Workplace drug testing ...... a must have

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
here come all the pothead/anti-drinking people. you know most places if they smell alcohol on you, will send you for a piss test. alcohol leaves the system pretty fast. so stop being mad that the weed all you potheads love so much stays in your system so long.

and since when is having a hangover a danger to driving like someone said? there's a difference between still being drunk from the night before and feeling a bit sick/dehydrated. maybe on hot days it should be illegal to not have a bottle of water in your car...just in case you dehydrate and become a danger to other drivers...




posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Working for previous employers, I have been required to take drug tests.

I don't do drugs and never had any problems, though, every time I was tested, I felt dirty, like I wasn't to be trusted. I barely drink alcohol, for the record, my problem is, that I should be drinking more!

Talk about invasion of privacy.

The worst is them waiting outside your door while you pee. I get stage fright, so it takes me longer and I have to think about running water or have some thing drowned out the,
"you can hear a pin drop noise!"

I asked the nurse after I filled up the cup exiting the bathroom, "What happens if I pass the test?"

She was dumbfounded! They treat you like criminals.

I am not responsible for 1500 employees, and I agree, you can see signs and symptoms of abuse, it is not hard to see this(wasn't born yesterday). If need be, then you have to take further actions with the employee.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Most Worker's Comp Insurance companies will give policy holders a discount on their premium if they have a Drug Free Workplace policy and program.

Most DFWP programs include alcohol, and are primarily set up to provide a platform to do drug/alcohol testing on suspicion. Yes, almost all programs will have a provision for random testing of a certain percentage of the workforce. Typically, this is 25% annually. Many employers don't actually do the random testing. Instead, they count the pre-employment and post accident drug testing cover that percentage. And most Worker's Comp companies don't actually audit an employers drug free program.

I wrote and administer my companies DFWP program. No, I am not trying to tell my guys how to live their life in their off time. Not my job. I could care less what someone wants to do with their own time. As long as it doesn't impact their work in any way, do to yourself whatever you like.

However, it has been my personal experience that there are folks that can't seem to separate their drug (including alcohol here) use from their professional life. Employers have not only a right, but a duty to protect themselves and the people that work for them from these morons. The OSHA General Duty Clause states that employers must protect their workers from recognized hazards that may hurt them.

I had two guys (both operated heavy equipment on a large construction site) swear to me that they never smoked on the job, they only got high during breaks and on lunch. They quit instead of taking a drug test. Never mind that our policy states that you can't be fired on the first offense. Then one of the guys called me and begged me to pull any documentation of this from his file because his wife has some kind of secret clearence and he didn't want anything to show up in a potential background check.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Totalstranger
 


I think you should try and do some reactions tests next time you feel a bit hungover - you'll be surprised how alcohol messes with your system, even when the hangovers are gone.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Totalstranger
 


I didn't actually say hangovers make you a worse driver. I was speaking of a person at a workplace, but I suppose if one were true, so would be the other. So, I did a little searching. I used hyperbole - confessed. But there is some research to suggest cognitive effect, and more research about the overall harm that hangovers cause society. See below:

www.upi.com...

"Research shows that hangovers actually encourage more drinking (for example, the “eye-opener”, “hair of the dog”, the morning Bloody Mary, etc.). Plus, hangovers have staggering economic and societal consequences, as well. In addition to the fact that hangovers actually promote further drinking, the research study points out that $148 billion is lost in the workplace yearly in America due to hangovers (an average of $2,000 per working adult).

Closer to home for Dr. Wiese, a study of college students revealed that, “25% of college students reported experiencing a hangover in the previous week and 29% reported losing school time for hangover recovery. Even more important, the study shows that people with a hangover experience diminished cognitive abilities that “may pose a substantial threat to themselves and others, despite having a normal blood alcohol level.” The research also points out that, “ depression and other psychological disorders are more common in patients with hangover. And, hangover may also be an independent risk factor for cardiac death in patients with cardiac risk factors or coronary artery disease.”


www.upi.com...



Here's one involving pilots - albeit a flawed study.

www.medscape.com...



In general, there just isn't a ton of good research on the direct effects. But I'd also like to see the study demonstrating that using pot on a weekend leads to being a danger at work during the week.


***

When I spoke of driving, I was speaking of fatigue.

wvcaraccidentlaw.wordpress.com...

(gotta scroll way down to see it)

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conservatively estimates that 100,000 police-reported crashes are the direct result of driver fatigue each year, resulting in an estimated 1,500 deaths, 71,000 injuries, and $12.5 billion in monetary losses."

***

Interesting to note, we know that alcohol consumption disturbs REM sleep, and leads to lower glucose levels the next day - 2 factors known in increase fatigue.

***



So, why harsh on the people who use a substance that has never been linked to the myriad health and social problems like alcohol has? It's a sort of prejudice, really, based on.... I know not what.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I, being an experimenter of many things in my youth, would say that this would be a great idea if they would make it random often. simply put,.. drugs like the typical ones abused, lower the IQ. and in the workplace it is unacceptable.I have a female at work that I know abuses pain killers, and besides the fact of being a female, here mood swings are scary. not to mention her lack of ambition on the days she is using. essentially costing the company money because of her habit. This also applies for most people on anything. the productivity level for the workplace suffers.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Totalstranger
here come all the pothead/anti-drinking people. you know most places if they smell alcohol on you, will send you for a piss test. alcohol leaves the system pretty fast. so stop being mad that the weed all you potheads love so much stays in your system so long.


And there goes the token uneducated fratboy beer lover. Crack a book pal. Alcohol leaves the system but the effects on the neurological system are far more long lasting. Do you know why far more people die due to alcohol than all other illicit chemicals combined every year? You obviously know nothing about how alcohol actually works but what is worse is that you missed the point entirely.

I specifically targeted alcoholics, not someone who had a drink last night. People who are dependant on any drug are unreliable, untrustworthy, unsafe. If you are dependant on pot, they will catch you. If you are dependant on alcohol or crack, they will regret hiring you.

There is a difference.

Please do not try to understand what I may be pro or con when the discussion here is workplace drug testing policy.

I am for DIFFERENT METHODS of determining whether hiring someone will be a big mistake. No go back to your beer-pong game.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
What people do in their spare time is none of their employer's business. If they show up to work intoxicated and can't effectively do their job, then they should be fired, easy as that.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by radarloveguy
Everyday at work , millions of people turn up , affected by one or more drugs!
I'm annoyed at having to tip-toe around addicts in the workplace , and the
only answer , is mandatory drug testing at work - no exceptions .
This would put a huge dent into the drug trade , and lead to less medical
issues and crime .
Why won't Governments do this ? - short answer - it's a conspiracy .


p.s gotta go to work now - drug free - and happy ,
will be back later to see your response !


[edit on 29-11-2009 by radarloveguy]


what a stupid thread. do you need your government wiping your bottom as well? its up to your employer not the gov.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by radarloveguy
 



As long as it starts from the top, I wanna see the president and congress and all judges tested, then cops, but really Im joking I don't wanna live in a piss in a cup society.

Preponderance of guilt, we are supposed to be protected by the constitution, so they made a thing called Random drug testing, and the supreme court ruled against the citizens under Reagan and so we have random drug testing with most jobs making over $10 dollars a hour. In some industries it has been proven effective in lowering accidents like in the over the road truck driving jobs, but I know of cooks at truck stops that must provide hair samples to be tested, in this example it has nothing to do with safety but more to do with forcing employees to live by the companies religious conservative values.

They claim its about safety but its always about control remember we live in a zero tolerant society, and we are waging a war on drugs. The enemy in this war on drugs are the people that refuse to be forced to live a Judeo Christian sober lifestyle.

I want the right to live on the edge, and still be a productive member of society.

Its a clear violation of privacy and is a illegal search based on the mindset of everyone being guilty.

Why can't people just let other people live there lives without dictating how they must live based on there faith?



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Everyone here is missing the point....the OP did not say EMPLOYER, he said GOVERNMENT. The employer has all the rights in the world to impose whatever they want as long as it is fair and equal to all. If you choose to work for them you have to abide by their ground rules, period.

Now, to the point of "it's none of their business what I do in my personal time".....your right, quit and find another job or better yet, start your business and hire all the potheads, crackheads, prescription drug junkies and drunks you want. As an employer, you have responsibility for the whole employee base and your customers. It's a different world, not a me, me, me world, so different rules apply.

Peace



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


Can you please list these rights and where it says it is illegal??????



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufoptics
Everyone here is missing the point....the OP did not say EMPLOYER, he said GOVERNMENT. The employer has all the rights in the world to impose whatever they want as long as it is fair and equal to all. If you choose to work for them you have to abide by their ground rules, period.

Now, to the point of "it's none of their business what I do in my personal time".....your right, quit and find another job or better yet, start your business and hire all the potheads, crackheads, prescription drug junkies and drunks you want. As an employer, you have responsibility for the whole employee base and your customers. It's a different world, not a me, me, me world, so different rules apply.

Peace


Employers do not have the right to do whatever they want, if it's equal. And if they did, it would be immoral. Owners have too much power in this society, and workers, too little. It is far past the time when democracy needs to enter the workplace, and workers, be given a voice, and treated as autonomous entities, not resources.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueTruth
 


WOW.....that sure was a mouth full. I can not believe my eyes. First, in a democracy, the majority rules. That would give the employer the right, for he is the majority owner. Your talking more of a socialistical utopia. Where everyone lives in peace and harmony. Pipe dream my friend.....if you want your good ole USA back the way it was, you'll have to take the good with the bad, grab your boot straps and take responsibility for yourself.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I loved drug testing.
A friend worked for the local drug testing company and would tell me when someone or a number of people got fired for failing there drug test in my trades.
I would run down to the company and apply for the new job opening,
I always walked in and told the office secretary that I heard they had a opening because they had fired someone for drug use.

In most cases i had no problem getting hired.

But there are companies that abuse drug testing and use it as a health screening system.
They are just as interested in the legal medications that you take as they are about you having illegal drugs in your system. (ie. high blood pressure meds anti depressants or a number of other drugs to control health conditions.)
The drug testing company my friend worked for only gave out a pass or fail and did not give the company that hired them a list of medication people that came in for drug testing used.
This caused some companies locally to start doing there own drug testing or to hire drug testing companies that would illegally give employers this information. (its illegal in Calif to not hire someone because of disabilities {Americans with Disablities act}and using prescription medications to refuse to hire someone comes under this in many cases. The only exemptions are jobs like truck drivers and pilots where use of some legal med are restricted by the feds.)



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by radarloveguy
Everyday at work , millions of people turn up , affected by one or more drugs!
I'm annoyed at having to tip-toe around addicts in the workplace , and the
only answer , is mandatory drug testing at work - no exceptions .
This would put a huge dent into the drug trade , and lead to less medical
issues and crime .
Why won't Governments do this ? - short answer - it's a conspiracy .


p.s gotta go to work now - drug free - and happy ,
will be back later to see your response !


[edit on 29-11-2009 by radarloveguy]


drug testing will not do anything if applied as a blanket.

I currently manage about 30 people in my site, and have managed a site with up to 400 people. I never do pre-employment screening. At 100 bucks a shot, it is not cost effective and is overhead that i can live without. Instead, i invested in behavioral interviewing training for my interviewing staff. We "weed out" undesirable applicants through a process of testing and interviewing. Cheating a drug test is simple and any idiot can do it...not so with good interviewing and testing tactics. Besides, it isn't being a drug addict that causes issues, it is the behaviors that they tend to display.

Which brings me to my second point: if you do not train supervisors to identify dangerous behaviors, or someone under the influence, then you are not training your supervisors at all. A simple policy such as, if a supervisor believes you to be under the influence, all he has to do is get a second opinion from another supervisor to trigger a drug screen. If the person refuses, they are termed. If they agree, and are clean, then you have a coaching opportunity with your supervisors.

Random and blanket drug screening are a waste of time and money. They will not catch people doing drugs unless those people are stupid, in which case you would fire them for any other number of reasons that stupid people end up getting fired.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
What people do in their spare time is none of their employer's business. If they show up to work intoxicated and can't effectively do their job, then they should be fired, easy as that.


this is the policy i have in any shop i run.



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Im guessing the OP lives in the USA as well.

I prob. used to work with him/her lol - worst - thread - ever award



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Why is it anyones bussiness what happens after work hours, that is what the sneekiness is about.

Because the drug in question lasts..testing for it that is>....20-30 days while the crack head, coke adicts and pill poppers walk around un-paranoid.

IMHO it should be a constant test and permanantly installed in every bathroom at your CO. and if the red light/alarm goes off, they don't evan need to tell you your fired.

Otherwise, its unfair, and special ppl friends with the tester/s get to skip through, and or get promoted without ever getting tested, when everyone knows they are guilty.

Where would the line get drawn? Presciptions? cold medicin?

If this is to be a federal standard, or state, the testing should also happen to school teachers, congress, and state officials, judges, etc...etc...

End of rant..

Not to mention the CO. owners that want ppl that can't pass a test, do to the fact thwat ...if they get hurt the owner knows they will fail the test, and he gets off without paying workers-comp.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by Doc Holiday]



posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufoptics
reply to post by TrueTruth
 


WOW.....that sure was a mouth full. I can not believe my eyes. First, in a democracy, the majority rules. That would give the employer the right, for he is the majority owner. Your talking more of a socialistical utopia. Where everyone lives in peace and harmony. Pipe dream my friend.....if you want your good ole USA back the way it was, you'll have to take the good with the bad, grab your boot straps and take responsibility for yourself.



Um, if an employer gets to do whatever they want as the boss, how is that majority rule? Majority rule, as a politcal concept, has nothing at all to do with who owns the majority of an asset. In fact, you might say that the political concept was invented precisely to counter what it is you are talking about - so that those who have can not dominate those who have not.


Secondly, there are working examples right now in this country of what I'm talking about. A couple of examples below:

www.usnews.com...

edition.cnn.com...

workplacedemocracy.com...

The policy seems to yield surprisingly positive results.

Also, we can't all own our own companies. Society wouldn't function any more. Certain tasks never get done - ie, building cars.

Giving workers a vote is unrelated in any way to socialism - you might even say it's antithetical, insofar as socialism demands a centralized authority of some kind, and what I'm talking about, is decentralization.

I know - people will pounce on the 'republic' angle, but it's kind of beside the point. So, lets' just not go there. The issue is having a vote - a voice.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by TrueTruth]

[edit on 29-11-2009 by TrueTruth]





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join