Staff Drug Testing as a Condition of Employment.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

Look, if one goes to work for a company knowing what the rules are, one has no complaints about getting fired for violating those rules.

Doesn't honesty and integrity count for anything anymore?

+1

Matt

+2

Honesty and integrity count for everything to me.

The real question at hand is how much control over your non-work time to which your employer is entitled.

(Admittedly US-centric stuff follows.)

Our Constitution tells us we have the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.

If skydiving makes you happy, our Constitution guarantees you the right to pursue it.

(Don't pick nits about the right to be a criminal. Skydiving isn't illegal.)

We are not supposed to be slaves or serfs. The more control is given to our employers, the less we look like free men.

If you break the rules that were known at the time you were hired, you risk getting fired. I've no problem with that.

But we have a right, and indeed an obligation, to be sure that the rules are the right rules.

There have been far too many cases where the rules were not, in fact, in keeping with the laws of our land.

Shame on us if/when we allow that.

[matthewcline 0]

Since I am not and Employment Attorney nor a Theologian, I can not say I automatically agree or disagree with you.

I THINK you may be wrong though based on what is referred to as the POPE Rule (Post Offer Post Employment) and it has stood up in court numerous times.

The Sharia thing, come on man. Your more articulate (and smarter) than to need to use that scare tactic.

AGAIN, I think we have drugs that need not be illegal, that are illegal. I also think they should be legal and follow rules much like Alcohol.

But until then, this is what we have.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[NovaTTT 2]

I made the comment further up about an employer's investment in an employee.

The point, and I think it was taken, is that as long as pot is illegal the employer has an interest in protecting their investment. But I suspect it's not just pot; presumably they test for narcotics, barbituates, meth, etc. What irritates about this, however, is the lack of testing for alcohol and tobacco derivatives.

Those can be just as bad as the rest, I suppose.

Does this make random (yeah, right!!) drug screening OK? As a lover of freedom I say no. If an employer has reasonable suspicion, test away.

Insofar as the skydiving tolerance aspect: an employer may have the ability to take action if they've told someone they're not going to continue to employ a skydiver, but that seems unlikely because skydiving is not illegal.

I am certain there are certain jobs and professions where risk management and security are of paramount importance, but for Average Joe it's not an issue.

The overlying issue is arguably and likely economic. Robin makes some good points about the origins of the criminalization of hemp. I mentioned earlier and it's a known that hemp is a better fiber, provides a better oil and has an unknown number of useful derivative products that petrochemical, pharmaceutical and agricultural industries are afraid of. Of course, those industries could play the game and possibly come out on top of the hemp industry.

The money made from the suppression of the hemp industry is in those small and already wealthy portions of the private sector. Maybe hemp should be released to the public sector and American entrepreneurialism will make a lot of people money - including Uncle.

What surprises me most about this thread is that it remains in GS and hasn't been moved not SC!

"Even in a world where perfection is unattainable, there's still a difference between excellence and mediocrity." Gary73

[robinheid 0]

Quote

The Sharia thing, come on man. Your more articulate (and smarter) than to need to use that scare tactic.

Any religious or moral imperative that is imposed and/or enforced by a religious or secular government qualifies as sharia.

As my signature line says, the beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names, and sharia is precisely what drug testing is because it forces compliance with the religiously- and/or politically-derived mandates of a totalitarian authority that have no relationship to objective reality -- and until individuals such as yourself get that, "this is what we have" will continue to be your justification for going along with it.

Sorry if that scares you, but truth can be scary -- especially when accepting and understanding it takes you outside your comfort zone.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

The Sharia thing, come on man. Your more articulate (and smarter) than to need to use that scare tactic.

Any religious or moral imperative that is imposed and/or enforced by a religious or secular government qualifies as sharia.

As my signature line says, the beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names, and sharia is precisely what drug testing is because it forces compliance with the religiously- and/or politically-derived mandates of a totalitarian authority that have no relationship to objective reality -- and until individuals such as yourself get that, "this is what we have" will continue to be your justification for going along with it.

Sorry if that scares you, but truth can be scary -- especially when accepting and understanding it takes you outside your comfort zone.

Your taking it out of context, that belongs in SC. Things in context can be discussed here.

Matt

http://www.religioustolerance.org/islsharia.htm

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[mx19 0]

We get tested and know that we will before we get the job. At the end of the day if you don't like it work somewhere else, easy as that!

[DARK 0]

Quote

We get tested and know that we will before we get the job. At the end of the day if you don't like it work somewhere else, easy as that!

why should you have to work somewhere though?

its not as simple as the employer makes the rule and you like it or lump it

employers were making rules preventing women or black people form getting / keeping jobs for years and years that dosnt make it ok

you are either entitled to do whatever you want in your personal life as long as it dosn't impact on your work performance or your not. thats what it boils down to.

if that something you want to do is illegal, then there are already instruments in place to catch/punish you for that and if that happens then obviously your employer has the right to choose weather or not you continue in their employ or not but thats it.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Any religious or moral imperative that is imposed and/or enforced by a religious or secular government qualifies as sharia.

Would you still have the same stance against it if it was a non-religious or non-secular imperative?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

why should you have to work somewhere though?

You don't! I highly recommend retirement. It's good for the soul...kinda like chicken soup.

Quote

you are either entitled to do whatever you want in your personal life as long as it dosn't impact on your work performance or your not. thats what it boils down to.

You're going to have problems with this when you get popped for possession.

Quote

its not as simple as the employer makes the rule and you like it or lump it

If the rule is within the boundaries of the law, then sure it is. Simple as that.

Quote

employers were making rules preventing women or black people form getting / keeping jobs for years and years that dosnt make it ok

And there was legislation enacted that addressed those issues so the statement is moot.

Quote

if that something you want to do is illegal, then there are already instruments in place to catch/punish you for that and if that happens then obviously your employer has the right to choose weather or not you continue in their employ or not but thats it

You've already made the statement that one should be able to do what they want outside of work. I got popped but I was back on the job the next day. So, how do you reconcile that with this statement? It's OK? It's none of the employer's business?

If I was the employer, I'd fire you because you blew your honesty and integrity and reliability.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[DARK 0]

Quote

You've already made the statement that one should be able to do what they want outside of work. I got popped but I was back on the job the next day. So, how do you reconcile that with this statement? It's OK? It's none of the employer's business?

If I was the employer, I'd fire you because you blew your honesty and integrity and reliability.

i dont think it is the employers place to do the work of the police or the court system

if you are caught in possession and prosecuted then i think its perfectly acceptable for you to lose your job for numerous reasons. bringing the organisation into disrepute would be one of them obviously

if you are shown to have broken the law then i dont care if you lose your job. i do care if an employer takes it upon themselves to judge my personal life. what if they decide they dont like the fact that i have a dog or any other aspect of my life? they shouldn't be able to arbitrarily make those decisions and discriminate.

and as you said there were laws brought in to prevent discrimination, this is just another form of discrimination imo

[normiss 798]

"employers were making rules preventing women or black people form getting / keeping jobs for years and years that dosnt make it ok "

Nobody is born a pot smoker, that's clearly a choice.

[DARK 0]

Quote

Nobody is born a pot smoker, that's clearly a choice.

i never said it wasn't. there are plenty of choices that we make on a day to day basis that employers are not allowed discriminate on, appearance being one, children being a more important other one

anyway the details do not matter

there are two choices, employers should be able to discriminate against people about things in their personal life that have no bearing on job performance or they shouldn't be able to. it really is as simple as that

[DiverMike 5]

This whole sharia thing can be simplified by saying that the government is trying to legislate morality. Pot is safer than alcohol by every measurement. The government considers pot smokers to be bad and immoral under all conditions (including medical), and drunks to be socially acceptable under certain conditions (adults not operating heavy machinery).

The research does not support the governments position that pot is illegal and alcohol is legal. It doesn't make sense.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

there are two choices, employers should be able to discriminate against people about things in their personal life that have no bearing on job performance or they shouldn't be able to. it really is as simple as that

I think if you make it that simple, then everyone will agree that employers should be able to discriminate. A pedophile who kills puppies in his free time has no bearing on his job performance, but I feel I should be able to terminate his employment because he is engaged in criminal activity.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

there are two choices, employers should be able to discriminate against people about things in their personal life that have no bearing on job performance or they shouldn't be able to. it really is as simple as that

I think if you make it that simple, then everyone will agree that employers should be able to discriminate. A pedophile who kills puppies in his free time has no bearing on his job performance, but I feel I should be able to terminate his employment because he is engaged in criminal activity.

"Everyone will agree?" Nonsense!

Speak for yourself. Don't speak for me.

[millertime24 8]

Quote

there are two choices, employers should be able to discriminate against people about things in their personal life that have no bearing on job performance or they shouldn't be able to. it really is as simple as that

Actually, there's another couple of choices. You as an individual can choose to abide by the conditions of your employer, or you can seek employment at a place with less strict conditions.

For example, my employer sais I cant have a tatoo that covers more than 1/4 of the exposed body part. Does me having a tatoo, in any way, affect my job performance? The answer is "Not one bit", but it's a condition of my employment. So is a zero tolerance drug policy with random testing.

Point is I made the choice to take this job AND abide by the policies laid out in my contract. If I didn't like those policies I am free to choose a different place of employment with less strict policies.

Muff #5048

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

"Everyone will agree?" Nonsense!
Speak for yourself. Don't speak for me.

My apologies. Are you indicating you can't think of a single horrendous criminal activity that doesn't have a 'bearing on job performance' that would make you want to at least put that employee on unpaid administrative leave?

I must have an overactive imagination because I can think of thousands.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

Quote

We get tested and know that we will before we get the job. At the end of the day if you don't like it work somewhere else, easy as that!

why should you have to work somewhere though?

Well there we have it folks - the underlying issue!

My question is: What gives you the faintest idea that a business owner cannot do whatever he wants with his business.

Are you trying to convey that is is OK to force an employer to follow the rules that you want, (not able to drugtest the employees that he pays his money to) but you cannot be bothered to follow the ones that he wants?

Seems a bit hypocritical and flawed in logic, does it not?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

"Everyone will agree?" Nonsense!
Speak for yourself. Don't speak for me.

My apologies. Are you indicating you can't think of a single horrendous criminal activity that doesn't have a 'bearing on job performance' that would make you want to at least put that employee on unpaid administrative leave?

I must have an overactive imagination because I can think of thousands.

There you go again, trying to say I said (or will say) things I didn't (or won't).

As has been said, we have agencies whose purposes are to handle law enforcement and criminal prosecution.

If an employer has suspicions, the first thing to do is to involve the appropriate authorities.

If and when the matter affects the job performance of the employee, that is when the employer should take steps related to the employee's employment status.

Others have used the argument "that's the way things are" to say that employers have extensive rights.

That concept works many ways.

Our society says that the rights of the accused are not to be denied.

That's the way things are.

[normiss 798]

A business owner has the right to protect themselves from potential legal actions as they see too.
Making it a condition of employment or after an incident can release them from a huge legal responsibility they in no way deserve because some hammerhead couldn't behave themselves in a legal manner.
Don't kid yourself with the 'job performance' argument. That is NOT what employee drug testing is about.
It's all about the legal aspects of negligence.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Don't kid yourself with the 'job performance' argument. That is NOT what employee drug testing is about.
It's all about the legal aspects of negligence.

I disagree.

Were what you say so clearly true, no company would stop drug testing.

But we have been told that some have, as it is too expensive and created little or no benefit.

Clearly some businesses have decided that the liability exposure is not great enough to warrant drug testing.

I must agree with Robin that most drug testing has more to do with subjugation of the employee and not public safety or liabilities associated with negligence.

There are well documented cases where "the company physical" was used for purposes far from the purposes revealed to the employees. Andy9o8 mentioned the privacy issues associated with the specimens used for drug testing and what those tests might reveal.

The notion that the employer reigns supreme in these matters easily leads to these sorts of abuses.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Don't kid yourself with the 'job performance' argument. That is NOT what employee drug testing is about.
It's all about the legal aspects of negligence.

I disagree.

Were what you say so clearly true, no company would stop drug testing.

But we have been told that some have, as it is too expensive and created little or no benefit.

Clearly some businesses have decided that the liability exposure is not great enough to warrant drug testing.

I must agree with Robin that most drug testing has more to do with subjugation of the employee and not public safety or liabilities associated with negligence.

There are well documented cases where "the company physical" was used for purposes far from the purposes revealed to the employees. Andy9o8 mentioned the privacy issues associated with the specimens used for drug testing and what those tests might reveal.

The notion that the employer reigns supreme in these matters easily leads to these sorts of abuses.

I agree with your disagreement with Normiss.
It's the same shit with prospective employers running credit checks on job applicants. Sure, for employees with the potential for embezzlement there may be some relevance; but for the most part, it's just a corporate culture that mandates virtual colonoscopies on everyone in the name of having have the most perfect "kind" of people on the workforce.

Maybe some people in this thread accept living in a society in which human dignity is pissed on in the name of "their job, their rules", but I don't.

I tell ya, it's enough to turn a sane man Communist.

[robinheid 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Don't kid yourself with the 'job performance' argument. That is NOT what employee drug testing is about.
It's all about the legal aspects of negligence.

I disagree.

Were what you say so clearly true, no company would stop drug testing.

But we have been told that some have, as it is too expensive and created little or no benefit.

Clearly some businesses have decided that the liability exposure is not great enough to warrant drug testing.

I must agree with Robin that most drug testing has more to do with subjugation of the employee and not public safety or liabilities associated with negligence.

There are well documented cases where "the company physical" was used for purposes far from the purposes revealed to the employees. Andy9o8 mentioned the privacy issues associated with the specimens used for drug testing and what those tests might reveal.

The notion that the employer reigns supreme in these matters easily leads to these sorts of abuses.

I agree with your disagreement with Normiss.
It's the same shit with prospective employers running credit checks on job applicants. Sure, for employees with the potential for embezzlement there may be some relevance; but for the most part, it's just a corporate culture that mandates virtual colonoscopies on everyone in the name of having have the most perfect "kind" of people on the workforce.

Maybe some people in this thread accept living in a society in which human dignity is pissed on in the name of "their job, their rules", but I don't.

I tell ya, it's enough to turn a sane man Communist.

+1 andy9o8

Any public policy which must be executed in private lest it run afoul of indecency and obscenity laws is, a priori, indecent and obscene.

Forcing people to do indecent, obscene things to get a job damages their dignity -- and once you have destroyed a person's dignity, you can do pretty much whatever you want to them and they'll take it... you know, like let themselves be serially molested in order to fly on commercial aircraft or go to the Super Bowl.

When you call drug testing by its right name - rooting through your body waste to make sure you're acting right - it begins to look like a bigger question than staff drug testing as a condition of employment.

SCR-6933 / SCS-3463 / D-5533 / BASE 44 / CCS-37 / 82d Airborne (Ret.)

"The beginning of wisdom is to first call things by their right names."

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Don't kid yourself with the 'job performance' argument. That is NOT what employee drug testing is about.
It's all about the legal aspects of negligence.

I disagree.

Were what you say so clearly true, no company would stop drug testing.

But we have been told that some have, as it is too expensive and created little or no benefit.

Clearly some businesses have decided that the liability exposure is not great enough to warrant drug testing.

I must agree with Robin that most drug testing has more to do with subjugation of the employee and not public safety or liabilities associated with negligence.

There are well documented cases where "the company physical" was used for purposes far from the purposes revealed to the employees. Andy9o8 mentioned the privacy issues associated with the specimens used for drug testing and what those tests might reveal.

The notion that the employer reigns supreme in these matters easily leads to these sorts of abuses.

I agree with your disagreement with Normiss.
It's the same shit with prospective employers running credit checks on job applicants. Sure, for employees with the potential for embezzlement there may be some relevance; but for the most part, it's just a corporate culture that mandates virtual colonoscopies on everyone in the name of having have the most perfect "kind" of people on the workforce.

Maybe some people in this thread accept living in a society in which human dignity is pissed on in the name of "their job, their rules", but I don't.

I tell ya, it's enough to turn a sane man Communist.

+1 andy9o8

Any public policy which must be executed in private lest it run afoul of indecency and obscenity laws is, a priori, indecent and obscene.

Forcing people to do indecent, obscene things to get a job damages their dignity -- and once you have destroyed a person's dignity, you can do pretty much whatever you want to them and they'll take it... you know, like let themselves be serially molested in order to fly on commercial aircraft or go to the Super Bowl.

When you call drug testing by its right name - rooting through your body waste to make sure you're acting right - it begins to look like a bigger question than staff drug testing as a condition of employment.

So I am assumoing that the military should be exempt from drug testing too?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 798]

Of course!
We don't care about any liability of a missile launch, just that you have the skill to do so when you like.