; live in a country whose laws are more to your liking; or find a surreptitious but effective way to work around it (accepting that if you're caught out, it's a fair cop). Complaining about its perceived "unfairness" does very little constructive, it seems to me.

For me, it's not about the fairness of the consequences, or if agree with laws against drug use or not. It's about giving companies the power to uphold the law, which should be reserved to the state (through the police forces).

When you take a drug test for a company it's not about enforcing the law. It's about ensuring a safe work environment. If you fail a drug test for ANY employer, it ends with you not getting the job. That's it. No legal action is taken against you (the only exception that I can think of being with the military, even cops who piss hot just get fired).

Geezus. Outside of the restaurant business, I've had to take a drug test for every job I've ever had. You just piss in a cup. People fail this test all the time though. Just don't do drugs. I don't understand why making sure you're not on drugs when you go to your first day of work is such an infringement on your civil liberties. I don't want the guy who is driving a forklift for the first day and lifting crates over my head to be whacked out on PCP.

The point is it's overly intrusive considering how ineffective it'll be. Do you care if the forklift driver is using marijuana on weekends rather than PCP on the job? To me, that makes a huge difference. And people on PCP on the job generally are not great at hiding it so there are other mechanisms than a drug screening (which won't catch it in time anyway).

The point is that you want to catch them before they start working for you. I agree, weed on the weekends is no big deal. A crack addict is a different matter however, from both a store security (don't want them stealing shit) and a safety stand point.

 

[MacLeod]

Yep, kinda makes it a moot point. Yay, our taxes are low! Wwe then pay for all that crap out of pocket that you would consider 'free' with your tax payments, so kinda a wash.

Instead of introducing yet ANOTHER strawman into this argument (racism, facism, tax rates, etc) how about we get back on the topic? (off-topic, but discussion in here has gone downhill lately, even from posters that didn't used to be like this. Instant hop to just calling everyone that has a different opinion Racist, Facist, Sexist, or whatever -ist or -ism lets people dismiss the argument instead of discussing it. WTF?)

I don't LOVE the drug testing, but can see the point. Seems kinda within their rights to not wanna hire a crackhead or regular pot smoker. Are they wrong for not wanting those individuals to be on the payroll, and wandering around their place of business? Alternative is what? Private investigator to follow you and see that you only smoke ONE joint a day, and it's after your shifts, so not an issue? It's the cheapest/easiest way to filter out the ones they deem obvious problems.

I can't do anything about it for my job even if I wanted to, though. Military clearance, so not only got tested before employment, I'm in a frequent random REtest pool. Annoying, but they're not going to find anything, so I really could give a shit, I guess.

Can argue whether pot should really be illegal, or why booze isn't considered more of an issue, but that's one for another thread, I suppose.

The issue is not whether the company wants drug users on it's pay roll, because no company does. But do companies want drinkers on their pay roll?

Should companies in general be allowed to test people to see if they are drunk/under the influence of alcohol? Or are we arguing that because one is legal and the other illegal that makes the difference?

If you allow companies to test for drug use, then it surely must be ok to test people for alcohol,

Now of course in certain sectors such as the travel industry airline crew/bus drivers/taxi drivers etc.. A valid argument can be made for random breathalyser checks, as public safety is at risk.

So sure random checks do have their place but only within certain sectors and job roles.

But random checks for a shop assistant, what puropse does it serve?

Use of checks should be regulated by laws detailing when/where random checks can be used. Rather than having a free for all.

 

[iguana_tonante]

When you take a drug test for a company it's not about enforcing the law.

Do companies have also the right to search your car or your house before hiring? Who knows what you could be hiding. Illegal substances, illegal weapons, even illegal immigrants. It's their right to know.

 

[Starbreaker]

The point is it's overly intrusive considering how ineffective it'll be. Do you care if the forklift driver is using marijuana on weekends rather than PCP on the job? To me, that makes a huge difference. And people on PCP on the job generally are not great at hiding it so there are other mechanisms than a drug screening (which won't catch it in time anyway).

I just don't think it's fair for people who use illegal drugs or have heinous felonies to get jobs over law-abiding citizens. If somebody wants to smoke pot on the weekends, they should go work somewhere where the employer doesn't care or stop until they can pass a drug test for all I care.

 

[clint g]

When you take a drug test for a company it's not about enforcing the law.

Do companies have also the right to search your car or your house before hiring? Who knows what you could be hiding. Illegal substances, illegal weapons, even illegal immigrants. It's their right to know.

In a way, they kind of do. They can conduct a criminal records check but they need your consent before hand. That's why one of the first questions on a job application is "have you ever been convicted of a misdemeanor". As for the right to search your house, if they say we need to search your house for you to get this job and you agree to it then that's on you.

What will probably really blow your mind is that I had to turn over my full credit history and social security earnings for my current employment as well as subject myself to a full criminal investigation (to include having investigators interview my neighbors)

 

[iguana_tonante]

So basically, they kind of don't. They can check your (public) criminal record with your consent, but they can't search your car or your house. Why is your body different?

 

[Starbreaker]

If you guys want to work with a bunch of crack addicts, then whatever. If you can't stop doing drugs long enough to get a good job then you're addicted and need help.

If you're not responsible enough to lay off the drugs before you go in to a new job, then why should somebody hire you?

 

[clint g]

So basically, they kind of don't. They can check your (public) criminal record with your consent, but they can't search your car or your house. Why is your body different?

I think they can search your house or car with your consent. I just never saw it happen and don't want to give you a definitive answer to something I don't know about.

Again, the closest I saw to something like that was when investigators came to my neighborhood and talked to my neighbors/ checked to see if I really lived there.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The point is it's overly intrusive considering how ineffective it'll be. Do you care if the forklift driver is using marijuana on weekends rather than PCP on the job? To me, that makes a huge difference. And people on PCP on the job generally are not great at hiding it so there are other mechanisms than a drug screening (which won't catch it in time anyway).

I just don't think it's fair for people who use illegal drugs or have heinous felonies to get jobs over law-abiding citizens. If somebody wants to smoke pot on the weekends, they should go work somewhere where the employer doesn't care or stop until they can pass a drug test for all I care.

Using illegal drugs is the equivalent of a heinous felony?

It's not fair for a person who uses Marijuana recreationally on the weekends to have the job over someone less qualified?

 

[MacLeod]

Well if you are employed by a company they'll generally have a rule that they can conduct random searches including your car if it's parked on company property.

There is a world of difference between being asked to empty your pockets and having a drugs test. (Certain job sectors excepted)

If you suspect one of your employess/co-workers etc.. is under the influence of drugs/drink posses a danger phone the police and let them handle it. It's what they are paid for.

 

[Holdfast]

As for the argument advanced upthread that this is a Hobson's choice of either working or starving, I would point out that illicit drug use is illegal and that personal actions come with consequences. If you choose to deliberately break the law, you implicitly agree to accept the consequences, which I'm afraid includes limiting your employment choices. Whether you disagree with the law of or not is pretty irrelevant to the reality of that situation. If you don't like the law, there are various options: run for office & change it; live in a country whose laws are more to your liking; or find a surreptitious but effective way to work around it (accepting that if you're caught out, it's a fair cop). Complaining about its perceived "unfairness" does very little constructive, it seems to me.

For me, it's not about the fairness of the consequences, or if agree with laws against drug use or not. It's about giving companies the power to uphold the law, which should be reserved to the state (through the police forces).

The company is not enforcing the law; it is enforcing its own internal policy, which is itself explicitly authorised by the law. It is not acting as a police force or upholding the law - it is not causing someone to be subject to the criminal justice system - but merely exercising its own legal rights. Now, there are certain jobs where using drugs or alcohol at work does create a breach of the law due to the risks created; in these cases, my understanding is that the company actually then has a legal responsibility to report the situation to the police/relevant authorities.

(Again I speak for what I know of the UK law; I'm not familiar with that of other countries.)

Your later slippery slope argument is really an exploration of what a company's legal rights theoretically should and should not be. I tend to generally give short shrift to slippery slope arguments because they rarely give much weight to the chances of whether progress down the slippery slope will actually happen. I personally think the UK's current position on the slope is about right (if anything, too tilted in favour of the employee in this country in terms of certain particulars that are really too boring to enumerate in detail here, but not by enough to particularly bother me).

On a more general/theoretical/off-topic note, I have fewer reservations than you do about the state delegating powers to companies. I don't have any philosophical objection to this, provided a sufficiently coherent regulatory framework is put in place. For example, I would have no theoretical objection to police powers being delegated to private security, provided they were subject to exactly the same legal restrictions/obligations/requirements as the police themselves. Now, I don't think it would be actually be profitable for a private security firm to act in that capacity (as opposed to their simpler current roles in prisons, custody areas, prisoner transport, logistics/back-office and so on), and it's a politically unpopular view, so I don't think it will happen. But I don't think there's anything particularly unique/special/ethical created when an employee happens to be paid by the state versus a company, that then somehow renders them better placed to avoid partiality. Both public and private employees are subject to financial pressures that can lead to poor/unfair systemic effects. I appreciate that this is an unfashionable view.