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.
Why is random drug testing allowed, in jobs where this is not needed.
Say someone smokes a joint in his holiday, then turns up on monday to stack shelves - who cares?
how can you be fired for this since it doesn't affect anyone in the real world?
and how come we could get completely loaded on alcohol but not get fired?
doesn't seem right somehow.
any opinions here?
You are exactly right. The drug hysteria, exemplified by post # 2 on this thread, has caused a complete loss of judgment and sense, and with it a disregard for basic rights of privacy and autonomy.
In virtually every case, off-premises, off-duty conduct, including the use of legal or illegal drugs, has no effect on the employer, and there is no moral, ethical, or practical justification for prohibiting it or testing for it. Smoking a joint over the weekend is no different from drinking a beer over the weekend.
It is perfectly legitimate for an employer to prohibit using drugs, whether they be legal or illegal, on the job, or being under the influence of drugs on the job.
Unfortunately, the law goes a different way, and allows an employer to condition new or continued employment on almost anything, including compliance with a drug testing requirement and "passing" the drug test. I put "passing" in quotation marks because I have seen many signs where they say they test for drug abuse; this is clearly false, because they will disqualify anyone with marijuana in their system, and make no distinction between use and abuse; similarly, they don't test for off-duty alcohol use, even abuse, at all.
I am appalled that so many people think a private employer should have more right to pry into a person's life than the government.
The RWA’s cry about illegal search by the government but applaud a private corporation when it searches an employee’s car for guns as well as an employee’s body for drugs. What a free person is carrying in their car or body is NONE of the EMPLOYRE’s concern.
Taking a job is not the same as being a slave but most managers and single proprietors’ seem to think so. Many employers think you give up your Constitutional rights when you walk through their door. We have to work to make damn certain you do not. This means, for this discussion, no drug tests, no religion tests, no tests of anything else.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
A person is hired to do a job. The employer is entitled to monitor how well the job is being done. That is ALL the employer is entitled to do.
Let me just say that I do support the rights of a business to hire whoever they want. But when they're down right fascist about violating individual liberties, that's a problem. More government regulation is certainly not the answer either, but it makes you wonder that if perhaps some of these companies wouldn't act like dictators, and be a little more ethical, you wouldn't have people from the left screaming about implementing more regulations! I hate nanny state BS whether it is on a government level, or a corporate level! My employer is NOT my parent!
You are exactly right. The drug hysteria, exemplified by post # 2 on this thread, has caused a complete loss of judgment and sense, and with it a disregard for basic rights of privacy and autonomy.
In virtually every case, off-premises, off-duty conduct, including the use of legal or illegal drugs, has no effect on the employer, and there is no moral, ethical, or practical justification for prohibiting it or testing for it. Smoking a joint over the weekend is no different from drinking a beer over the weekend.
It is perfectly legitimate for an employer to prohibit using drugs, whether they be legal or illegal, on the job, or being under the influence of drugs on the job.
Unfortunately, the law goes a different way, and allows an employer to condition new or continued employment on almost anything, including compliance with a drug testing requirement and "passing" the drug test. I put "passing" in quotation marks because I have seen many signs where they say they test for drug abuse; this is clearly false, because they will disqualify anyone with marijuana in their system, and make no distinction between use and abuse; similarly, they don't test for off-duty alcohol use, even abuse, at all.
This is where drug testing is flawed, and another reason why I don't support it! The THC molecule clings to your fat cells, and can stay in your system for up to 30 days or more. Yet the effects of THC when consumed generally wear off within 1 to 3 hours, with no lingering effects. On the other hand, a substance like coke leaves the body much quicker, therefore someone could feasibly blow lines on Friday night, and pass a drug test on Tuesday. Now you tell me which substance is much more dangerous... cocaine, or marijuana?
The government does drug testing for applications and at all levels too.
You have no problem when the government does it but do when a private business does ?
Simple answer..if you don't want to submit to a drug test then don't apply for a job there.
I don't like the TSA groping at airports or naked scanners and all I hear is "too bad, don't fly then".
Suck it up...loss of liberties is happening all around you and you don't get upset until it directly affects you.
Maybe you'll start standing up for loss of liberties as a principal in the future instead of the.."if you don't like it then don't..."
Why is random drug testing allowed, in jobs where this is not needed.
Say someone smokes a joint in his holiday, then turns up on monday to stack shelves - who cares?
how can you be fired for this since it doesn't affect anyone in the real world?
and how come we could get completely loaded on alcohol but not get fired?
doesn't seem right somehow.
any opinions here?
When someone works for someone else then they have engaged in a mutually voluntary, private and binding contract.
In other words: the employee agrees to drug testing when he agrees to work there. No one is forced to take a drug test. They agreed to it with their own free will.
would that be ok, because it's exactly the same logic.
how about if they didn't want you having pre-marital sex - could they test for that - do you see the point I'm getting at?
Agreed. What one person chooses to do on his or her own time is none of the interest of an employer or federal government. Should that be eating meat, sleeping around, or getting high, as long as it doesn't infringe on ones ability to do the work for the employer, it has no place being tested for.
Credit Checks, by the way, are another thing someone brings up as an infringement, and I absolutely agree to that too. My ability to perform the job and show up for the job should be the only things measured in terms of hiring. Any employer who goes beyond that is egregiously violating my privacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VikingTactics45
BTW...just got a phone call from my boss concerning setting natural gas pressure on a gas valve.
I have the day off and he needs to borrow my test meter and gauges....also a quick explaination of how to use them....the new digital ones that is.
If you make one ****k up........BOOM!!!
That house is history and everyone in it.........................................
If you agree to work off-hours or on-call, then it's your responsibility not to be intoxicated during those hours. But should an employer be able to fire you because you're out drinking while off-hours or on-call?
EDIT: I mean to say should an employer be able to fire you because you're drinking off hours and not on call.
Agreed. What one person chooses to do on his or her own time is none of the interest of an employer or federal government. Should that be eating meat, sleeping around, or getting high, as long as it doesn't infringe on ones ability to do the work for the employer, it has no place being tested for.
Credit Checks, by the way, are another thing someone brings up as an infringement, and I absolutely agree to that too. My ability to perform the job and show up for the job should be the only things measured in terms of hiring. Any employer who goes beyond that is egregiously violating my privacy.
If you agree to work off-hours or on-call, then it's your responsibility not to be intoxicated during those hours. But should an employer be able to fire you because you're out drinking while off-hours or on-call?
Exactly! Now if you're on call as you said then that is on you! It would be wise NOT to partake in any sort of intoxicating substances! Again, I support employers the right to hire who they wish! I don't support them playing nanny, and infringing on their employees private lives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
