Pre-Employment Drug Screening and the Paranoia of False Positives

[RoJoHen]

I'll ask you. If they required something with no business justification, such as firing you for speeding, would you be ok with that too?

I would not, as my driving record is irrelevant to my job.

However, I think drug use can be completely relevant, regardless of the work you're doing. If a company doesn't want to hire people who use drugs, I think that should be their right. If a company doesn't want to hire felons, that should be their right. Hell, if a company doesn't want to hire people with a lot of parking tickets, that should be their right, too.

I, personally, have no problem submitting to a criminal background check or a drug test. If I want the job, I will submit. This isn't the same discriminating against someone because of race or gender. Drug use can directly impact the way a person does a job.

 

[Snaploud]

I just received and finished filling out the last of my new hire paperwork, so I assume everything is in order. There weren't any calls from the drug screening company.

I'm not concerned at all by testing once you're an employee and have signed a contract.

I'll be an "at-will" employee again, so there won't be a contract (except insofar as all the paperwork regarding confidentiality, giving up the right to own my own intellectual property with any relation to company activities, noting that I'm exempt from overtime pay, and forcing myself into an arbitration process if I ever have an issue with my employer).

 

[Starbreaker]

I for sure wouldn't want them to talk with someone who obtusely and repeatedly misses the point of a conversation. No known drug gives such terrible migraines.

I understand the conversation. You don't think businesses should have any say in whether or not they should employ people who use drugs. If you want to resort to personal attacks, fine. I just have to come to the conclusion that you do illegal drugs and are offended.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I'll be an "at-will" employee again, so there won't be a contract (except insofar as all the paperwork regarding confidentiality, giving up the right to own my own intellectual property with any relation to company activities, noting that I'm exempt from overtime pay, and forcing myself into an arbitration process if I ever have an issue with my employer).

Wow, sounds like a sweet arrangement. Do they have a claim on firstborn's soul, too?

I understand the conversation. You don't think businesses should have any say in whether or not they should employ people who use drugs. I just have to come to the conclusion that you do illegal drugs and are offended.

I, more accurately, have come to the conclusion that you can't hold your own in a debate between adults and so you, like a child who can't have it his way, must resort to laughable vitriol trying to insult your opponent. I suppose it must be being upsetting being unable to form a coherent argument, but you'll hear no pity from me. Just laughter.

 

[Scout101]

Whereas when you equate illegal drug use to jaywalking, you KNOW you're on solid ground, position-wise...?

For sake of completeness, Iguana, DO you use any drugs that would cause you to fail an employment drug test here in the States? Seems a fair question that you skipped out on to focus on the insult...

 

[iguana_tonante]

Illegal is illegal.

If the argument for testing is from public safety, I've already said that I agree with random testing for specific positions (drivers, cops, health services, etc).

If the argument is from illegality, then there is no difference between drug use and jaywalking. Both are against the law.

 

[RoJoHen]

I'm pretty sure the argument is "ability to do the job" as well as liability. Why would I hire a crackhead if I don't have to?

 

[Scout101]

Illegal is illegal.

If the argument for testing is from public safety, I've already said that I agree with random testing for specific positions (drivers, cops, health services, etc).

If the argument is from illegality, then there is no difference between drug use and jaywalking. Both are against the law.

You, as an imaginary employer, would see no difference between hiring someone that habitually jaywalks and someone that habitually uses Meth? Honestly?

You'd either reject both for being equally criminal, or hire either, and don't care which?

Too obvious for a strawman, not making the slippery slope argument, just don't see this one. Feels like just a lie, or a justification for why your personal drug use shouldn't disqualify you from whatever you want. Because, you know, other people break the law too, like jaywalking...

 

[iguana_tonante]

I'm pretty sure the argument is "ability to do the job" as well as liability. Why would I hire a crackhead if I don't have to?

Well, it would depend on their "ability to do the job", no?

If they are unable to perform in satisfactory way, fire them for under-performing. If they are performing satisfactorily on the clock, then why do you care what they do on their free time?

I must also note that this is mostly a moot point, since a "crackhead" (or anyone with a severe addition to most hard drugs) will not be able to perform most jobs, testing or no testing. So we are speaking strictly about recreational use of light drugs.

In general, I don't think employers have a right to stick their nose into employees' personal lives. They do have a right to judge people on job performances, and that's it. (And as I say, that will be enough to weed off the crackheads and meth addictics, don't you think?)

Feels like just a lie, or a justification for why your personal drug use shouldn't disqualify you from whatever you want. Because, you know, other people break the law too, like jaywalking...

I think drug users should be helped, no shunned or shamed. I would much prefer the cocaine addict will draw money for his vice from his job as an advertising guy (given he's able to do his job) instead of mugging people on the streets.

And anyway, what's with people thinking that you must be a junkie to defend drug users' right to privacy? Do you think that to be for LGBT's rights you must "love to play the flesh flute"? That's a very narrow-minded point of view.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

For sake of completeness, Iguana, DO you use any drugs that would cause you to fail an employment drug test here in the States? Seems a fair question that you skipped out on to focus on the insult...

I don't agree with ig's view on this but to suspect him of using just because he doesn't believe in employment testing, seems a bit out of hand. He's sticking to principles and I respect that.

That being said, I agree that there are certain lines of work which would be hurt by drug use. Companies should be able to test before hiring.

 

[RoJoHen]

Well, it would depend on their "ability to do the job", no?

If they are unable to perform in satisfactory way, fire them for under-performing. If they are performing satisfactorily on the clock, then why do you care what they do on their free time?

I must also note that this is mostly a moot point, since a "crackhead" (or anyone with a severe addition to most hard drugs) will not be able to perform most jobs, testing or no testing. So we are speaking strictly about recreational use of light drugs.

In general, I don't think employers have a right to stick their nose into employees' personal lives. They do have a right to judge people on job performances, and that's it. (And as I say, that will be enough to weed off the crackheads and meth addictics, don't you think?)

It's impossible to know how someone will perform at a job until they're hired. Interviewers and hiring managers need to make a judgment call before that point. You can't just hire anybody and wait for them to fuck up. If a drug test helps them decide who to hire, so be it. Maybe they're missing out on some great employees by ruling out drug-users, but that's their call to make.

You don't have a right to work wherever you want, and companies are under no obligation to hire everyone that fills out an application.

 

[Snaploud]

I'll be an "at-will" employee again, so there won't be a contract (except insofar as all the paperwork regarding confidentiality, giving up the right to own my own intellectual property with any relation to company activities, noting that I'm exempt from overtime pay, and forcing myself into an arbitration process if I ever have an issue with my employer).

Wow, sounds like a sweet arrangement. Do they have a claim on firstborn's soul, too?

I forgot to mention the maximum of two weeks vacation (once accrued).

On the plus side, it's a decent salary. *shrugs*

 

[iguana_tonante]

For sake of completeness, Iguana, DO you use any drugs that would cause you to fail an employment drug test here in the States? Seems a fair question that you skipped out on to focus on the insult...

Lulz. I have no idea what drugs will make me fail an employment test in the US, but since my vices are limited to my espresso and the odd glass of red wine (preferably, Barbera d'Asti or Dolcetto), I think I'm the clear.

 

[MacLeod]

I'll ask you. If they required something with no business justification, such as firing you for speeding, would you be ok with that too?

I would not, as my driving record is irrelevant to my job.

However, I think drug use can be completely relevant, regardless of the work you're doing. If a company doesn't want to hire people who use drugs, I think that should be their right. If a company doesn't want to hire felons, that should be their right. Hell, if a company doesn't want to hire people with a lot of parking tickets, that should be their right, too.

I, personally, have no problem submitting to a criminal background check or a drug test. If I want the job, I will submit. This isn't the same discriminating against someone because of race or gender. Drug use can directly impact the way a person does a job.

If a company had a policy of rejecting all applications from offenders (by this time they would have no doubt paid their debt to soceity and served their sentance), I suspect most courts would find that the application process was discriminatory.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Even though drug use is a choice?

 

[MacLeod]

I'll make my point clearer for you

If a company doesn't want to hire felons, that should be their right.

If I want the job, I will submit. This isn't the same discriminating against someone because of race or gender.

If a company had a policy of rejecting all applications from offenders (by this time they would have no doubt paid their debt to soceity and served their sentance), I suspect most courts would find that the application process was discriminatory.

Yes I know drugs was mentioned, but a policy about rejecting people based on a criminal conviction (no matter the crime) would surely be found illegal.

 

[RoJoHen]

Yes I know drugs was mentioned, but a policy about rejecting people based on a criminal conviction (no matter the crime) would surely be found illegal.

It's quite common practice, actually.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ And why is that illegal? As with drugs, crime is a choice.

 

[iguana_tonante]

So is religion, and political affiliation.

Would be legal for me to systematically reject all applications from Christians? What about conservatives? Personally, I'd rather work with a pot smoker than an Evangelical, or God forbid, a Tea Partier. Would be ok for me to ask people their religion and political leaning, and then discriminate based on that?

We are getting slightly off-topic, but the way the US disenfranchise and discriminate against felons is a shame. If they can't get a honest job, how are they supposed to get away from crime? I suppose that's the point, tho: the punishment for crime, any kind of crime, doesn't stop with the end of sentence. It's actually a life sentence. "You will never be part of society again. You will never be a citizen again. You will never be a human being again." With this foundations, the death penalty seems much more merciful.

And in the interest of full disclosure, before someone accuse me of being an ex-convict in addition to a junkie, I don't have a criminal record. Not even one traffic violation.

 

[SmoothieX]

Speaking of pre-screening, I met with my future boss this morning to finalize the arrangement. I had the worst gas imaginable. I'm surprised I still have the job.