Mandatory drug tests for work.

[Mike Gayner]

Well it's their company, not yours, so they can do whatever they damn well please. I don't see a problem with it either. Who cares it's just a drug test.

Well I'm from NZ so by US standards I'm a pinko commie socialist. I believe that employers shouldn't be able to do "whatever they damn well please". For example I don't think employers should be able to discriminate on the basis of gender or race - and we have legislation protecting people from that. Employers shouldn't be able to summarily dismiss you because they don't like you or because you made a minor error - here in NZ we have laws preventing this.

I also think an employer has absolutely no right to tell you how to treat your body outside work hours - again with exceptions made in the case of safety concerns, shouldn't your work performance speak for itself? If you're a star employee, does it matter if you get high?

 

[coloumb]

The only pre and random drug testing was during my stint in the air force as a nuke weapons technician. Obviously they waned us to be drug free while working around nukes, changing out highly pressurized and dangerous components, loading /unloading bombs/missiles from the launcher, and holding a shotgun while guarding a storage facility.

It's their rules - if you don't like random drug testing then go work somewhere else.

 

[alkemyst]

The problem is your government is working on a smaller scale than LARGE population regions.

It's much like the perks you get having a kid taken care of by a live-in nanny, daily baby-sitter, < 10 kid day care, < 50 kid day care, or > 100 kid day care.

Everything scales.

In big business you have to look at the big picture. I am all for freedom, but no company selling internationally want's their star salesperson making news because they got high and stuck their junk in a chicken's eggsack.

If I owned that business I should be allowed to terminate that employee because simply I don't agree with it. Likewise the CEO next door should be able to put them to work without any issue.

 

[Locut0s]

The problem is your government is working on a smaller scale than LARGE population regions.

It's much like the perks you get having a kid taken care of by a live-in nanny, daily baby-sitter, < 10 kid day care, < 50 kid day care, or > 100 kid day care.

Everything scales.

In big business you have to look at the big picture. I am all for freedom, but no company selling internationally want's their star salesperson making news because they got high and stuck their junk in a chicken's eggsack.

If I owned that business I should be allowed to terminate that employee because simply I don't agree with it. Likewise the CEO next door should be able to put them to work without any issue.

What do you do for a living alky?

 

[alkemyst]

I am a system admin/programmer for a top 10 homebuilder.

 

[Smartazz]

The problem is your government is working on a smaller scale than LARGE population regions.

It's much like the perks you get having a kid taken care of by a live-in nanny, daily baby-sitter, < 10 kid day care, < 50 kid day care, or > 100 kid day care.

Everything scales.

In big business you have to look at the big picture. I am all for freedom, but no company selling internationally want's their star salesperson making news because they got high and stuck their junk in a chicken's eggsack.

If I owned that business I should be allowed to terminate that employee because simply I don't agree with it. Likewise the CEO next door should be able to put them to work without any issue.

That's why this is such a difficult issue to debate. On one hand an employer(particularly international companies) should have the freedom to terminate employees who get high on the job. On the other hand, it's an issue of personal freedom since people could be getting high when they're not on the clock. Unfortunately, drug tests don't discriminate whether someone was getting high on the job or at home. The choice really boils down to whether you feel personal freedom has priority over economic freedom or vice versa in this case. However, if an employee knows that they're going to get drug tested and gets caught anyway, that's their own fault. If someone's choice is to get high over securing a job, that's pretty stupid.

 

[zerocool84]

That's why this is such a difficult issue to debate. On one hand an employer(particularly international companies) should have the freedom to terminate employees who get high on the job. On the other hand, it's an issue of personal freedom since people could be getting high when they're not on the clock. Unfortunately, drug tests don't discriminate whether someone was getting high on the job or at home. The choice really boils down to whether you feel personal freedom has priority over economic freedom or vice versa in this case. However, if an employee knows that they're going to get drug tested and gets caught anyway, that's their own fault. If someone's choice is to get high over securing a job, that's pretty stupid.

No, law states you don't have the right to do any drugs in your own home or anywhere else.

 

[Locut0s]

I am a system admin/programmer for a top 10 homebuilder.

Home builder? You mean residential construction company? Yeah I know, same thing.

 

[Locut0s]

No, law states you don't have the right to do any drugs in your own home or anywhere else.

Sounds like in California the it will be legal soon.

 

[alkemyst]

Home builder? You mean residential construction company? Yeah I know, same thing.

yeah...same...don't know what you mean though. Within the trade we refer to ourselves as a home builder as do others.

IRT the thread, the main problem most have with WEED (I don't smoke it, but I am not against it) is that so many don't think anything of smoking the stuff during a lunch break or right before the job starts.

That's the problem and they despite test that show it not to be the case, insist they are 100% while high.

Their defense is "well it's not as bad as drinking on the job".

I don't know many that get drunk and come to work successfully. The days of the 2 martini lunch for executives are pretty much non-existant anymore.

 

[Old Hippie]

I don't know many that get drunk and come to work successfully. The days of the 2 martini lunch for executives are pretty much non-existant anymore.

Another lost "art". :biggrin:

 

[Chaotic42]

Well I'm from NZ so by US standards I'm a pinko commie socialist. I believe that employers shouldn't be able to do "whatever they damn well please". For example I don't think employers should be able to discriminate on the basis of gender or race - and we have legislation protecting people from that. Employers shouldn't be able to summarily dismiss you because they don't like you or because you made a minor error - here in NZ we have laws preventing this.

We have those rules in place in the US. It can be very, very hard to fire bad employees.