Drug Test for Employment

College Life
21

<p>Look, if I’m a boss, I have the right to know whether someone I’m paying is doing something that could affect their work. </p>

<p>Now, I firmly believe that weed should be legalized (and there’s probably a case for other drugs, but that’s another debate), but for the time being, it is not. Drugs affect you even after the high wears off and there are many jobs where that could be dangerous. Plus, sometimes drugs bring other problems (legal, emotional, etc) and that could be toxic to a work environment. So absolutely employers have a right to drug test.</p>

<p>Edit: I have 4 jobs and all of them put me in contact with kids. I haven’t had a drug test at any of them. At one of my jobs at an elementary school, I have seen people come in drugged up. I WISH they drug tested because it’s just dangerous to have someone who is high have children in their responsibility.</p>

22

<p>I think the right to individual privacy trumps the rights of employers. Obviously the law is not big on protecting individual rights, but I don’t think it’s the employers business what someone does away from work. As long as you are meeting expectations and not coming under the influence, what you do on your own time is not the bosses business. Should employers ban employees from risky activities such as boxing, extreme sports, unhealthy diets etc; or ask for a mental health evaluation? There is just a slippery slop here. There’s a lot more grey than black and white. If someone binge eats and is exhausted because of a poor diet, should an employer be allowed to test an employees chloersteral (sp), or require other health tests? It’s really not that far of a stretch. I don’t think the employer has a “right” to know what employees do off the clock. However, there is a right to privacy according to SCOTUS. I believe that employers can hire or fire for any reason, but I don’t think they should be granted any power to pry into the private lives of employees. I know that employers in many cases are actually reluctant to fire employees who abuse drugs.</p>

23

<p>I don’t agree with drug testing by employers. I want to use drugs whenever I want.</p>

24

<p>^^^^^^</p>

<p>As a certified employment law specialist, I can tell you with certainty that there is nothing wrong, and everything right when employers drug test employees.</p>

<p>An employee who is using poses a huge liability factor for a business. Especially jobs that require public trust, youth interaction, and proprietary information. </p>

<p>For example, school bus drivers. Without a doubt, a school district should be able to randomly test their bus drivers. Those individuals have the lives of dozens of children in their hands daily, and if they are driving stoned - parents and school administrators have the right to exercise protect measures, in this case testing for narcotics.</p>

<p>If you are performing an activity in your own time that will impair your ability to do your job, and cause harm to other people, then your employer needs to have the tools to protect themselves.</p>

<p>Like it or not, employers HAVE these rights, and it’s just something you will need to deal with. In fact, some jobs have much more rigid standard than simple drug test. Careers that require a security clearance (government jobs and federal contracting jobs), not only make applicant submit to a drug test, but they also make the take medical evaluations, physical/pt tests, psychological tests, full-scope (10 years) background investigations, and in many cases POLYGRAPH tests.</p>

<p>Employees who are abusing drugs put their company at great liability. Liability so great that the potential lawsuits can completely bankrupt a company. For example, say a delivery driver (let’s just say FedEx) is impaired while driving his delivery truck, runs a red light and crashes into another vehicle, killing a mother and her child.</p>

<p>FedEx will hold great liability and will be open for major multi-million dollar lawsuits. A major company like FedEx could surive this scenario, however a smaller operation would most likely be banktrupted by the pending lawsuits and legal fees.</p>

<p>The scenarios are countless. Liability is a major issue and a companies policy can dictate how much they pay out. So in my FedEx example, if FedEx conducted random drug testing, their liability would be lessened because they attempted to take proactive measures. But if now proactive measures (testing) were taking, their liability just sky rocketed.</p>

<p>Of course, another underlining issue is that employees want to hire the most responsible person possible - which drug users aren’t.</p>

25

<p>Well, if it comes down to a contest between what you want and what your potential employer wants, you better be a hell of an employable person.</p>

26

<p>I believe that employers should use whatever criteria they want to select candidates, down to hair color.</p>

27

<p>

</p>

<p>Particularly employers that sell hair-coloration products.</p>

28

<h2>Should employers ban employees from risky activities such as boxing, extreme sports, unhealthy diets etc; or ask for a mental health evaluation? ~ Tiff90</h2>

<p>No, because those activities don’t put the company itself at risk. If you get hurt boxing or mountain climbing, oh well - you’re screwed, but the company isn’t. If you can’t work anymore they will just replace you.</p>

<p>Many employers require psychological assessments prior to being hired.</p>

29

<p>yes, random drug testing by employers at work should be mandatory. Help reverse our decline into drugs…</p>

30

<p>Overweight employees are a considerable risk to employers. They call off more, use health insurance more and are more lathargic. Their performance is worse than a healthy Boxing causes head trauma, ergo a worker is less competent then when hired. If a person gets in an accident off work and is covered under an insurance policy through work, it costs the employer money. Drug use is not as detrimental as people on here think. Like I said before a VAST majority of users are recreational users, very few people who use drugs are crack heads or meth freaks. Even people who use everyday don’t go to work ****ed up and aren’t less healthy than a fat person or a person with a heart problem etc. I highly doubt recreational drug users pose an actual liability on employers. If they do can you direct me to studies showing that 1) the majority of all drug users are addicts 2) drug users cost employers MORE than people with other health conditions 3) recreational drug use and occassional binge drinking hurts prodctivity significantly. I haven’t seen facts supporting any of the three. I really don’t think people who smoke weed a couple of times a week pose a liability to a company. Or someone who does some blow occasionally costs the company money.</p>

31

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, a lot of companies are starting to require overweight employees to go on a diet–it’s a health concern that could lead to complications like diabetes and heart attacks, which they don’t want to pay for.</p>

<p>And yes, security clearance is a b!tch. “When did you meet your mom’s dad’s uncle’s goat’s baby’s nanny? Specify the time and date down the millisecond.”</p>

<p>As for the actual topic, I’m too much on the fence to give an informed argument.</p>

32

<p>I personally think it’s okay for harder drugs. Weed not included. There are way more dangers linked to cigarettes and alcohol than weed. It’s not the ideal situation, but a person high or stoned on weed can drive, can concentrate, can hyperfocus on tasks. </p>

<p>But I think drug testing should be an available option after poor performance, not as a prefix for hiring. If someone comes in seems very capable, gives a good interview, and is truly right for the job, is it really right to hire a less capable person because the first one tests positive for drugs? I don’t think so because the person is obviously in enough control to have impressed you so far.</p>

<p>Alsoy I’d way rather that people like surgeons be tested for drugs than the guy who works at Target, but that’s just me. But no one sends the brain surgeon down to get drug tested (or at least it’s far less likely) because they’ve already proved themselves responsible otherwise.</p>

33

<p>lol, I’ve ridden in a car where the driver was stoned. Let’s just say that if they ever legalize marijuana, they better have DUI laws for it like they do with alcohol.</p>

34

<p>I definitely agree that they should, and they probably would, but it’s not as bad as driving drunk honestly.</p>

35

<p>I don’t have any problems with drug testing. I wouldn’t want to hire people who don’t respect the law, either. If you don’t care if you break a law that you think is stupid anyway, then whatever, but it’s pretty immature to be indignant when there are consequences for making that choice.</p>

36

<p>I’m really really surprised with what the general opinion is on this board. As a college student, I have met people who do plenty of drugs and generally they are doing very well in school. College students are usually able to get away with it. Of course I say usually because I have also met a very small minority who cannot handle it. What I’m trying to say is, as college students, most of us should have observed that there are people who can handle usage well and that there is almost no correlation between ability to work and recreational substance use. Most of the counter-examples here are specific cases of low-level labor. Maybe the original question isn’t well defined but there are several different cases to consider…</p>

<p>also, driving drunk is better than driving high, not that either of them are good…</p>

37

<p>How is driving drunk less dangerous than driving high?</p>

38

<p>driving drnk i s stupid</p>

<p>i’m drunk right now and i fi was driving i probably woudla crashed bynow</p>

39

<p><a href=“http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/7/27/driving-while-high-339007[/url]”>http://www.break.com/usercontent/2007/7/27/driving-while-high-339007&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

40

<p>"i’m drunk right now and i fi was driving i probably woudla crashed bynow "</p>

<p>shoulda realized that from the clothing thread haha.</p>

<p>Sithis: I’m going to guess you have been under the influence of both and decided that driving drunk would be more dangerous than driving high. Maybe its your personal preference but I really don’t think I could even comprehend the fact that I am operating a car if I were high. I’m not advocating either because they are both really stupid, but I think for generally doing things, different people will think differently about which impairs them more.</p>