Pre-Employment Drug Screening and the Paranoia of False Positives

[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.

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?

It's actually NOT, since we're talking about DRUG testing, but thanks. To play that game, though, alcohol is legal, drugs are ILlegal. See the difference? If you show up DRUNK, you have a problem with the employer anyway. Not so much if you have a beer on Saturday night. Still a problem if you're using illegal drugs on Saturday, though. That 'legal' thing. YOu can use any legal product you want, provided you don't show up intoxicated.

Should companies in general be allowed to test people to see if they are drunk/under the influence of alcohol?

Yes. Please follow along.

Or are we arguing that because one is legal and the other illegal that makes the difference?

Jackpot!

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

Sure, i guess. If you're acting erratic, you may end up taking a breathlyzer. And have no problem with that, either. You're actively endangering others, or yourself.

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.

Beer doesn't stay in your system for weeks. You know that, right? Being drunk while running the register at Target is no more desireable than flying a plane to the employer, although obviously less dangerous.

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

Again, don't need random checks to see if a guy is drunk. Likely don't need them to tell if a guy just smoked crack, either. It's to make sure he's not smoking crack on the weekends, or after his shift, etc. Little harder hitting than Bud Light.

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

Liability to the company if you're fucked up and do something to get them sued, or lose money at the register, or more likely to steal to pay for said illegal drug habit?

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

Issue is ILLEGAL drugs. They aren't testing you to see if you used an off-brand hairspray, they're checking to see if you may be a meth-head, and just manage to clean up good so they missed it.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

But why are they testing it? Some are saying it's a job performance issue, in which case hairspray and alcohol are just as important and, in all those cases, it's on the job use that's at issue.

You seem to just have moral approbation based on the fact that they broke the law, but I don't see how that impacts a business in the abstract. I'm sure most people at a business have broken the law in some capacity (such as driving at excess speed or changing lanes improperly). Shouldn't the question be about conduct that affects the business?

 

[Starbreaker]

I certainly don't have a problem with somebody who smokes pot on the weekends. I did it in college. But the employer sees "smokes weed" not "promises not to come to work high."

You don't want somebody to hurt themselves or someone else at work and then have a lawsuit on your hands about why you let someone who was under the effect of an illegal substance in your workplace. And they can't discriminate the type of drugs if they're going to do a complete drug panel on you. No "well it's only pot on the weekends" or "only meth on Mondays."

 

[Tora Ziyal]

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)

I worked in corrections, so it doesn't blow my mind at all. "Been there, done that." Also, in my experience, any vehicle parked on the grounds of a correctional facility is subject to search.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

And they can't discriminate the type of drugs if they're going to do a complete drug panel on you. No "well it's only pot on the weekends" or "only meth on Mondays."

Actually, they can. They can make specific requests for drugs to be tested or choose which drugs they will actually fire you for. They can also require you to do a breathalyzer when you come in for work or hire a police officer to perform daily field sobriety tests (which would catch narcotics-related impairment). They don't do this because it would be a pain in the ass and no one would like it, but it would at least target the actual concern. Pre-employment drug screening just means you have to stop using drugs that would show up on a screen within a certain time period before working (just switch to LSD and alcohol instead, which won't).

 

[Starbreaker]

I don't do drugs, so I just don't get it. It's never been an inconvenience for me.

 

[MacLeod]

I think under EU Law, the general rule regarding testing for drink/drugs is along the lines of:

The risk possed to others.

So sure Airline Pilots/ Taxi drivers/ crane operators etc.. Can all be subject to random tests as the job they perform could pose a risk to others if they where affected by drink/drugs.

However a retail company having it's shop assistants is likely to fail the criteria that it is in the publics interest. And might have a harder time justifying tests in a court of law.

I don't think may people on here have actually argued against drug/drink testing at work, just that some lean more towards that it should be regulated by law and to what sectors it applies.

As for pre-testing, that is a lot harder to justify. Once again perhaps in certain sectors it could be permitted but only under strict criteria. I.e You have been offered the job subject to a test (once again within certain sectors). But to use a drug test as a way of screening canditates doesn't seem right (certain sectors excluded)

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I don't do drugs, so I just don't get it. It's never been an inconvenience for me.

Oh, so this is actually about a complete inability to consider the situations of others rather than considering the actual justifications of the policy. If they had a law banning the wearing of pink underwear (which I'm assuming you don't do either) would you have no problem with that?

 

[Starbreaker]

Pink underwear is not illegal. But if it was a job I wanted badly enough, I wouldn't wear pink underwear. I support your right to use illegal drugs if that floats your boat, but I have no problem with the company that wants to hire you making sure that you don't.

I've seen what people are like when they're on drugs at work and one guy almost got his hand mangled on a high speed conveyor belt because he was high as a kite. The guy that replaced him was constantly talking to himself and imaginary friends and was so zoned out that he couldn't even focus on his job or take direction. We started drug testing after that and we ended up not getting any more people that could dress up nice for an interview but couldn't lay off the drugs the very next day when they went to work.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

First, I don't use illegal drugs, I just think there needs to be a real business justification that outweighs the intrusiveness (and it would have to do with the nature of the drugs, not the mere fact that they were illegal). Would you be ok if a job fires you for speeding on your way home from the job?

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Would you be ok if a job fires you for speeding on your way home from the job?

Depends on the situation. If my job involved even a small amount of driving, and my employer had a rule about how many points employees were allowed to accumulate on their drivers licenses, yes, it would be okay. Otherwise, no.

 

[SmoothieX]

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

I'm with you on that one, and I'm currently claiming unemployment benefits in Massachusetts. They don't have formal testing, but they require you to make a minimum of three employment contacts per week to document you are actively looking.

Fortunately, I got an offer yesterday and this will soon be a moot point.

 

[clint g]

Off topic but congrats on the job!

 

[Tiberius]

No one is forced to take a pre-employment drug test. If you want the job you take it. If you don't then you are free to leave. For it to be something close to "fascist" the government would have to go around and force the average citizen to take it whether they wanted to or not.

Your prospective employer wants to shove a frozen gherkin up your arse, to test your loyalty to the company. No one is forced to take a pre-employment ass-gherkining. If you want the job, you take it. If you don't, then you are free to leave. Sure, your family will starve and you will find yourself homeless, but if you want a job then it's perfectly fine to trade in your civil freedoms for it.

Now bend over and be a good employee.

This is ridiculous.

I work in Sydney as a train guard and we have random drug tests here. If a train guard works while affected by drugs or alcohol, then people could die. It is a safety critical position that can put people's lives in danger. Using random drug and alcohol tests helps to ensure that affected people are not put into positions where they could put people's lives at risk. I think it's clear what benefits this provides.

What benefits are provided by an employer shoving gherkins up your arse? None.

Do you support random breath testing for drivers to keep drunk drivers off the road? Or would you rather let all the drunk people out on the road where they can kill people?

 

[Tiberius]

The example of the surgeon is complete BS. Unless you're going to test every surgeon, every day, it is useless. The most dangerous drugs are out of your system in 48-72 hours.

I think the idea is that the surgeon never knows if he's going to be tested tomorrow, so he doesn't do drugs today.

To me there is a bigger, constitutional issue: are you really ready to give a private company or government agency the right to search your body for evidence of a crime without a warrant? Really? Under what probable cause? The cops don't even have that kind of power.

I take it you are against drug sniffing dogs too?

 

[Tiberius]

Let me ask a question to everyone here who thinks it is a bad idea.

If you ran a business, say a limousine business that drove business people, celebrities, students going to their prom and all that, would you want to make sure that your drivers were not under the influence of any substance that could cause them to drive in an unsafe manner?

 

[SmoothieX]

Off topic but congrats on the job!

Thanks! The world may now go back to living in fear of using something I designed.

I am meeting with the boss tomorrow to work out the details. I'd like to take next week to just relax (searching for full time work is a full time job on its own) and start the following Monday refreshed and ready to go.

 

[ByrdMan]

Let me ask a question to everyone here who thinks it is a bad idea.

If you ran a business, say a limousine business that drove business people, celebrities, students going to their prom and all that, would you want to make sure that your drivers were not under the influence of any substance that could cause them to drive in an unsafe manner?

How does a pre-employment screening ensure that a driver isn't under the influence of something during a specific engagement? What about alcohol? What about prescription drugs?

I don't know how quickly you can get results on a drug test, but maybe all livery drivers should have to at least submit to a breathalyzer prior to heading out to any job? How else could you be sure?

 

[iguana_tonante]

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.

Tone down with the strawmen, allright? This is not about "if you want to work with a bunch with crackheads". We are discussing what companies can, can not, should, or should not do regards to their employees. It's an interesting discussion, one that allows for different opinions and nuances. It's too bad you are unable to imagine anything beyond your limited sphere of experience or discuss it on a theoretical level, but at least spare us your banalities, ok?

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)

The level of intrusion in their personal lives that Americans allow by their employers does astound me, yes.

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

I don't really see the difference. (Certain jobs excepted, yes: more on this later*.)

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.

Ok, I appreciate the difference.

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 agree about the weakness of slippery slope arguments: but my point is that pre-hiring drug tests are already beyond the acceptable line. I was using the slippery slope to ask people which level of intrusion in their personal life are they willing to allow by their employers: a "boiling frog" argument, if you will.

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.

I'm with the majority on this because I don't think privatization is always a good idea, but I understand your point.

But why are they testing it? Some are saying it's a job performance issue, in which case hairspray and alcohol are just as important and, in all those cases, it's on the job use that's at issue.

You seem to just have moral approbation based on the fact that they broke the law, but I don't see how that impacts a business in the abstract. I'm sure most people at a business have broken the law in some capacity (such as driving at excess speed or changing lanes improperly). Shouldn't the question be about conduct that affects the business?

I agree.

I think under EU Law, the general rule regarding testing for drink/drugs is along the lines of:

The risk possed to others.

So sure Airline Pilots/ Taxi drivers/ crane operators etc.. Can all be subject to random tests as the job they perform could pose a risk to others if they where affected by drink/drugs.

However a retail company having it's shop assistants is likely to fail the criteria that it is in the publics interest. And might have a harder time justifying tests in a court of law.

I don't think may people on here have actually argued against drug/drink testing at work, just that some lean more towards that it should be regulated by law and to what sectors it applies.

As for pre-testing, that is a lot harder to justify. Once again perhaps in certain sectors it could be permitted but only under strict criteria. I.e You have been offered the job subject to a test (once again within certain sectors). But to use a drug test as a way of screening canditates doesn't seem right (certain sectors excluded)

I agree with this, and this seems to me a good compromise between public safety and personal liberties. (*This is later.)

Do you support random breath testing for drivers to keep drunk drivers off the road? Or would you rather let all the drunk people out on the road where they can kill people?

Random testing for drugs and alcohol for people in dangerous positions are much more acceptable than routine pre-hiring testing for common jobs.

Let me ask a question to everyone here who thinks it is a bad idea.

If you ran a business, say a limousine business that drove business people, celebrities, students going to their prom and all that, would you want to make sure that your drivers were not under the influence of any substance that could cause them to drive in an unsafe manner?

I may want it, it doesn't mean I automatically should be allowed to do it.

 

[B.J.]

Found an interesting page dealing with this subject:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/drug-tests-job-applicants-if-33051.html

Here's one section from that page:

So if it's not usually required, why do employers drug test? Here are a few reasons:

• To qualify for workers' compensation discounts. Many states offer employers a discount on their workers' compensation insurance premiums if they take certain steps to maintain a drug-free workplace, which may include testing job applicants.
• To avoid legal liability. If an intoxicated employee harms someone on the job, the employer could be legally liable for those injuries. Workplace drug and alcohol use may also violate OSHA and state occupational safety laws.
• To maintain productivity and save money. According to the federal government, drug and alcohol use takes a toll on the American workplace. Problems relating to drug and alcohol abuse cost $80 billion in lost productivity in a single year. Employees who use drugs are three times more likely to be late to work, more than three-and-a-half times more likely to be involved in a workplace accident, and five times more likely to file a workers' compensation claim.

They also say that companies that contract with the Department of Defense or NASA may be required to test at least some employees. I wouldn't be surprised if it's written into some of the contracts.