Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
And if you were doing PHYSICAL baseline performance tests, which obviously is what we are talking about if you are taking away drug tests, your HR departments would have to go way beyond the job definitions that the federal government requires. I don't believe you actually were in management, because you clearly don't understand the point of drug tests and how it relates not only to federal laws and guidelines but also to the law in regards to liability. Drug tests are administered to prove PHYSICAL impairment. Not to maintain performance standards. Zero tolerance policies are so that companies can absolve themselves of LIABILITY. Your entire sentence, "they just don't want to pay accident claims unrelated to drug use and this is a way out," makes no sense, since if the drug test proves the employee wasn't under the influence, then the employer pays. The employer really doesn't care what you do when you're not at work, unless it impacts you while you are AT work.
|
You can believe what you like of course, I'm not about to provide employment information. HR departments routinely test physical performance, ever hear of a typing test? If there is an accident a company is likely going to have to deal with a liability claim, so from the start they expect to have to pay that cliaim, a drug test can be a cheap way to get out of that liability. In fact, just having a policy of drug testing after an accident can lower their insurance premiums. Yes, they still have to pay if the test is negative, but if it is positive and they have a zero tolerance drug policy, they fire the staff person and get out of the liability by claiming the person was under the influence, it's not a court case and they are fewquently dealing with a young minimum wage earner, so it works for them. That was my point in their limiting their liability. It doesn't work for every injury, but when it does, it's a savings. You should also know that some industries, like food service, have a much higher incidence of younger workers with higher casual drug use than others. The employers in those industries use this to their advantage. There is no federal law that says employers have to drug test. My employer does not drug test and no employer I've ever worked for has drug tested. I may not understand some points, but you clearly don't get it that drug testing, by itself, does not answer the question of whether someone is impaired or not, especially in regard to cannabis use, since there has never been established a level of THC in the blood that can be used to establish impairment, like there has for alcohol. Therefore, a drug test for cannabis, it can be argued, is not, by itself, going to absolve a company from liability if an accident occurs. That is why a zero tolerance policy is important in this discussion. If, as you say a drug test was used to prove phisical impairment, well, if a person is physically impaired, you could show that without a drug test. A drug test is either the wrong solution to the problem of impairment, or as I believe, it is the "solution" to a different problem, which is that companies want to root out people who are doing things that they don't approve of, for a reason other than performance. With a zero tolerance policy, all you have to do is show a trace of any drug in their blood or urine, and the person is fired, nothing to do with performance. Since this employees use of cannabis was approved by his DR and legal in his state, and since the federal government drug policy Czar has said the feds will not go after people complying with state laws on cannabis use, I believe WalMart created a zero tolerance drug policy, and applied it system wide, without considering those states where cannabis use as medicine is legal, not because of any concern about safety, but because they do not approve of people using cannabis for any reason. There are several court cases that show that employers do care about what their employees do after work, including legal activities, such as smoking tobacco and other activities. A simple search on the internet will show you those cases. As in every other issue, you may belive what you like. That is my opinion. I'm looking forward to following this case as it develops.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now, if only there was a way to do such a thing....
