(Untitled)

[teremala]

Okay, objective opinion time. What do the statements, "Okay, so maybe I'd been a little harsh. I'd make it up to [him] later." suggest to you?

(Clearly I've been typing for far too long.)

More seriously, the thing with the drug test is still bothering me. Not immensely or anything, but it keeps coming to mind and making some internal sensor go

Comments

[thecityofdis]

If I were an employer, I would damned well want to know if any of my employees were using illegal substances, because I'd fire them in a heartbeat. Legal issues and liabilities (of which there are many) aside, my own personal prejudice against drugs and the people who use them would be the final word. It's my business. I am employing you as a courtesy; if you can't fulfill my standards there are a hundred other people who can.

I'm all for civil liberties. I'm all for as little government as possible, as many freedoms, not emptying your pockets when the cops ask you, whatever. But needing to pass a drug test in order to obtain a job does not infringe on your rights. The results go to your employer, not your governement representatives.

If you needed to pass a drug test on a regular basis for no other reason than the fact that Big Brother suspected you and you'd be thrown in jail if you failed - that I might have a problem with.

[teremala]

Yes, that's the other side of it, and I can see your point. But at the same time - if the drug use doesn't actually affect performance, what does it matter to the employer from a dollars-and-cents point of view? I have difficultly standing firmly behind this point because you're right in that it's not a civil liberties thing when it's a private employer doing the testing, but it still seems excessive for, say, a retail position. If the person is competent and does their job properly, does it really matter? I can understand drug testing for positions that require direct responsibility over people's lives - driving, medical positions, and so on - but making copies for people? Selling them stuff off a shelf? If it's a problem later, fire them then - but it seems like the people doing the interviews ought to be able to screen out problems like that on their own without chemical analysis, anyway.

As an aside, Wikipedia states, "In this second case [of the person who is not addicted], some employers consider this more of an intelligence

[thecityofdis]

Well, if you're looking at it from a purley dollars-and-cents point of view, you're quite correct: it's illogical. But a business (to me) is not purely about the profit. There is a culture, an ambience, and an ethic unique to each work place. Drug use infringes upons theirs; as it would mine.

And it's not fool proof. Nothing ever is. But it certainly thins out the herd, and I think people "smart" enough to know just when to quit may be a rare breed. And they will get caught and fired eventually, it's just a matter of prolonging the process.

[lizzypaul]

It's weird because when I worked at Borders, there was no drug testing. Reason being, of course, that practically everyone there smoked pot, managers to clerks. Yet we consistently had the highest profit in the country, and consistently won at upselling promotional stuff. Go figure.

Personally, though, I think it's ridiculous to fire someone for smoking pot and not for drinking. Yes, I understand the legal issues, but the truth is there are far more people who can smoke pot regularly and still be very productive than there are productive alcoholics. I'd much rather have pot smokers working for me than drinkers.

*doesn't smoke pot, but doesn't think it should be illegal, either*