Drug Tests

[Pedersen]

I have to agree with you, Flyn, they do seem to have their shit together on a lot of their "logic" based arguments. Still, I don't feel like what I'm doing is "mental gymnastics"...that's just how I feel about some things. Yeah, I admit someone can "make a statement" by not saying anything, but also in this instance I didn't lie about anything. Maybe it IS just a technicality, but isn't that what life is made up of? I've got people throwing them in my face every minute of every day, don't I ever get to use them for my own benefit or is it just for everyone else to use to fuck with me?

Yes, you get to use them when you're right. See, the problem here is that you did lie, and you got caught.

Again, they asked if you do drugs. Again, you responded in the negative by hoping to be flagged as a false negative.

The fact that you did not utter the words "I do not smoke pot" is irrelevant. You made a statement by taking a test that you knew you would not pass. You lied.

It doesn't matter if you don't like it. It doesn't matter if you feel you didn't lie, since you didn't say the words out loud.

You lied. Now you have to face the consequences.

[LeChatNoir]

As kind of an aside...DrFaroohk, if you had gotten the job (say you quit smoking long enough to pass the drug test for example), Wal-Mart does require drug testing if you ever injure yourself at work. And if you refuse, you're pretty much fucked anyway. My mom (who also works at Wal-Mart) had a can of air freshener randomly fall on her head, causing her to need several stitches. Wal-Mart sent a guy to the hospital to check her urine for drugs.

Hubby and I both work at Wally world. I smoked pot for the first time on Christmas day this past year. I waited about 3 months to try finding a new job (I knew I wanted to start looking), just to make sure everything was out of my system. I haven't smoked since, it really wasn't right for me, but I knew what the risks were when I wanted to start job hunting.

You could always quit smoking for now, wait a few months, and then try to get another job. It's the safest way to ensure that your recreational habits don't interfere with potential employment opportunities.

[Greenday]

In fact, casual and recreational pot use is one of the simplest influences to control. One just wouldn't smoke pot the day before or during work, and the likelihood of it affecting their performance is close to nil.

Ok, so we start out with it's ok to smoke a day before work. Then it becomes it's ok to smoke the night before work. Then it's ok to smoke the morning of work. Then it's ok to smoke right before work. Then it's ok to smoke during work. Where does it end? No one is going to agree on a specific time. And yes, it WILL affect performance as all drugs decrease your abilities in some way or another, which is a proven fact.

The difference between banning weed consumption and having kids, WoW, stressful home situations etc. is that weed is illegal. That's why drug consumption is banned completely from various workplaces and the others are not.

[Boozy]

Can you garuantee that your drug use won't ever affect you on the job? Nope, so the company has pretty valid reasons for not wanting employees to do drugs on or off the clock.

That's a pretty weak argument. No one can ever guarantee that their lives won't at times affect their work. The same question could be asked of those with children, weak immune systems, stressful home situations, unreliable transportation, side effects from medication, lousy diets, and those who stay up all night playing WOW. How much of our lives are we going to allow our employers to dictate?

In fact, casual and recreational pot use is one of the simplest influences to control. One just wouldn't smoke pot the day before or during work, and the likelihood of it affecting their performance is close to nil.

[Greenday]

But then all of a sudden, not only do I have to do what they say for that 8 hours, but I have to continue doing what they say for an additional 16 hours after I get off work! To make it worse, do you think I keep getting 10 dollars an hour for that time? NOPE! They're making me behave in a manner that they dictate without even paying me! So essentially I'm getting not 10 dollars an hour, but in fact 1/3 of that. How can they honestly justify that? I'm not totally against a company dictating some personal behaviors...obviously you can't have serial killers working for you. But it seems, especially in this shitty point in our economy, that employers are taking advantage of their ability to control us.

Can you garuantee that your drug use won't ever affect you on the job? Nope, so the company has pretty valid reasons for not wanting employees to do drugs on or off the clock. Alls they are asking is that you don't break the law and I don't think you should get paid to do that, since it's something EVERYONE is required to do without getting paid for it.

As for companies taking advantage of their ability to control us, the economy has nothing to do with it. These policies have been in effect for years.

[DrFaroohk]

I have to agree with you, Flyn, they do seem to have their shit together on a lot of their "logic" based arguments. Still, I don't feel like what I'm doing is "mental gymnastics"...that's just how I feel about some things. Yeah, I admit someone can "make a statement" by not saying anything, but also in this instance I didn't lie about anything. Maybe it IS just a technicality, but isn't that what life is made up of? I've got people throwing them in my face every minute of every day, don't I ever get to use them for my own benefit or is it just for everyone else to use to fuck with me?

It just sucks that I didn't get this job for something stupid. Yes I know it's illegal. It's also not a big freakin' deal. I smoke pot at home. I'm not doing it before work or at work. I don't sell it, I don't go cause a big scene when I can't have any. It's not coke or meth or oxycodone. I don't steal or suck dicks to support it. It's not even a major crime where I live! It's like a speeding ticket here. And the job? I'm not driving heavy machinery, handing out sensitive medications or working for a congressman. It's friggin wal-mart! Wally-world. You could actually BE stoned and still pull off a job there. And I wasn't even trying to get away with doing that much.

Can someone honestly even say it's a big image killer for them? I would be willing to bet money that this conversation has NEVER HAPPENED:

"Hey, we need diapers. Let's go to wal-mart."

"What? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? THERE'S A GUY THERE WHO SMOKES POT! I'M NEVER SHOPPING THERE AGAIN!!!"

On the upside, I'm glad I don't work for a company that invades my privacy in such a way. I really don't like the notion that a company can dictate what you do off the clock. Someone else posted a similar analogy to this: I have a deal with a company. They pay me 10 dollars, and in exchange I do one hour of work for them. During that hour, I will behave how they want, I will dress how they want, I will do pretty much anything they want for that hour. For about an 8 hour day.

But then all of a sudden, not only do I have to do what they say for that 8 hours, but I have to continue doing what they say for an additional 16 hours after I get off work! To make it worse, do you think I keep getting 10 dollars an hour for that time? NOPE! They're making me behave in a manner that they dictate without even paying me! So essentially I'm getting not 10 dollars an hour, but in fact 1/3 of that. How can they honestly justify that? I'm not totally against a company dictating some personal behaviors...obviously you can't have serial killers working for you. But it seems, especially in this shitty point in our economy, that employers are taking advantage of their ability to control us.

[Flyndaran]

I give: I give. I admit defeat to your logic Broomjockey. I mean that with no sarcasm. That tone you hear is just a bad habit in the way I write and talk.
Drat. This makes the second thread in which I failed at convincing others of my viewpoint.

[BroomJockey]

Incriminating oneself is basic english. They force a person to pee into a cup in order to make that person incriminate themself.

Since it can't be used in a court of law, it's not incriminating. Basic English would show the root of the word being "criminal." Thus related to law. Colloquial usage being the big bag of random shit it is, and since you're specifically talking about rights, freedoms, and law, we're gonna have to go with the real, legal usage of the word. No criminal charges = no incrimination. And it's voluntary. Take the test, or not take the test. Since your conditions of employment are set by the employer, and can't be unilaterally changed to the detriment or benefit of either side, you'd either agreed to it by asking for a job there, or agreed to it by continuing to work there. If you don't agree to it, but continue to work there, you're no longer abiding by your terms of employment, and the company is free to fire you for non-compliance, or to keep you on regardless, modifying your terms of employment to reflect that.

[Flyndaran]

...
So, if an employee turns up to work stoned, the company should not have the right to so anything about it? At the very least, if it was merely suspected (ie, bloodshot eyes, bit of a slur), then they company shouldn't have the right to determine if that employee - on their grounds, using their equipment, being an OHS liability - to find out if their suspicions are correct?

That turns into a reasonable reason to test. That is not what anyone disagrees with.
I just don't like the, "Give us your urine or we will fire you." force. Yes, it is force if it is a legitimate threat that might lead to your living on the street. Not all force is with a gun, for crying out loud.
Police here need just cause to get a court order. Some judges may not care about civil rights and sign anything that's put in from of them, but most actually read warrants.
I'm not saying that companies don't have a right to fire someone with reason like knowing that someone breaks the law. I just don't like the civil liberties destruction that them taking your bodily fluids leads to.

[Pedersen]

Not to be a smartass, but there actually is an I in DNA. It was part of one of my last lectures in Genetics. It's a variation of one of the "normal" four (I think it's A or G).

Thank you. I didn't know that existed. Learned something new

Do you, therefore, believe that companies shouldn't have the right to know if an employee is either a) doing something illegal that may impinge on the employer, or b) is undertaking an act that may potentially be to the detriment of said company?

The way that question is phrased is very difficult to say a simple "yes" or "no" to, since just that word will make people ask "What is he responding to?"

I'll simply detail it here: A company needs to know if an employee is doing something that may be detrimental to the company (whether that act is illegal or not). I do not feel it should have the right to do so, though. The reason being that, as a right, the company could make it a requirement that employees detail their personal lives to their managers in a daily report, and the employees would have no recourse.

Depending on the way societal opinion is moving at the time, this could go so far as to include details of the individual's sex life. After all, some sexual acts are considered "unnatural" by some segments of society. If your company relies on one of those segments as a key market, and one of your employees is participating in that act, and it got out to your customers, you could lose a lot of business.

However, what that employee is doing in the bedroom is not something that people should have access to. By making the knowledge of potentially detrimental acts a right, though, it now becomes something the business can demand of an employee.

We're talking about 'freedoms' and 'rights'... do the companies have none, and the individual have all?

Companies should have drastically reduced rights in comparison to people for one specific reason: Companies are artificial constructs, created by people. Until such time as a company is able to come into existence without the aid of people, I would continue to state that opinion. Should companies have some rights? Yes. The right to own property, make sales, and pay taxes. Not much else, though.

So, if an employee turns up to work stoned, the company should not have the right to so anything about it? At the very least, if it was merely suspected (ie, bloodshot eyes, bit of a slur), then they company shouldn't have the right to determine if that employee - on their grounds, using their equipment, being an OHS liability - to find out if their suspicions are correct?

The most the company should do is act on the reasonable suspicion: Send the employee home, and follow disciplinary action as detailed in their employee handbook. Yes, this can lead right up to termination. I'm okay with that.

I'm not okay with the company invading my personal life, nor anybody else's personal life.

That's right, even though I'm pointing out that DrFaroohk is lying to the company that interviewed him, and even though I'm pointing out Flyndaran's logic and vocabulary errors, I happen to agree with both of them that the companies should not be doing this as a matter of policy, not without one helluva good reason.

Good reasons would include being the operator of machinery that, if mishandled, would result in injury. Would also include handling dangerous chemicals, too. Also being in a position where discovery of this habit would leave the person susceptible to blackmail. Other reasons, too. But, as a general rule, these reasons do not apply, and companies should not allow a policy of drug screening.

[Slytovhand]

Ped's last point has prompted this question for both...

Do you, therefore, believe that companies shouldn't have the right to know if an employee is either a) doing something illegal that may impinge on the employer, or b) is undertaking an act that may potentially be to the detriment of said company?

We're talking about 'freedoms' and 'rights'... do the companies have none, and the individual have all?

It's wrong to allow companies such power to invade our privacy.

So, if an employee turns up to work stoned, the company should not have the right to so anything about it? At the very least, if it was merely suspected (ie, bloodshot eyes, bit of a slur), then they company shouldn't have the right to determine if that employee - on their grounds, using their equipment, being an OHS liability - to find out if their suspicions are correct?

[Greenday]

Finally: Gattaca, not "Gatica". The movie was named Gattaca because it was a word that could be made out of the symbols used to represent a DNA strand. Curiously, "i" is not one of those symbols.

And here, I actually happen to agree with you. I don't like this road, which is why I do not work for companies that require such testing. I don't even use pot. Hell, I barely use Advil. If I drink, it's only a glass once a week (maybe tice in a busy week). When it comes to such testing, I've got absolutely nothing to hide. And I still won't do it. It's wrong to allow companies such power to invade our privacy.

Not to be a smartass, but there actually is an I in DNA. It was part of one of my last lectures in Genetics. It's a variation of one of the "normal" four (I think it's A or G).

Companies don't want drug users at work. I don't blame them. It's a very valid point. It's a matter of work safety. It's ensuring that it won't affect your work. They don't care how it affects your personal life, only how it would affect them.

[Pedersen]

Incriminating oneself is basic english. They force a person to pee into a cup in order to make that person incriminate themself.

If you would like to use the "basic English" argument, then let's explore basic English, shall we?

define:force has a number of entries listed for it. All of them that are related to what we are discussing boil down to this particular entry:

coerce: to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means :"She forced him to take a job in the city"; "He squeezed her for information"

Your argument appears to be that the statement from the company of "drug test or no job" is a form of coercion. It's not. It is a condition of employment from that company. It is much the same as other conditions: Don't show up to work drunk, don't sexually harass coworkers, don't steal from the company, etc. This particular condition involves the use of an outside entity to verify the veracity of your compliance since, for some reason, people who do use pot tend to lie about it to people who would disapprove and/or act against them about it.

So, stop with the "force" argument. It's wrong. Call it what it is.

Pretty basic truth in my veiw. Urine is a bodily fluid, just easier to get than blood. We don't allow blood withdrawl without a court order.

And now we get to the second wrong thing in your post: We absolutely do allow the taking of blood without a court order. In fact, the scenario would play out like this:

Cop: We need a blood sample.
Suspect: Okay.

And then blood gets drawn. No court order involved. When is the court order required?

Cop: We need a blood sample.
Suspect: No. I refuse.
Cop: *goes and gets court order*
Cop: Give me the blood sample that the court says you have to.
Suspect: Dammit. *gives blood*

Which, by some strange coincidence, is exactly the same sequence of events for a drug test for a job. The only difference is that the company can't get the court order, and therefore simply declines to hire you.

That's right, the company has less ability to use any sort of force against you. Go figure.

I am not really arguing the law against pot, though that is stupid, useless, and insulting. I am only arguing against urine tests all "Gatica like" in forcing self-incrimination.

Finally: Gattaca, not "Gatica". The movie was named Gattaca because it was a word that could be made out of the symbols used to represent a DNA strand. Curiously, "i" is not one of those symbols.

And here, I actually happen to agree with you. I don't like this road, which is why I do not work for companies that require such testing. I don't even use pot. Hell, I barely use Advil. If I drink, it's only a glass once a week (maybe tice in a busy week). When it comes to such testing, I've got absolutely nothing to hide. And I still won't do it. It's wrong to allow companies such power to invade our privacy.

Just at least be factual about why. Your argument is much stronger when you do that.

[Flyndaran]

That's a new definition of fact I've not heard before. The one I know has something to do with "being accurate and truthful." Since self-incrimination only applies to the legal arena, and law is the only source of definition for that area, if it's not true legally, it's not true at all..

Incriminating oneself is basic english. They force a person to pee into a cup in order to make that person incriminate themself. Pretty basic truth in my veiw. Urine is a bodily fluid, just easier to get than blood. We don't allow blood withdrawl without a court order.

Seems like a damned good reason not to do anything which can potentially limit your options, then. In a choice between pot and a job, one or the other, if jobs really are so scarce, why choose pot? So, despite a dearth of available jobs, you still get to make that choice. You either choose pot, and a job which will accept it, or no pot and a job that won't accept it. If a person needs a job as badly as you imply, Flyn, it should be an easy choice.

I am not really arguing the law against pot, though that is stupid, useless, and insulting. I am only arguing against urine tests all "Gatica like" in forcing self-incrimination.

[BroomJockey]

but demanding their urine is forced self-incrimination in fact if not in modern law.

That's a new definition of fact I've not heard before. The one I know has something to do with "being accurate and truthful." Since self-incrimination only applies to the legal arena, and law is the only source of definition for that area, if it's not true legally, it's not true at all.

You must live in a nice world in which the masses are able to change jobs so easily. I live in this world where many people are stuck just to keep from getting tossed on the streets.

Seems like a damned good reason not to do anything which can potentially limit your options, then. In a choice between pot and a job, one or the other, if jobs really are so scarce, why choose pot? So, despite a dearth of available jobs, you still get to make that choice. You either choose pot, and a job which will accept it, or no pot and a job that won't accept it. If a person needs a job as badly as you imply, Flyn, it should be an easy choice.