Drug testing at work

[B Calm]

My boss (almost) hired a new guy Thursday. Friday morning he scheduled him to take a drug screen at the plants medical office. According to the nurse, I guess his urine temperature was to hot. So she told him that he'll have to give another sample with a male security guard present. He refused and walked out!

My boss and I were in a little argument over this. I told him that the company has the right to a drug free work place, but not a drug free worker! This pissed the boss off, and I'll probably be randomly selected next. But where in the hell do corporations have this power to tell their workers what they can and cannot do when they are not at work.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. It's a good thing if they DO select you.

While they waste time on a test that will yield negative, another worker's job is preserved.

If I was you I'd bitch against drug testing once a day and twice on Fridays.

[B Calm]

2. What's next? Cigarettes

[ikojo]

8. Yes, cigarettes are next...this is from the Feb 8, 2005 NYT

This is what happens in a country where unions are weak or virtually non exisitent for the majority of working class people.
I can foresee a time when your employer demands to know which e mail lists you subscribe to as well as your reading material. Already I have heard of employers googling aprospective employee's name to see what they can discover, since so many things are considered off limits during an interview.
So, when people say unions are an anachronism point them to this article.

Company's Smoking Ban Means Off-Hours, Too

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/business/08smoking.html

"Under a new policy that legal specialists say is the first of its kind, Weyco began testing its 200 employees for smoking in January. And the company put workers on alert: In the future, they will be subject to random testing. If they fail, they will be fired."

snip

"And while Weyco's strict no-smoking policy is drawing the ire of civil liberties groups, it is within the bounds of employment law in Michigan. The state is one of 20 that has no laws preventing employers from firing workers who smoke even when they are not at work."

snip

"In fact, employers in 46 states have significant legal leeway to tell workers what they can and cannot do once they leave the office. As a result, companies have done more than tell workers not to smoke.

Until the mid-1990's, the airlines enforced policies that limited how much a flight attendant could weigh. In the 1980's, Electronic Data Systems, the computer software company founded by Ross Perot, had a policy barring facial hair, and fired an employee who said that he wore a beard for religious reasons. In 1989, a company in Indiana fired an employee for drinking after work, a violation of the company's no-alcohol policy. And just last September, a company in Alabama fired a woman who drove to work with a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker."

[Skittles]

22. question

I don't smoke now but did for many years. Anyways, when I get stressed I often will chew nicotine gum or even wear a patch. I would flunk a smoke test, wouldn't I?

[ikojo]

27. The test used at Weyco is a breathilizer so unless nicotine affects your

ability to breath you should be able to pass such a test. What about people who have asthma or other lung related disorders, depending upon the day they may not pass a breathilizer test if it's meant to measure lung capacity.

I just think corporate and CEO power has gone overboard.

[Archae]

3. It depends a lot on the job, and the job duties.

For instance, it's a lot more critical to have a 100% sober heavy machinery operator, than a file clerk.

[B Calm]

4. So it's ok to drug screen workers, but not office workers?

[Archae]

6. As I said, it depends on the job.

We've seen what smoking pot on the job as an Amtrack train engineer does.

[B Calm]

7. And getting the files mixed up, could shut down the company

forcing a massive layoff..

[B Calm]

11. Rush Limbaugh might not be an Amtrack train engineer, but

look at the damage this druggy did to this country.

[Damien]

34. Ahh...

I smile everytime that fat man's drug additiction comes up. It's cruel, but oh so funny.

Thanks.

[Dark]

15. But drug tests dictate what someone can or cannot do outside of their job.

n/t

[Book Lover]

26. What you said!

A hundred years ago companies (I believe Ford was one of them) hired thugs to spy on their factory workers to see if they drank off hours. I want one of these people to define the difference to me - oh wait, that's right, they *can't*. It's spying and doesn't do anything except assert authority that is not rightly theirs.

[MrModerate]

30. I work for a company that tests all prospective employees . . .

And reserves the right to test randomly after hiring (although I've never seen them do so).

There are a couple of things operating here. One, the Fed does it, so if your company does business with the Fed, there are "Drug-Free Workplace" rules in force that they have to follow to retain their Gov't contracts.

In my case, the work is engineering-construction, and so the construction side of the house involves lots of heavy equipment and downright dangerous situations, so any form of intoxication is a Very Bad Thing. For that component of the workforce, regular testing (not scheduled, but reasonably frequient) is common.

Also your bosses are apparently 1) prigs and 2) have drunk the anti-drug coolaid so that they really believe that marijuana use (the one test that will show up positive when you're not actually intoxicated) makes you unfit (morally and performance-wise) to hold a responsible job. It's bullshit, of course, but at least under current law, they get to pick.

Also, many companies that test willy-nilly offer only "at will" hiring contracts, which means they only retain you if THEY choose. And, since drug use of the sort we're talking here almost always constitutes evidence of lawbreaking on the employee's part (even if you do it on your own time), they feel that they have a right to sanction the behavior because having "criminal employees" reflects negatively on them.

Also, the drug testing companies have deluded everyone, and have every reason to keep this expensive nonsense going. And the people who manufacture the tests tend not to be left wingers, if you know what I mean.

It has nothing to do with performance (outside of the heavy equipment operator, truck driver, or Amtrak engineer types), and everything to do with arrogance, sanctimoniousness, and money.

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

[Quakerfriend]

5. I believe that legally the work place has the right

to decide NOT TO HIRE YOU, if your drug test is positive.

Usually, the letter of offer is contingent upon passing a drug test.

My hubbie has taken these for the past 7 years, EVERY time he is going for a new job.

I don't know about random testing once you are employed by the Co.

What I don't get is, Why the male escort??

[ikojo]

9. Ok this is graphic but needed to answer the question....

the male escort is needed to ensure that the urine is coming out of the penis of the prospective employee. In order to escape detection there is a market of people who do not use drugs selling their urine to those who DO use drugs.

The male escort watches the guy urinate. I think this is what got actor Tom Sizemore in trouble the other day...he tried to use a fake penis when taking a drug test.

[Quakerfriend]

10. LOL!! I guess I'm pretty naive!

[Dark]

16. Why should it matter to the company what someone does on their own time?

Simply because your husband WAS tested doesn't make it right.

[rustydog]

18. Once it is determined a suspect or tainted sample has been given

another sample must be donated and the process will be observed to ensure the urine sample comes from the donors body and not a tube taped underneath the penis.
If it is a female donor, then a woman must witness the next sample being given by the donor to ensure the sample isnot adulterated.

Typically, I have seen urine samples given to me that don't even register on the temperature strip. one's urine does not come out of the body cold, unless you have been dead for several hours.
I haven't had one that was too hot.

Hell, my ex-brother-in-law went so far as to purchase a temperature controlled unit for his drug abusing son so he could pass court ordered drug screens as a condition of parole. Family values alcoholic Dad!

[Lefty48197]

12. They DON'T have that right.

We're protected against "unreasonable search" by the Constitution. It's just that nobody has taken a drug testing case to the Supreme Court. Oh wait. Nevermind....

[bearfan454]

19. They DO have the right to drug test.

It is Federal law.

[Lefty48197]

29. Yeah, but that federal law is unconstitutional.

The illegal law will remain in effect until somebody challenges it, takes it to the supreme court, and gets it overturned on Constitutional grounds.

[intrepid_wanderer]

31. good luck

it goes to the grounds of reliability & culpability...


some things are serious... quit the poor me BS...



if you want to do drugs (illegal or legal w/ Rx)... then take employment at places that don't demand accountability as a character trait.

:P

[Lefty48197]

33. It's probably best that you not accuse me of illegal drug use

just because I stick up for the civil rights of users. Likewise, I don't have to be Black or Jewish or Homosexual or anything else to stick up for the rights of those people. It reminds me of that poem, "... and when they came for me, there was nobody left to speak out."

[SHRED]

13. They usually only test...

those in expendable positions.

A profitable employee like say a computer programmer or database engineer will rarely if ever get tested. If you are a valuable profit tool with unique skills then they leave you alone for their own profit margin out of fear you may quit.

The employment drug tests are aimed squarley at the lower mid and lower class "non" skilled worker.

[B Calm]

14. Thanks for the profiling. You don't know how well that makes me feel!

[Misunderestimator]

25. True for the random testing... but most companies test all new employees

And they usually reserve the right to test anyone. So, if they have a reason to suspect, or a reason in this case to harrass, then they can do what they like. Good point though that the real bias is against the lower rungs of workers.

[rustydog]

17. So if the employee did crank 1/2 hour before shift it is ok?

Then he/she gets injured on the job and sues the company because he/she was too tanked toknow how to do anything, that is ok because they have a right to do whatever off work even if it directly affects job performance at work?

[B Calm]

20. The person would be high at work and I agree the employer

has the right to a drug free workplace. The point is they don't have the right to hire and fire you because of something you did on your own damn time!

[Nikia]

21. I think that it is crap too

I have posted my opinion in the drug policy forum.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=218&topic_id=31&mesg_id=31

[jus_the_facts]

23. My Motto ~ When BUSH takes one....I'LL take one!!

.....why aren't the upper eshelon MADE TO PISS FOR THEIR JOBS?! :grr:


...AND you can be on 100 different narcotics..but as long as you have a prescription....it's FIIIINE....but somke a joint and you're a fucking drug addict criminal... :crazy:

[B Calm]

28. I'm not on any drugs, but I find it degrading and an invasion of

my privacy. It pisses me off knowing that the people in corporate power that say that you have been randomly selected to give up some of your bodily fluids for the company are not probably but the biggest drug users of all.

[DemGa]

24. People should be judged by the content of their character

not their urine.

I hate it. It's degrading. It's fascism.

[Shananigans]

32. I'm drug free, but on principle would refuse a drug test...

I work in fundraising for a non-profit. It's none of their business what I do outside of work. Just my opinion, though...