I'm curious, what exactly do you put in the cup when they ask for a UA?

 

Gives new meaning to "mass spectrometer."

 

That would be "pass smegmameter"

 

Who has to clean those things? I'm beginning to see why they have all those teeny-boppers running the shop.

 

That sounds more like a demand than a right. Rights don't trump each other, they complement.

 

You're right. The employer has the right to have a drug free work force, you have the right to chose not to work there. Sounds pretty complimentary to me!

Why shouldn't I, as an employer, have the right to employ responsible people, as I define such? You have the right as an employee to work or not to work at most any place you chose, provided you meet the job requirements. Let's face it, even if you got your wish to ban these random tests, and I as an employer, should I find out or even suspect you're a user, will find a way to rid myself of you and the liabilities. Since the test could clear you, and prove me wrong, wouldn't you prefer that? In Colorado, I do not have to give you ANY reason for terminating your employment! Should I chose to state a reason, then I have the obligation to provide proof. This state gives the employer the same right to terminate as the employee has to leave. All I have to say is your job no longer exists.

To your benefit, I probably couldn't successfully contest your unemployment compensation without showing you were fired for a valid reason.

 

Hi rikfish,

You have no way of knowing that you're hiring responsible people without forcing them to pee in a bottle?

The successful businessmen I've known have an intuitive sense of finding, hiring and keeping good people. It doesn't come down to a certificate that reads, "This is to certify that employee X has successfully urinated in a bottle and is therefore completely qualified to work for you".

Are you arguing that you don't see the difference between my asking for a drug test to clear up any accusations against me and me being forced to submit to it?

I have dedicated my adult life to my line of work and it's not a matter of going someplace else. That someplace else also has forced drug testing, as does 85% of corporate America. It smacks of arrogance to use the "if you don't like it" statement. I'd go flip burgers at McDonalds but I have to **** in a bottle first.

People who demand things at the expense of a person's right to privacy, and search without probable cause should not be calling their demands a "right". It's a wrong.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I see the pre-employment screening as one of many tools used, not "The" definitive tool. Can you honestly say of all those successful, intuitive businessmen you have known they have never hired a 'dud'?

I guess in my years of experience I have witnessed many employees abusing both drugs and alcohol on the job, thus my feelings about random testing. Also, having been previously married to an alcoholic I have little to no tolerance for either. Right or wrong, these are some of the events and experiences that have shaped my opinion.

Finally, for all of us, it was never promised to anyone that exercising one's rights would be painless. Just like no one promised us life would be easy..........

 

And so tell us, were the druggers/alkies more accident prone, lazy or what compared to the "straights", that you have observed at work, and how do your observations relate to suspicionless demands for possibly incriminating evidence? Who would, amoung the people you haven't witnessed using drugs or alcohol at work, pass, and who would fail a UA? Could you tell by who worked how well? In other words does the intrusion mean less workplace accidents or not?

 

billsco-
I respect your adherence to the Bill of Rights and I can definitely see where you are coming from. Some of the things you say, I agree with, but other things I don't. Neither of us will change the other's mind. I stand by my point of making drug tests detect whether you're under the influence at that time, I think that it would be much more usefull to employers. Say, for a second, that you are my employer. I come into work smelling like marijuana, or my pupils are dilated, or I am acting in a way that would lead you to believe that I was under the influence of some sort of drug. Would this fill your "probable cause" requirement? Wouldn't you like to be able to test me to make sure that I was sober. You have stated that you don't want your co-workers high either, so there has to be measures that you would be willing to take to keep drugs out of the workplace, right?

It seems like your problem, and many others for that matter, is with the way that these tests are conducted. I don't care for it either, but as of right now its the only tool at the employers disposal. Hell, I don't even need the tests (I'm in the same boat as rikfish. Ohio is a work-at-wil/fire-at-will state), but I would rather be able to present conclusive proof that what I suspected was right, rather than going on a hunch. I realize that tests can be wrong and people can be wrong. So rather than taking away some one's livelihood in a snap decision, I request that they take the test, if they fail I ask them to re-take the test. And then proceed from there.

(just out of curiousity, was this the first time you have been chosen to do this?)

 

Yes.


I would like to terminate the employee if he reeked of marijuana and his eyes were bloodshot.

I'm sure as a voice of reason you don't actually think workplace drug testing proves anything conclusively.

No, I've been in a random pool for about ten years now. Every time I'm selected I feel my resentment for this invasion and intrusion rising. It's like red flags waving now when I consider other rights and priviledges being eroded in this great country.

Every Amendment of our Constitution should have a watchdog as vigilant as the NRA is to the Second, IMO.

 

Plain and simple its an invation of privisy. I use to drive a charter boat for a living. If there was an accident that injured someone then by all means test away. These random checks, performed without any justification are an invation.

I don't use drugs anymore, did quit a bit of smoking when I was younger. Even though I dont use, I still think its not right.

 

I fail to see how this is an invasion of your privacy when you can simply refuse. No one is forcing you to do anything.

 

What everyone seems to be either missing, or simply ignoring, is the liability of the business owner. Your example of the charter boat is perfect. Employers are forced to be proactive, rather than reactive. Everyone understands that the random testing is not failsafe, but it can and does reduce the risks to businesses. Want your pilot stoned or drunk when you fly? Want that city bus driver in that condition when you accidentally step out in front of his bus? How about that cop when he is responding to a deadly force situation? The burger flipper that undercooks the meat for your sandwich, says, "Ah, screw it", and you contract food poisoning or worse?

A few years after high school I worked for a while in a steel fabricating plant. We unloaded rail cars of all types and sizes of steel used for construction. One of our crane operators happened to like his flask a bit too much (also a wackyweeder), but then again, 30 years ago this was a bit more socially acceptable. I damn near beat him to death one night for running a load of about 12 tons of steel plate right over our crew (including me)! Luckily, it was also more socially acceptable for me to whoop his rear back then, unlike today.

Yep, let's test AFTER he splatters a few of his co-workers. We all know the family won't sue the employer into the ground, don't we!

 

If the first test comes back positve, I give it a 50/50 chance. If the second one is positive, that is conclusive to me.

rikfish- I completely agree with you about the liability aspect. I've seen people do some pretty stupid things while under the influence and I thank god that nobody was hurt (plus with our insurance deductible being close to 15K, I am definitely supporting the removal of drugs in the work place). One event I witnessed, was a valet driving a Bentley convertible 70 mph and almost running over a pedestrian! I almost needed a new pair of pants! Needless to say he was fired on the spot.