Random Drug Testing by Employers: Good or Evil?

[Gringo]

Poll question: Random Drug Testing by Employers: Good or Evil?

I was shocked when I found out that Home Depot and other mega-corporations force their minimum-wage slaves to submit to random urine testing as a condition of their indentured servitude.

So many of my friends and relatives, even democrats, defend this practice that it's shocking to me.

It seems to me that if the government can't search the homes or persons of citizen without a reasonable suspicion, why should some corporation be able to do it, especially since these tests don't reveal current intoxication, but any consumption within recent weeks IE the use of drugs on one's own time.

I don't have a problem with testing employees who appear to be impaired where there's a reason to suspect them, and extra attention should be paid to jobs where safety is an issue like airline pilots, but why should employees who have done nothing wrong be subject to this insult?

By the way, I DO NOT use drugs, I'm not a big legalization proponent. I just think that this is a disgusting invasion of privacy by corporations which already have way too much power over our lives.

PS: If your ever in Home Depot, check out their little computerized job application kiosks. They have little company propaganda films that are SCARY. I'm so grateful that I have an almost decent job at a small company whose owners are human beings.


So Anyway, what do you think about corporate random drug testing?

[Hubert Flottz]

1. Test all three branches of government!

Including for drinking booze on the job! Test every judge in America and every cop and DA too!

[SheepyMcSheepster]

2. marijuana is about the only thing that stays in your system

long enough to actually get picked up in a urine test if you know it is coming. most things like cocaine and meth come out of your system in a day or two. also there are lots of false positives and they can actually tell if you are pregnant or not, so in a way a company can use drug testing to not hire a pregnant woman. I have used my girlfriend's urine to pass two drug tests. drug tests are dumb. they should give alcohol tests too!

[Vitruvius]

35. Yes -- drug and blood tests are medical tests in disguise --

once they have that urine or blood sample, they test it for anything & everything -- and they learn things that are none of the employers' business.

And they can look either for the condition (e.g. diabetes) or the medicines you are taking to treat it (e.g. cancer, arthritis, etc).

It's a lot like those pre-employment credit checks; they don't much care about your credit rating; they DO care about how much you make in your present job -- and whether you have big debts and desperately need their offer. So they can low-ball you on salary.

Vitruvius

[sandnsea]

42. Oh stop doing that to me!!!!

jeezo I had never thought of any of that! And you're sooo right!

I'm self-employed for alot of reasons, invasion of privacy being one of them. And I've never had a drug test!!! Too long ago!!! But I did have an employer ask me about MY PARENTS on an application once. I was 22 years old, on my own for 6 years and had a child!!!! That was about the last straw for me with the corporate world! (And I didn't get the job because I refused to answer all those questions)

[drdigi420]

46. and it's not even "in" your system

THC (the main active ingredient of cannabis) is gone from your system within hours. They don't test for the presence of THC, though.

They test for the metabolites that are a 'footprint' of THC. Evidence that you were exposed to cannabis smoke, but not evidence of impairment, or even recent use.

[Gringo]

3. Two votes already for the corpo-nazis.

I suppose you would also like employees to submit to random body cavity searches each day as they leave, you know just to be sure they aren't walking out with some merchandise up their ass.

Authoritarian scum, whether they be control-freak dems or Freeper lurkers don't belong here IMO.

[davidinalameda]

5. I don't want to be on a plane train or bus

after the driver or pilot has been smoking up or drinking

[alarimer]

95. Is this a huge problem?

I was not aware that this is a big problem

[slackmaster]

4. I refuse to work for any company that screens

That applies to pre-employment and ongoing random drug tests. As long as my job performance is up to snuff, what chemicals exist in my blood, urine, or hair are nobody else's business.

[Heddi]

9. Sure they are, depending on the job you're in

You're saying that it should be okay for a surgeon to be a casual, or even habitual user of a drug? Would you feel comfortable knowing that should you find yourself in an emergency situation, that the person working on you could or could not be a user of drugs?

I'm a pot-smoker, and I"m against drug-testing for 99% of the jobs out there--but there are some jobs---medical, transportation, etc---where I just don't think that casual drug use is acceptable. I'm a nursing student, and I fully realize and accept the fact that once I graduate school, the pot goes bye-bye. And I'm willing to make that sacrifice because frankly, I wouldn't want a coked-out nurse fucking with my veins, or a cranked out pilot flying the plane I'm in.....,

[slackmaster]

26. I'm a computer systems integration engineer

I work for a company that writes educational software for young children. I build, operate, and maintain database servers and Web servers. There is no conceivable screwup I could make on the job that would endanger anyone else's life or health. I never drink or use other drugs on the job BTW, because I'm a responsible person. I don't drive while loaded and I respect my employer's interest in having me 100% operational when I'm on the clock.

Random drug screening would serve only to put me at risk of getting in trouble for stuff I did OFF THE JOB. If my employer attempted to implement random drug screening it would cause a mass mutiny, much like almost happened when a new VP wanted to make male programmers wear neckties.

[Heddi]

38. that's why I said it depends on the job

With Medical profession, drivers, machine operators, others peoples lives ARE at risk, or could ASSUMED To be at risk based on the extracurricular drug habits of the doctor, driver, train conductor, airplane pilot, etc.

I worked in sales for 10 years and I thought the most retarded fucking thing they ever did was drug test me pre job---I wasn't around anyone---I sat at a desk in a dark little room and talked to people on the phone. I had to get high after work just to get rid of the monotony of the job.

That's why I said that 99.9% of the jobs that people have do not need ANY kind of drug testing--pre employment or random drug testing. I think it's a waste of time and businesses have NO right in knowing what a secretary does on her off time.

However there could be HUGE liability issues if Medical personnel, pilots, drivers, conductors, etc, were allowed to preform their job, did a shoddy job/killed someone, and it was found that they had drugs in their system---even if it's something done recreationally, on the weekends, and they weren't high on the job, the fact is that the MJ or whatever COULD be blamed for their error (even if it's not the case). I'd rather they not get high at all so that their mistakes can be judged on their individual 'mistakedness' rather whether their mistake was made while some illicit substance was in their bloodstream

[plurality]

37. that would be all well and good

If those jobs actually screened their employees. But the truth is most important jobs don't drug test. They assume that any 'junkies' would have been weeded out before making that far. Instead drug tests are usually perform only on the people most likely to fail, and in positions that it's least necessary to have a 'straight edged' person. So far I've worked in IT dealing with millions of dollars worth of equipment and information, for the Federal government handling tons of sensitive information, in a very successful law firm, and as a cart pusher at a grocery store and pizza delivery person. (Last two were high school and college jobs) And guess where I get drug tested at. At mutherfucking Sack and Save! And I know what you're saying, pushing carts requires a clear alert mind, but from experience I can tell you, you don't even know.

Drug testing is nothing more than another way to keep those most likely to be users (read poor minorities) right where they are, at the bottom. It's the same reason drugs are illegal in the first place.

[Heddi]

40. I agree with you

re: the important jobs don't drug test while the tedious, desk-sitting jobs with no person-to-person contact DO drug test---and I think that's way backwards.

There's no reason for a cashier, bagger, produce manager, secretary, head of finance, etc, to be drug-tested. NONE of their on-the-job performances would be hampered should they be recreational users of drugs.

But there are certain jobs that should be able to drug test their employees. Like people in the medical field. Judges. Drivers. Pilots, etc. Not IT workers or baristas.

[Fozzledick]

47. "Drug" testing actually encourages cocaine & amphetamine use

Since only marijuana and anabolic steroids are detectable after 3 days these tests actually favor users of all other drugs. Would you really rather have a habitual coke fiend (who abstained for three whole days to get hired) operating on you rather than a weekend pot-smoker?

[Heddi]

58. I really don't believe that

if you're going to use coke, you're going to use it regardless of whether or not you're drug-tested.

I would prefer that the people who operate on me, fly the airplane I'm in, and conduct the train I'm riding on abstain from ALL drugs--alcohol included.

Again--this coming from someone who just packed her 4th bowl of the day.....And MJ is my drug of choice. Haven't done anything other than the evil weed in about 10 years, and even back then it was 'experimentation' and never did anything more than 3x's ever.

it's about responsibility, and the appearance of responsibility.

I do not get high and go to work. Never have, never will.

Once I become a nurse, I am going to stop getting high period. Not just 'not' smoke before work, or 'not' smoke on weekends. I'm going to not smoke ever. Why? Because as a nurse, I have a certain responsibility to my patients.

Should something horrible go wrong, and my decision-making abilities come into question, my system will be cleaner than clean. I don't think that MJ 'in your system' (meaning, I smoked a joint last night but am not high right now) makes you any more error prone, however should an error occur on my part while there is pot in my system, then the POT will be blamed (most likely unfairly) on my error as opposed to ME being blamed on my error.

That is why I will abstain, and even if pot were legalized/decriminialied (which I wish it was), I still would abstain just out of respect for the responsibility that my job holds.

I'd be interested in seeing any studies or reports you have that show that people are more likely to do Speed, Coke, etc SOLELY because they can get away with it on a drug test.

[Fozzledick]

70. Several points

First off I think you missed my point: non-addicted users of cocaine (and virtually all other drugs except marijuana) can easily pass the test by abstaining for only 2 or 3 days, so instead of screening them out, "drug" testing actually screens them IN!

Secondly, I think it's just common sense that many casual marijuana smokers facing a pre-employement test would temporarily switch to alcohol or other drugs, pass the test, and then switch back.

Thirdly, The history of "drug" testing strongly suggests that this was always intentional: the original test was patented and marketed by Carlton Turner, a Reagon administration aide, at the same time that they targeted all "drug war" efforts exclusively at marijuana while allowing cocaine imports to triple.

Finally (for now), Great Britain recently stopped testing prisoners after their own internal studies showed that many of them began using heroin for the first time while in prison specifically because they knew it was unlikely to cause a positive test. (I don't have a citation handy, but it was reported in MAP news a few months ago)

[Heddi]

72. your second point is just.....

retarded. You say:

Secondly, I think it's just common sense that many casual marijuana smokers facing a pre-employement test would temporarily switch to alcohol or other drugs, pass the test, and then switch back.

Who's common sense?

I'm a pot smoker. I smoke pot. If I know I'm going to have a pre-employment test, I either 1) Stop smoking prior to the test or 2) use measures which dilute my urine so that any THC won't show up.

MJ stays in your system for upwards of 28 days, if not longer. How is 'switching' to alcohol going to mask the pee? If you know 28 days ahead of time that you're going to be having a test, then stop smoking.

And considering that most people who smoke MJ also drink alcohol, I can hardly see how they 'switch' to using alcohol if they've already used it to begin with.

And I know absolutely NO ONE who say "Gee. Got a piss test tomorrow. Can't smoke a bowl---hey, anyone got any heroin?!?!?!?!?"

Again--you made the claim, now you're going to have to back it up. I've seen absolutely no studies that suggest causation or correlation with regards to people using 'other drugs' SOLELY because they'll get away with a drug test.

Perhaps it's an added convenience to doing coke that it won't show up on a test usually, but I cannot say that I believe that people will switch from MJ to coke, or will EXCLUSIVELY do one drug over another because it doesn't show up in a urinalysis.

Please. Show me citations. Anything.

Otherwise, you're just talking gibberish.

[Fozzledick]

79. You missed the point again

If you're going to abstain from marijuana for the one to two months it takes to produce a clear negative test, what are you going to DO for that period - abstain from all other drugs as well, or use "second choice" drugs (including alcohol) that you know won't show up on a test? It seems pretty obvious to me, hardly worth the bother to dig up citations even though I know that numerous studies have shown that when a drug user's "drug of choice" becomes unavailable they simply move on to their second or third choice.

I also have some personal experience as a crisis hotline counselor that only when marijuana becomes scarce did we see cases of people using black market garbage (PCP, belladonna alkaloids, etc.) that they normally would never use.

[Heddi]

80. Please--you keep citing these studies

Since you're the one putting the info out there, then the onus is on you to prove it.

What you're saying is total bunk, btw. Unless you can prove to me via un-maniuplated government studies that show that pot-users are 200% more likely to support terrorists, then I take what you're saying as being nothing but made up blah to support your point of view, which is fine, but if you're going to cite it as being 'fact' then you need to back up your "common sense facts" with cold hard facts that I and others can read for ourselves.

And you miss *MY* point---that being that most people who smoke pot already drink alcohol. So abstaining from pot, but continuing to drink alcohol in preparation of a drug test is not 'switching to alcohol to pass the test'. It's call ABSTAINING from what will get caught on the test (marijuana). They're not suddenly becoming alcohol junkies just because they've got a piss test coming up.

You're using convoluted logic and not proving your point very well.

You say "even though I know that numerous studies have shown"---yet you find it bothersome to look up the references? Then I have no choice to be bothered with your trite, unfounded, self-initiated 'studies'.

Prove your point with scientific data and then we can have a conversation. Until then, you're just talking out of your ass and passing on personal thoughts, opinions, and antecdote as being fact.

If you don't have citations---fine---but don't claim 'Numerous Studies" when in reality you really mean "Numerous thoughts of mine that are in no way based upon any scientific data, research, survey, etc"

And you seem to be suggesting that people are physically addicted to Marijuana, which is not true. Marijuana is PSYCHOLOGICALLY addicting, but not physically addictive like cocaine, herion, alcohol, etc.

Perhaps those 'numerous studies" you're quoting refer to people who are addicts of physically addictive drugs using other physically addictive drugs when their drug of choice no-longer is available, which is correct.

But it is *NOT* correct to correlate these studies with people who smoke Marijuana (and the high majority of marijuana smokers do not do any other drug besides marijuana) as being more likely to use another drug because of an impending drug-test.

You're mixing correlation and causation and apples and oranges.

Again---show me these numerous studies and perhaps I can take your argument more seriously.

[Fozzledick]

85. Ok, now you've lost it

You've gone from illogical to nonsensical, accusing me of things I never said. What I HAVE said is either just plain common sense, or else what I've consistently read over more than 30 years of studying the subject. If you were at all familiar with the literature regarding it you would already know it.

Moreover, I've found that demanding explicit citations for every casual comment is a common diversionary tactic used in online arguments by those who cannot defend their own positions. If you insist on playing that game, then I say the burdon of proof is on YOU to defend your claim that "drug" testing has ANY positive effect whatsoever!

[Heddi]

89. blah blah strawman blah blah

so now you're saying that it's YOUR common sense, and studies that YOU have read.

Pray tell, what studies. I've yet to see you name one, even ONE source...but you keep spouting off about these studies.

And please show me where I claimed that drug testing has any positive effect whatsoever, because I'm afraid that you're confusing me with someone else, seeing as I've never made such a claim.

You really don't understand that since YOU were the one to make NUMEROUS claims regarding studies, then YOU are the one that has to prove your comments true. I didn't make the comments about studies, you did.

So unless you can post something, then I'm left with no choice but to conclude that you're just spouting off with nothing relevant to say.

And you claim that *I* cannot defend my own position? Strange---why should i have to defend my position---I've never claimed to read these numerous, mysterious studies and reports and scientific data that you have claimed to have seen.

I'm just interested in where you got your information. There's no reason to be so defensive. Perhaps seeing these numerous studies (too numerous to name, I assume) My views will change---but I can't base my opinions on the ramblings of an anonymous internet poster.

Good day. Have fun searching up links to all those numerous studies

[Heddi]

6. As a pot smoker, I had to vote for the

second choice---for some occupations.

I'm a total pothead. Smoke every day.

But I'm currently taking pre-nursing classes and I realize that in a few short months, I'm going to be working in hospitals and I can't be high then--EVER!!! And I never would be, and I plan on totally cutting off the weed once I become a nurse because I don't EVER want what I do on my off-time to be a consideration EVER if something happens on the job.

I used to work in Newspaper Sales--and I had to take piss tests. Why? Am I going to get stoned and have the art department create wacky surrealistic ads for me? Hardly.

Doctors, Nurses, Busdrivers---yes. They should be drug-tested. For Dr's and Nurses you're going to have a background check done on you anyways (which is a good thing!).

I don't think that secretaries and golf maintenance people and grocery store cashiers should have drug tests done. I think it's an extreme invasion of privacy and that drug use should only be a fireable offense 1) if you're doing it on the job 2) if you come to work under the influence and 3) if it's affecting your job---and that goes for alcohol too--everything.

My potential employers don't videotape me on my offtime to see what kind of bars I go to, or where I do my shopping. Why should they be able to test my urine to see what I smoke when I'm off the clock? Unless my use is affecting my job, then it DOES NOT MATTER.

[Boudicea]

7. Prove your innocence!

I wouldn't be surprised if they started doing body cavity searches. I've read that the scan-through-your-clothes technology that is being proposed for airports has been used for quite a while in diamond mines. And btw, these corporations have law firms on retainer to make sure they don't have to pay their minimum wage employees any workers' comp.

[nedlogg]

10. Absolutely not!

With a few exceptions, I am 100% opposed to drug testing by employers. When I go to an interview, I want to be judged on my qualifications and character, not on the content of my piss!

[stopthegop]

8. "if the government can't search"

the (big) difference is employment is voluntary...you can quit a job...you can't decide not to play if the cops show up at your door...

[Gringo]

11. As corporations glom up more and more of our economy

A future where ALL employment will be provided by huge, nearly identical corporations doesn't seem that far-fetched to me, and that means that your choice will be wage slavery to a corp., or starvation. Hardly "voluntary" IMO. People desparately need jobs. That need is so dire that it amounts to coercion. It's completely different than a private club whose members consent to drug testing. THat would be voluntary (of course there are very few such clubs!)

[stopthegop]

13. most everyone needs a job...but

no one needs a certain specific job...there are others..and will be for the reasonably foreseeable future

[Gringo]

17. I still disagree

If these drug tests can't be stopped or limited by current law, a new law needs to be passed to do so. It is an unacceptable invasion of privacy and a total insult to law-abiding (& pot-smoking) people.

[stopthegop]

18. ok...we disagree...

have a good evening

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drdigi420]

15. The difference is

mandated insurance breaks by the govt for 'drug-free' workplaces.

As far as 'public safety' jobs. Lack of sleep is MUCH more detrimental to your alertness than weekend pot use. Why not have a competency test instead?

Airline pilots are more likely to be distracted worrying about making their bills than if they had smoked a joint. Have you seen what a rookie pilot makes? Not enough to get a child tax credit from this administration, thats for sure.

"drug testing" is really 'marijuana' testing, because all other drugs can be easily flushed from your system in 2-3 days. Marijuana metabolites (not the marijuana itself) is detectable for 2 weeks to 60 days, depending on the frequency of use. Because of this, drug testing discourages the use of the safest drug while encouraging those that are tested to use cocaine or alcohol, which aren't so easy to test for.

Drug testing is counter-productive. It's a political tool designed to keep those that might vote against the pork-filled war on drugs from making enough money to matter.

The entire war on drugs is a scam, it's all about making a few companies rich.

[Vulcan59]

59. Sources please.

Please back up these claims:

"As far as 'public safety' jobs. Lack of sleep is MUCH more detrimental to your alertness than weekend pot use."

"Airline pilots are more likely to be distracted worrying about making their bills than if they had smoked a joint. "

"The entire war on drugs is a scam, it's all about making a few companies rich."

"Drug testing is counter-productive. It's a political tool designed to keep those that might vote against the pork-filled war on drugs from making enough money to matter."

As far as these:

"Why not have a competency test instead?"

They do. Public service jobs take exams for this. Other jobs such as pilots, lawyers, and what not take tests or pass bars to see if they're competent and know what they're doing with that job.

"Because of this, drug testing discourages the use of the safest drug while encouraging those that are tested to use cocaine or alcohol, which aren't so easy to test for."

No it doesn't. It discourages all drug use. Just means it's easier to get away with using the others.

[trof]

12. My list

all politicians
medical care personnel
judges/attorneys
transportation workers
clergy (just because)

[greyl]

16. Other

It depends on the job and what they test for. There are plenty of legal prescription drugs that totally impair judgement, perception, and motor skills and I think it sucks that they are thought of as being "more ok" than mary jane for example.

[zizzer]

19. Onsite compatency testing

Why not have a pilot sit down at a simulator before they can fly to prove their ability? Why not have a surgeon perform some fine motor skill before being allowed to opperate? Why not have bus drivers do the same thing?

If corps can test for these things now what more will they be able to test for in the future?

"SO what" you say. Well, look at the privatization of everything these days, the corps are gonna own EVERYTHING. So what's to stop them from testing teachers for HIV in privatized schools? What's to stop them from testing for "bad genes" before hiring so they don't have to offer health insurance?

Yeah, I'm a pretty paranoid person when it comes to these sorts of invasions of privacy.

Zizzer

[trof]

23. Oh hell, I forgot cops.

Guys with guns?
Betcher ass I want them tested.
Before every shift.

[zoidberg]

20. Should they?: No, Can they?: Yep

If I had a business and needed to hire somebody for a position that didn't involve potential danger to my customers, I probably wouldn't give a drug test. But if the person came up drunk or high and his work suffered, he'd quickly be out of a job though. But there is nothing at all fascist if I did decide to give a drug test. I worked for a private company in a sales type position and had to take a drug test. If somebody didn't like the policy, they could go down the street and take a different job. Drug users aren't a protected class, nor should they be. An employer is well within his rights to not want to hire people who use drugs.

[Gringo]

21. HUH?

"Drug users aren't a protected class, nor should they be. "

I'm talking about protecting ALL people from these invasive, insulting tests, NOT drug users. Testing a person who appears to be impaired is perfectly reasonable.

[zoidberg]

34. If an employee can refuse to hire people who use drugs

It stands to reason that they can require tests to determine who does drugs and who doesn't.

And how is pissing in a cup at a clinic invasive or insulting?

[drdigi420]

44. Only a pervert

would want to look in your piss.

I don't work for perverts.

[Vulcan59]

54. haha

Employers who want to avoid lawsuits "look at your piss" also. As well as professionals who make money doing these tests. I don't think they are perverts.

[drdigi420]

61. Well, it was a joke, but....

"Professionals" that make money doing the tests are evil people that should find a productive job instead of aiding the gestapo.

Drug testing is wrong, inaccurate, a severe invasion of privacy, and, even when done in a corporate environment, it is only done because the government has forced insurance companies to give discounts to 'drug-free' workplaces. The insurance companies raised their rates on everyone to compensate, virtually blackmailing companies into adopting drug testing.

Too many people pretend it's a simple choice. The government has made it unaffordable for a large company to NOT drug test, by raising their insurance if they don't comply. That is why so many jobs that don't need drug testing do so, like Home Depot, Sak-n-Save, and the always evil Wal-Mart.

Tyranny is tyranny, be it state or corporate.

[Vulcan59]

65. I disagree.

I've stated my opinion already. Most of your claims I would like sources of. As to your recent reply, these people aren't helping any "gestapo" that connection is completely off base. They don't force you to test. You can always refuse and accept whatever happens. There are plenty of companies that do not test.

[Gringo]

87. If he claimed the sky was blue, would you require a source?

Most of those claims are pure common sense and need no sense. Do you have any proof that there are an adequate number of companies that don't impose this nasty test to provide employment to the huge numbers of people who object to the test? There are many areas with very few job options open, and almost none with companies that don't test. That is a form of economic coercion.

[Fozzledick]

55. Pull down your pants and say that

TSIA

:mad:

[Gringo]

86. Maybe you're used to being treated like shit.

I'm not, and even if I was, I'd object to it. I don't consider it to be cordial to say to someone "piss in this cup so I'll know you're not a druggie."

It is invasive because they are forcing you to produce and submit your bodily fluids!

It is insulting because the implication is that "you may be using drugs, so prove that you're not". If I've given no indication that I'm using drugs, that is insulting, and a needless invasion of my privacy.

I deserve to be treated better than that, and so does everybody else. I am a human being, not some f**king cog. If they can do this, why not let them search your house to make sure you're not counterfeiting money/ Or inspect your car to be sure you don't have an illegal muffler? Exactly how is it that the employees off-time activities are any of the employer's business?

[Vulcan59]

56. I agree with zoidberg.

I agree with zoidberg.

[trof]

22. a drug test story

Drug Testing of Airline Pilots
(from personal experience)

So...a pilot reports to his base, checks his mailbox for latest approach charts, aircraft manual revisions, safety of flight notices, meets his crew for the trip and (maybe...luck of the draw) goes off for a random drug test BEFORE he takes off with all those precious lives in his hands. Right?
WRONG!
Morans.
They test him AFTER he gets back from his trip.
See, if they tested him beforehand, and he came up positive, the company would have to scurry around and get another pilot, maybe (horrors) have to DELAY or even (God forbid!) CANCEL the flight! Well, boys and girls...we certainly can't have THAT.
Noooo. Got the old bottom line to think of.
There now. Don't you feel better? All safe and secure?
I knew you would.

Back to the real world.
So you get back in from your 5 day trip and you're really kind of bushed* (you should pardon the expression) and you don't live in the city you fly out of because the company CLOSED that base last year and you didn't want the kids to have to change schools and all of your friends were there and your aged mother moved there so you could you know kind of look out for her and she'd be near you and the grandkids and so anyway now you're COMMUTING from Atlanta where you work to Boston where you live and you've just barely got time to make the last flight out of here and one of the flight managers meets you when you park and says "Sorry Jim, you're set for a drug test".

So you go wait for the van that takes you over to the medical facility and it finally comes and you get there and have to wait for half an hour till they can get to you and you go pee in the bottle and wait another half hour for the van to pick you up and take you back to the airport and find out that because 3 flights have cancelled all the airport motels are full so you drag your ass downstairs to the pilots' lounge and find a recliner to spend the night in so you can try for the first flight out home at 6 a.m. Supper? Fuck supper.

Alternate scenario: You GET a hotel room and now the random drug test has cost you a hundred bucks+ PLUS 12-15 hours of your precious "quality" family time.

Screw this. It's why at age 58, 2 years before retirement, I said the hell with it and quit.
Do I miss flying?
No.
Not the way we had to do it.
Should airline pilots be tested?
I guess, although to my knowledge no one has ever been fired for a positive test because they don't test positive. I'd be fine with a drug test pryor to each and every trip.
Booze? Now that's a whole different problem and a real one.

[willyjixx]

24. ironic..........kinda violates innocent until proven guilty

so what their saying is they suspect me an have to test me? obviously not trusting me until i give em clean pee. i dont do drugs so it dont bother me but it sure is a waste of time an money.

insunuating im a criminal before i commit the act is unconstitutional

[stopthegop]

25. "before i commit the act is unconstitutional"

huh? what part of the consitution does it violate?

[drdigi420]

27. The right to be free from unwarranted

searches.

Drug tests are counterproductive and wrong.

COMPETENCY is what should be tested.

Trust me, a stoned pilot that is intelligent and competent is much safer than a sober incompetent. For comparison see Clinton (stoned) vs Bush (sober, now).

COMPETENCY is the issue, not what chemicals may or may not be in someone's bloodstream.

Alcohol is proven to impair your reflexes and time judgement. All 3 tests administered by the USDOT to try and prove cannabis impaired driving ability showed the opposite results. The drivers using marijuana did better than the control group on the tests. Scientists attribute this to the drivers using marijuana being aware of their condition and properly compensating for it. They also point to the increased focus that the 'stoned' drivers had, which can be explained by the fact that driving is more interesting and therefore maintains a higher level of focus for drivers using marijuana.

[stopthegop]

28. the US consitution restricts what gov't can do..

this isn't the government...constitution doesn't enter into it...unless you think a teenager can say his Mom looking around his room is an unconstitutional search...and I think it's unreasonable as opposed to unwarranted

[drdigi420]

31. When corporations become the government

as they have.

They must follow the constitution.

[stopthegop]

32. you're dreaming...

have a good evening

[drdigi420]

43. Do you realize

that on average, a company must spend $70,000 on tests before they get ONE positive?

Not only are drug tests innefective in their stated purpose, they are counter-productive.

Maybe it's dreaming to think that our corporations should not hold more power over us than the government.

You may say I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one......

[Vulcan59]

52. Need source.

I'd like a source to this claim: "that on average, a company must spend $70,000 on tests before they get ONE".

I'd also like to say that in my opinion, they're saving money through potential lawsuits by spending that 70,000 if that figure is correct.

[drdigi420]

63. google search

its a great source

[Vulcan59]

66. Your claims, you support them.

You stated them. Until you provide sources they are just opinions and accusations with no basis.

[zoidberg]

77. It's still in their best interests

As we all know, corporations only care about profits. Even if it costs $70,000 to get ONE positive (as you claim), then the benefits must still outweigh the costs for them to continue the policies.

[Gringo]

88. A teen doesn't have the same rights

or responsibilities as an adult, and I'm all for parents being able to raise their kids as they please. I know that they sell kits so that you can covertly test your kid's hair for drugs. I think that this is incredibly sad, that parents treat their kids this way - sooo dysfunctional and republican, but I do think it's their right.

Anyway, an employer is not my Mommy, and I don't think that my employer should have MORE right to pry into my personal life than the government. That is ridiculous.

[Muddleoftheroad]

93. Not more rights

You enter into a VOLUNTARY contract with your employer. If they mandate that you deliver garbage, then that is your job. You have two choices -- do it or not.

[Gringo]

94. When I take a job hauling garbage that's what I'll do

What does that have to do with giving them my piss? It's not theirs. If drug testing required a spinal tap, would you still support it then? The only difference is the cost & degree of inconvenience. If huge corporations all had dress codes requiring clerks to wear nose rings like a cow whether they like it or not, I would object to that, too - voluntary or not, it is a ridiculous insult and imposition. If they were small businesses, they woudn't be able to do it because the boss would have to look the workers in the face, but the big corps get to remain faceless and unaccauntable to their underpaid, intimidated slaveoids.

Nice to see that you're still using the MLK avatar. I wonder what it is that you admire about him? I've yet to see you echo any of his sentiments. (Of course I can't presume what he'd think of this issue, he was murdered too soon to see our society devolve into a pavlovian control state)

[willyjixx]

29. here is my opinion on it

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

thereby i am being searched and therefore evidence used against me for no probable cause

[stopthegop]

30. pls see #28 n/t

.

[willyjixx]

33. i see your point

well that part is understood...........


i still think without probable cause your being treated like a criminal an ther is no reason for it. Preventive Maintenance is a wonderful thing but wasting resources is wrong.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Lawsuits

It is done so companies are not vulnerable to various lawsuits, so either way that money, that time, that effort are all wasted in our litigious society.

For the record, if I knew whoever was driving a car I was riding in or a bus had smoked pot OR had alcohol, I'd get off at the next stop and file a formal complaint.

[Vulcan59]

67. This isn't the government.

As it's already been stated. This is not the government. The constitution doesn't apply to this.

[Elidor]

39. On a personal level, I don't have a problem with a pilot who smokes

I think they should be allowed to. However, if I was the guy who owned that 100-million-dollar airplane, I'd want to be damned sure I had all the details on anyone who flew it, down to color polaroids of their GI tract. A case can be made that occasional use is not detrimental - I've known plenty of potheads with superior hand-eye coordination and critical thinking abilities. Besides, a real serious pothead is too lazy to become an airline pilot. :D

[drdigi420]

45. Im a serious pothead

I have a successful internet business that supports me, the woman, and 3 kids.

You probably know several serious potheads that you just don't realize are serious potheads because it doesn't make you lazy, stupid, or a heroin addict.

Wouldn't it be nice to base our drug policy on something other than lies?

[Elidor]

69. I was joking

Hence the smilie :D

[Vulcan59]

41. Difference of opinion

Drug testing should be mandatory by employers who have certain jobs where people are at great risk, but not a law enoforced by the government. In general, employers should be able to drug test if they wish. Employees on drugs open up a door for lawsuits. To the arguement that it's unconstitutional, no it isn't. These are companies, not the government. If you don't want to be drug tested, find a different place to work. It's ultimately your choice to be tested or not.

[drdigi420]

49. Drug tests arent about finding out

if you come to work 'on drugs'

It's about controlling what you do on the weekends.

But mostly, it's about getting the government mandated insurance discount.

[Vulcan59]

64. Yes they are

They are about finding out if you've come to work on drugs as well as if you've done drugs on the weekends or as far back as the test can tell. Whats wrong with getting a government insurance discount? It isn't "controlling" what you do on the weekends. You can do as many drugs as you want on the weekends they won't stop you. I've said it before, you ultimately have the choice to be tested or not.

[Sterling]

78. It seems you only hear what you want to hear.

The only drug that will show up in a test after 3 days is pot. If you test positive for pot on Wed. it does not mean you were high at work. Do you understand this at all or are the thoughtful people here wasting time explaining the specifics of this issue to you because you have an opinion that you refuse to scrutinize for fear you might be wrong?

[ChemEng]

76. Actually, they want to know both.......

If you use off and on the job. For jobs involving hazardous materials or heavy equipment, industry can't take a chance on some dopehead coming to work stoned or hyped up. Since I work in a chemical plant, I can assure you, I don't want some dopehead operating a crane or process. My right to safety trumps your right to smoke dope. People who don't like it are free to get a job somewhere else.

[Gringo]

91. I don't want druggies at work either.

There used to be this thing called "honor", before they came up with all these goddamn pavlovian control mechanisms on our lives. Living up to one's promises (IE "I have not and will not use illicit drugs") was expected, and gave the person keeping the promise a sense of self-worth and decency. And over a period of time, this thing called "trust" developed, and the persond didn't need to be randomly tested on it.

Anyway, I truly believe that a real druggie sticks out like a sore thumb, he most likely won't get hired for jobs with any responsibility, and his job performance would suffer. There's no need for testing unless the signs are there. Know what? Most other countries don't subject their people to this shit. I don't know why it's just Americans that love to be treated like cattle by their employers.

[maine_raptor]

48. My favorite testing comment

was by P. J. O'Roarke (sp?):

"If pissing into a bottle is not unconstitutional, then taking a crap on a Supreme Court Justice's head is not assault and battery."

[Vulcan59]

50. n/t

Pissing into a cup isn't unconstitutional. You choose to work where piss tests are involved, the government doesn't make you. Taking a crap on a Justice's head has nothing to do with pissing in a cup. The only thing that relates the two is they both involve government and excretory functions.

[maine_raptor]

57. I could argue that point, but

since I'm retired I don't have to worry about either pissing into a cup or taking crap from by boss anymore.

[TecnoCrat]

60. Heh

" The only thing that relates the two is they both involve government and excretory functions. "

But with the current administration, you repeat yourself.

[Vulcan59]

68. haha

. I have to disagree, but still a funny joke.

[iluvchicago86]

51. You guys, since I am a minor...

Is it legal for these businesses to ask me for a urine sample in order to do a drug test?

[Vulcan59]

53. Yes.

Yes.

Since you are a minor they might have to have parental consent, but I doubt it. They can however fire or if the case might be, not hire you for not testing.

[iluvchicago86]

71. Thanks....

But this is a "darn" worthy moment. Even though I don't use any drugs or drink alchoholic beverages, this whole "random testing" deal really makes me mad. Whatever is in my pee, doesent matter, cause it's none of their steenking business. Stupid corporations.

[Fozzledick]

62. Poetic justice

I believe that anyone who advocates judging people by the "political correctness" of their urine should be thoroughly examined for signs of WITCHCRAFT!

:evilgrin:


(My apology to any Wiccans reading this, I just think those who would deny other's basic privacy rights deserve to experience the methods of the last Inquisition.)

[ChemEng]

73. I work for a chemical company

and I believe drug testing has had a positive impact on improving the safety of our industry. Believe me, anyone operating heavy equipment or controlling a chemical process had better have all of their wits about them. The random testing has weeded out people who were either too stupid to quit, or didn't want to quit, their drug habit.

[Ivory_Tower]

74. A little math (I think I did it right)

I pulled all the base numbers out of thin air, so bear with me...

Assume a drug test is 98% accurate.

A company tests 10000 employees.
Assume 10% of the employees use drugs -- so 1000 employees use drugs, 9000 do not.
The test is 98% accurate. This means that the test will accurately test positive 98% of the time, and accurately test negative 98% of the time.

So, out of 1000 drug-using employees, 980 will be identified as drug users, 20 will not.
And out of 9000 drug-free employees, 8820 will be identified as drug free, and 180 will be identified as drug users.

This means the company will tag 980+180=1160 employees as drug-users, and 180/1160=15.5% of those will have been falsely accused. That is, the test we assume is 98% accurate in identifying drug users is far from that.

[maine_raptor]

81. WTF???????????????

15.5%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Holy Schiess!

Let's see guessta-mate 100 million workers in the good ol'US of A times 15.5% equals where the hell is that calculator in windows????

Ahhhhhhhhh''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

15.5 million people that will be falsely accussed of a crime.


I gotta call my broker in the morning with a buy in corporate penal stocks. And a few real-estate agents too, out where there's good prision land.

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[Ivory_Tower]

84. Well....

15.5% of those identified as users through testing, not 15.5% of ALL the workers.

So I think it would be more like 1,800,000 -- I guess that makes it okay. (/sarcasm)

[maine_raptor]

90. Still..........

1.8 million is a lot of potential jail cells........LOL

Boy, there's a thesis question in those number Ivory_Tower. What are the connections between the corportization of the penal system and the War on Drugs. And not just the ordinary lobbist-type thing, I mean the impact of the rise of PenalCo on the Am citizen's view of the War on Drugs via physical location and financial interests.

Damm almost makes me wish I was back in college. :bounce:

[Ivory_Tower]

82. And to play with the numbers a little more

If only 5% of the employees are drug users, and the test is only 95% accurate, the odds that an employee identified as a drug user is really a drug user is 50/50.

[Nikia]

75. They are wrong

My company instituted a random drug testing policy in June but no one has been randomly tested so far and we have heard nothing about it since it was announced about a month before the policy went into affect. I don't know if it had anything to do with someone (myself) writing an anonymous persuasive letter to the owners and upper management or if they are waiting to ambush us after we think that it is safe to smoke pot again. I have several problems with random drug testing.
A company has no right to dictate your private activites off company time. I believe that recreational alcohol and tobacco use are protected activites as long as one does not come to work intoxicated. Also, imagine the outrage if companies started testing for venereal disease and fired those that did on grounds that they are not moral and responsible.
It is not in the companies best interest to fire good employees who have no performance problems except for a positive drug test. Companies spend money to train employees and for even the most menial job, productivity increases with time. Some employees may be better employees than others. Companies should only fire employees with work related problems. In lower level jobs, there are often several employees with work related problems. Why fire ones without work related problems?
It is a bit perverted to demand urine from employees. I consider it personal. Many other people do also. Some really do consider it degrading.
It promotes a work culture of fear, suspicion, and lack of respect. Testing shows that employers suspect employees. Employees may suspect that management wants to get rid of them and will unfairly single them out for testing or exempt other employees. Even though employers do not have to respect employees privacy, disrespecting that right, disrespects the employee as well.
This is just a brief summary on why I think drug testing is wrong and I have always believed this way, before I smoked pot or even knew anyone who did. As more companies adopt this policy, employees have little choice but to subject themselves to testing. The sad thing is that it is not beneficial to the companies who implement these policies.

[MrPrax]

83. All workplace testing is done for it's fear and intimidation factor

Let's face it...most testing, outside of competency (which is never really done) is to 'weed' out non-conformists.
It's completely arbitrary--like criminal searches. The bosses' nephew will never get caught--the guy who's up for a raise all of a sudden is called to HR because a discrenpency was found in his file
Usually all you end up with are 'Yes-men', keeners, brownies and Mormons in the lower ranks...
That is why corps also tend to hire a lot of ex-mil, ex-cops, ex-authoritarian types as supers and low-level management and THAT is why business fails and has become atrophied and no longer innovative.
A publicly listed company can't afford not have a 'seamless' top down management system with uber loyality among the proles.

[Gringo]

92. I like you.

Can I put your brain into Gabrielle Union's body and marry you?