...and that is to establish in the mind of the employee that he is indeed his employer's rented slave. It's purpose is to instill compliance and submission. Nothing more.

One might think that it's used to keep the workplace safe, as drug addled employees might cause an accident in the workplace, but this is nonsense. Jobs where the employee isn't in the position to cause an accident are often still drug tested.

Furthermore, it dictates to employees not what they're allowed to do and not do while at work, but when they're off company time and at home.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment of the United States to be "secure in their PERSONS, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures".

If drug addled workers is really that much of a problem, then all you'd have to do is have a supervisor take a good look in the eyes of his employees. If you show up to work drunk or high, then fire them and be done with it.

employer drug testing can be wrong!  who agrees?


LAWRENCEBURG, Tenn. — The news, delivered in a phone call, left Sue Bates aghast: she was losing her job of 22 years after testing positive for a legally prescribed drug.


Her employer, Dura Automotive Systems, had changed the policy at its sprawling plant here to test for certain prescription drugs as well as illicit ones. The medication that Mrs. Bates was taking for back pain — hydrocodone, a narcotic prescribed by her doctor — was among many that the company, which makes car parts, had suddenly deemed unsafe.

“I don’t think it should end the way it did,” said Mrs. Bates, an assembly line worker who has sued Dura for discrimination and invasion of privacy. “You tell somebody you lost your job because you’re on prescription medication and they’re like, ‘Yeah, right.’ ”

Two decades after the Supreme Court first upheld the right to test for drugs in the workplace, Dura’s concern — that employees on certain medications posed a safety hazard — is echoing around the country. The growing reliance of Americans on powerful prescription drugs for pain, anxiety and other maladies suggests that many are reporting to work with potent drugs in their systems, and employers are grappling for ways to address that.

What companies consider an effort to maintain a safe work environment is drawing complaints from employees who cite privacy concerns and contend that they should not be fired for taking legal medications, sometimes for injuries sustained on the job.

“This may be the point guard for an important societal issue,” Dr. Robert T. Cochran Jr., a Nashville pain specialist who treats three of the Dura plaintiffs, said of the lawsuit against Dura. “How do we address these drugs as a society?”

There is a dearth of data from independent groups regarding impairment from prescription drugs in the workplace, partly because the issue has not drawn broad scrutiny. But Quest Diagnostics, a prominent provider of workplace drug tests, said that the rate of employees testing positive for prescription opiates rose by more than 40 percent from 2005 to 2009, and by 18 percent last year alone. The data, culled from the results of more than 500,000 drug tests, also indicated that workers who were tested for drugs after accidents were four times more likely to have opiates in their systems than those tested before being hired.

“It’s not nearly on employer radar screens as much as it should be,” said Mark A. de Bernardo, executive director of the Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace, a nonprofit business coalition near Washington, and a senior partner at Jackson Lewis, an employment law firm. “Given the liability for industrial accidents or product defects or workplace injuries involving prescription drug abuse, employers cannot afford not to address this issue.”

Nor is the problem limited to factory floors like the one at Dura’s plant here, where conveyor belts are in constant motion and tow drivers shuttle pieces of glass from station to station, former workers said. In Texas, a prominent prosecutor resigned in 2008 after a scandal for which he blamed impaired judgment because of prescription drugs. And in Missouri, a patient sued alleging that a doctor had torn a hole in his colon during a 2006 colonoscopy while taking the painkiller oxycodone.

Dr. Carl Rollyn Sullivan, director of addictions programs at the West Virginia University School of Medicine in Morgantown, said he had treated “a lot of miners telling me the ridiculous amount of drugs they’re doing underground,” most of them legally prescribed.






http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/us/25drugs.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

My nephew applied for a job at Dollar General. Part of the application process required that he submit to a drug test just to get an interview. Ok, I'll agree that's pretty stupid.

But I just love the idea of my 5 year old niece boarding a school bus driven by someone who smoked a joint an hour before starting her route. Yeah, that's a great idea.

And I love the idea of driving past a construction site with a crane operator who decided to have a joint over his lunch break. Last year in KC there was an accident on a crane. Two men fell to their deaths from 200 feet in the air. Turns out the guy operating the basket was high on meth. He didn't look stoned, but the drug test he was required to submit after the accident was positive. So much for "just take a look at them". By the way, the basket operator was also charged with two counts of manslaughter.

And of course, its a great idea to board a plane flown by a pilot who drank a bottle of wine the night before instead of just a glass.

What 4th Amendment right is being violated? Since when is an employer part of our law enforcement? An employer can require any test they want from you, including a drug test. Don't like it? Go find another job. The 4th Amendment protects you from the gov't illegally searching or seizing your property. Once again, you fail Constitution 101 fella.

It does not have to be drug testing.  All testing can be wrong.  All testing to servitude.  

Now go get tested.

Certain professions that have safety issues understandably need to put the public's and their fellow workers safety ahead of said worker's right to privacy, but drug testing has run amok and crosses some serious lines IMO.

I do not and will not drug test any of my employees, and I would refuse to interview with any company that required a drug test from me. If any of my employees have drug problems, there won't be any way to hide it, and they will quickly get the axe. If they are casual drug users, and I never are made aware of their drug use do to excessive abscences or poor performance, than IMO they don't have a drug problem any more than I have a drinking problem if I have a few ocassionally after work.

BTW there is a huge difference between submitting to a drug test after having an accident or injuring some one through your actions and submitting to a drug test simply for the priveledge of applying for employment. I am thankful I am in the position of telling most anyone who wants my blood to "fuck off" without missing any mortage payments, the typical person looking for work doesn't have that luxury.

One word for you: LIABILITY!!!!!!!!!!!

I too agree with two of the board's worst trolls.

Would it be ok to claim I only agree with WW and not with Trannyboy? lol

I don't know how anyone who claims to be "for" personal responsibility and smaller government could possibly endorse the invasive drug testing that goes on with hardly a peep coming from either side of the aisle.

I confess that if I were ever to have to reenter the labor pool and (shudder) get a job, I would starve before subjecting myself to such an invasion of my privacy.

The only slight possible exception to my objection, might be in the case of someone who is applying for a position where he would be handling other peoples money. I think it might be relevant to know if a potential financial advisor, or stock broker was up to his eyeballs in debt and therefore more likely to put his own interests before those of his client.

For any "normal" job, I would strenuously object.

bond insurers have been requiring credit checks on covered employees for years as a condition to issuing the bond. That makes sense - if you know a particular employee is deep in debt, you really do not want to provide insurance to cover the employer if the employee steals from the employer or hi customers.

       On the other hand, if I apply for a job in the porn industry, they better not be checking my credit.

I will rush to short the stock of the hiring company. lol

I only care if they are in a position to hurt ME, or any other innocent person.

So forgive me, but I am glad you don't have your way. I am siding with the troll this time. lol

Is there something in the water today, or maybe with the emergence of "Ben" and the reemergence of TrannyBoym, WW seems downright reasonable to me right now. I must have had too much to drink tonight, Maybe somebody needs to test me? lmao

That is why I led off with the anecdote about my nephew being required to submit a drug test just to stock shelves at Dollar General. Its a plain and simple stupid policy. My nephew smokes dope, I wish he didn't but he does, and he couldn't get a simple stockboy position at DG because he likes to smoke a little weed. Now, if he was driving a truck, or operating heavy machinery, it would be different. But I'm pretty sure that smoking a joint the night before is not going to have any impact on his ability to line the canned peas up properly.

I was responding to Willy's post basically saying that ALL drug testing is wrong, and that its just a way for employers to act as though they own their employees. I simply made the point that drug testing makes 100% sense for any job that has the potential to compromise worker or public safety if performed under the influence.

But the final alaysis though, is that its the employer's right to drug test if they choose, regardless of the job description in question.

Drug testing not only tests what you do on the clock, but also what you do off the clock. It gives your employer a reach far beyond what you do at work, but even controls what you do at home on your own time on a vacation.

There is no legitimate purpose to testing whether or not someone has smoked pot 25 days ago while he was off in Amsterdam on vacation where it was legal.

FURTHERMORE -- the company that makes Miracle Gro even extends that testing to cover tobacco.

Sorry, but on this I have to agree with WW. "It's purpose is to instill compliance and submission." Perfect.

...I can understand testing people in sensitive positions. For instance, air traffic controllers would be something I'd prefer they be drug tested. But you gotta be drug tested for just about everything these days. It's bullshit, and a massive waste of money.

Drug testing a crane operator during the job interview wouldn't have prevented this accident. I've known quite a few people who have to be drug tested to get a job, but regularly use drugs. They just clean up for a few weeks when starting a new job.

"Those who are substance abusers also demonstrate reckless behavior in other aspects of their lives including work".

I totally agree with you Breaker. Which means you don't need a test. You just fire the fuck ups. Problem solved.

The last company I flew for had very strict policies concerning testing. In addition to the pre-employment drug/alcohol test for all employees, flight crews and mechanics were routinely tested at random, using a computer generated program,(last 2 digits of the SSAN). I was tested as much as 4 times in a 12 month period. During the 20 years I was there, I know of only 3 pilots out of a couple thousand, that tested positive. 1 for pot, 1 for meth, and 1 for alcohol. The pot and meth users fessed up before the test results came back. The alcohol test results were immediate. They were fired on the spot. These men gave up $350,000-$400,000/year jobs for a few moments of supposed pleasure. They also were forced by the FAA to surrender their pilot certificates. They'll never fly anything again. Simply fucking stupid.

Btw, the meth user was last seen living in a VW Combi van on the streets of San Diego. He is 53 years old. WTF?

LMFAO, then how the hell do you keep your job? Your supervisor asleep at his desk all day?

are all required to by law to be drug tested. YOu work in refineries, you are to submit to drug testing and many more places and I am all for it. I do not want someone carrying a tanker full of flammable gas, an operator chauferring the public to be under the influence. If I had my way, everyone who receives a paycheck would have to submit to a drug testing including the President of the United States. As matter of fact President Reagan did.

Obviously willywonka you have no idea how dangerous the workplace is, even without people being under the influence of substance abuse or else you wouldn't make such an ill informed post. Operating a crane, using a nailgun, a circular saw all require your full senses or you could be hurt, hurt very seriously.

Hugs not drugs.

apply for a job somewhere else. The United States  already has one of the  highest rates of substance abusers in the world. Nothing has been done to discourage the use of drugs since President Reagan. I cannot control the world, I get that. In the construction business, I don't need drunks or potheads putting yourself and others at risk for their safety and health.

I once had an applicant say, I have eight kids to feed. I replied: "you should have thought of your family, before you starting snorting cocaine". Sorry buddy, but my experience show those who are substance abusers also demonstrate reckless behavior in other aspects of their lives including work.

many organizations. If the crane operator is required to submit to drug testing so is the person who writes the operator's paycheck. I don't believe in different rules for different people, for different situations. Too many fuck ups that way, plus you run into legal problems.

Your method of only testing after there is a problem such as an accident or attendence is a problem. A company runs the risk of discrimination if you test for one person but not another. Since I believe in leading by example, I am the first to be randomly drug tested.

Drug testing is good business practice. Since you work in the oil business you cannot work in refineries if your company does not have drug testing. Public Work projects that are Federally funded also require you have drug and alcohol policy.

It appears that Florida has made you downright reasonable. lol

AAR I actually agree with Willy (again), I don't drug test, I would not accept it as an employee and I don't do it as an employer. I completely disagree that I have the right to invade the privacy of my employees into matters that happen "off the job", and as Willy points out, people get clean for drug tests and then go right back to using drugs.

That said, I do not tolerate for an instant, unsafe behavior in the workplace. I am involved in business that is know to have risks, I don't tolerate incompetent, or unsafe workers of any kind. People with drug problems are easy to spot from a mile away. Casual drug users are not. The first time a field hand shows up unable to safely do his job, I will bounce his sorry ass off the site in a NY minute. I don't care if he smokes a joint, or even ten, on Saturday, as long as he is 100% functional when he shows up for work.

As to office employees, I hold them to the same basic standards. They perform their job competently, they are treated like adults and will never have me poking into their private lives. OTOH if they are NOT competent, I don't really give a fuck why. They are history with my company.

Drug testing IMO is time wasting, is a waste of money, and has serious privacy implicactions that I will never feel compfortable about,

BTW In the oil fields the typical drug abuser I will see are the "meth heads", I don't need a urine test to identify a meth head, nor will a single one ever be employed by me. I have had a couple that somehow got hired, but none of them ever made it through the first day.

One other thing FUCK YOU WILLY!!!

There, I feel so much better now.

I hire people for their ability to do their job, If they can do an eight ball, or drink a quart of whiskey on friday night, but still show up on Monday morning able to do their job "competently" I don't consider it any of my business.

People with drug problems are unable to do that, I don't fire people for drug use, I fire them for incompetence in the workplace. If one is caused by the other, so be it.

I don't condone drug use, but neither do I give a blanket condemnation. I have used more drugs over my fifty something years than I care to remember, I am also the responsible, tax paying owner of a thriving business that creates jobs, pays taxes, and is an overall benefit to the community and society at large. and truth be told, I still indulge from time to time.

I treat people like adults, and I expect to be treated the same, I don't need the "nanny state" to tell me what I can and can not do, until and unless my behavior adversely impacts others. I also do my best not to be a hypocrite, so I try to treat other in the same adult manner. If an employess actions in their "off the clock" activities does not adversely effect their "on the clock" duties, It's none of my fucking business what they do.

BTW I have nothing to do with "above ground oil", once I sell it to the refinery, it's someone else's oil. I only find it and get it out of the ground, and just FYI my safety record is impeccable. To the best of my knowledge none of my guys does anything harder than smoke an ocassional joint or drink a twelve pack. If they do anything more than that, I am not aware of it, if any of them ever show up to work unable to do their job due to substance abuse, either legal or illegal, that will be their last day of employment with me.

but he does have a valid point, people with drug abuse problems make horrible employees, so employers like me fire them, problem solved.

Rather than punishing casual drug users, I bet you there are several who post here, who are fully functional and otherwise responsible people/employees, fire anyone who doesn't perform. Why should I as an employer care "WHY" an employee doesn't do their job, it really doesn't matter to me. It's pass/fail IMO, those that pass remain employed, those that don't, don't. lol

Besides if every one in my organization was subject to drug testing, eventually I would have to fire myself.

But the easy solution during that whole Sexual Harassment mess was to simply stop hiring women.

Not explicitly, of course -- but indirectly.

is a mechanism to prevent hiring problems. It's always easier to hire than fire. There are start-up costs i.e. orientation etc. Terminating employees may subject your company to legal exposures such as wrongful termination etc.

In addition, if you hire for example a delivery driver, and if that employee is involved in a serious accident, your company only has two defenses:

(1) the driver
(2) the vehicle

If either of these two components are deficient, your company will be considered negligent. For example: if the accident results in a serious injury to a third party and if the driver was under the influence. Guess what ,if you did not drug test or conduct a motor vehicle report, you have just subjected your company to a liability loss. Drug test now, drug test tomorrow, drug test forever.

We have a different philosophy on how to run a business and that is fine. As matter of fact I respect your methodology. It's a free country. I use drug tests and pre-placement physicals to screen out potential problems. Problems for example such as workers compensation claims.

Substance abusers will be most likely to abuse the workers compensation system. Soft issue injuries such as lumbar strains cost me money by driving up my insurance costs by increasing my experience modifier. Refinieries, and many public work projects have pre-qualification standards and some won't even let you bid on their jobs if you have a high experience modifier or a high OSHA recordable rate. Again, drug tests make good business sense for me, but that's me.

the 1980's and 90's, if your piss was dirty you were discharged, immediately. I don't know if it was a dishonorable discharge or not, but either way it was simply fucking stupid.

because he says: "the higher the mortgage payments the more likely they need to keep a job".

I agree with Breaker in that it's all about subjecting yourself to liability due to an employees drug or alcohol use. In this age when people sue one another for something so simple as their McDonald's coffee being too hot, keeping your business "safe" from liability issues is extremely important. I'm contemplating a "start up" and I know I'll institute a testing program in order to cover my ass!