Answered Conundrum Next Conundrum
Should employers be allowed to do randomized drug testing on employees who's job has no hazards?
When I worked at Chevron many, many years ago, they randomly drug tested employees. One girl was terminated because she tested positive for THC. She had smoked marijuana that weekend. She didn't come to work stoned, she's never carried marijuana on her person at work, and she never had any problems performing her job.
But she was fired because she smoked a joint at home over the weekend.
Is random drug testing like this something you think should be allowed on the job? Do your at-home activities really have a direct impact on your ability to do you job?
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
But she was fired because she smoked a joint at home over the weekend.
Is random drug testing like this something you think should be allowed on the job? Do your at-home activities really have a direct impact on your ability to do you job?
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
Marked as Best!
October 29, 2009 12:33 AM
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
No way. And the example you gave above is the primary reason why. I completely respect that employers should have a standard of responsibility for the state of their workers while at work.
But on an employee's personal time, it is none of their business--None. Of. Their. Business. If they aren't paying me for my time on the weekends, they shouldn't be able to dictate my activities...unless my actions spill over into the workweek.
Of course, this is more of a problem with insurance companies who may offer discounts to companies who drug test, which is deplorable. Until they can refine the tests to only target current coherency and sobriety, then they have no business using that as a basis for termination. (Again, unless there's a safety issue at work).
Man, how many times over could I have been fired from past jobs? And I'm a relatively clean-cut woman who is very professional, responsible, and hard working. In my early-mid 20s though, there were a few weekends here or there when you can bet some soft music and a doob were passed around. I guess I'm just lucky I never got caught!
But on an employee's personal time, it is none of their business--None. Of. Their. Business. If they aren't paying me for my time on the weekends, they shouldn't be able to dictate my activities...unless my actions spill over into the workweek.
Of course, this is more of a problem with insurance companies who may offer discounts to companies who drug test, which is deplorable. Until they can refine the tests to only target current coherency and sobriety, then they have no business using that as a basis for termination. (Again, unless there's a safety issue at work).
Man, how many times over could I have been fired from past jobs? And I'm a relatively clean-cut woman who is very professional, responsible, and hard working. In my early-mid 20s though, there were a few weekends here or there when you can bet some soft music and a doob were passed around. I guess I'm just lucky I never got caught!
| Asker's Rating: |
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Other Answers (5)
October 28, 2009 02:08 AM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I think an employer has the right test employees as long as they state random testing may be preformed when they hire.
The same way if i was running my own business I have the right to fire someone for doing a horrible job or being an idiot I should have the right to demand them be drug free. Drug use is a personal choice and not a constitutional right. It can affect ones ability to preform even if they aren't doing it at work or coming to work while still under the influence.
Example: Chronic Marijuana users tend to have a decreased short term memory, as say a waitress, how is that not impacting your performance?
This is a big debate up here as Marijuana is legal for use in your own home. Many employees feel that they then legally should not be fired for using a legal substance. I disagree. It may not be illegal but if you go into a job knowing full well the employer doesn't allow drug use and does test it's your own fault if you are fired. That's like saying, "I didn't chose to wear my uniform, and it's not illegal not to, so I shouldn't be fired."
Helpful Answer?
The same way if i was running my own business I have the right to fire someone for doing a horrible job or being an idiot I should have the right to demand them be drug free. Drug use is a personal choice and not a constitutional right. It can affect ones ability to preform even if they aren't doing it at work or coming to work while still under the influence.
Example: Chronic Marijuana users tend to have a decreased short term memory, as say a waitress, how is that not impacting your performance?
This is a big debate up here as Marijuana is legal for use in your own home. Many employees feel that they then legally should not be fired for using a legal substance. I disagree. It may not be illegal but if you go into a job knowing full well the employer doesn't allow drug use and does test it's your own fault if you are fired. That's like saying, "I didn't chose to wear my uniform, and it's not illegal not to, so I shouldn't be fired."
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 28, 2009 02:11 AM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
In my opinion unless it is stated when hired there should be no random drug testing unless something is crashed or whatnot. Just because is not a justifiable reason to drug test. And I disagree with drug testinghalf the time anyways...as long as it doesn't effect work performance and it is not used or on the person while on the work premises then it shouldn't be a problem.
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 28, 2009 12:18 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I think that employers are doing themselves a disservice with random drug testing. As long as a person is performing their job duties and not bringing their problems to work, their personal life is no business of the employer.
The factory where I worked made some noise about random drug testing but nothing came of it, I think because they knew they'd have to let some of their best people go! Our set-up man was a functioning alcoholic, you could smell beer on him from a mile away, but he always did his job well, never caused any trouble, never had an accident, and NEVER missed work. He was a valued for his knowledge and skills on the job, and really a pretty decent guy.
There were lots of us who smoked weed, too, but we took pride in our work and put out a quality product. Our plant's safety record was good; the only severe accident I can recall in my 25 years there was when some dumbass purposely stuck his forearm in a molding press. (A coworker who was friends with his wife told me she overheard him making a remark about doing that months before it happened--it was no accident). They gave him a settlement, then made him a supervisor to get him out of the union, then fired him. But that's another subject.
Helpful Answer?
The factory where I worked made some noise about random drug testing but nothing came of it, I think because they knew they'd have to let some of their best people go! Our set-up man was a functioning alcoholic, you could smell beer on him from a mile away, but he always did his job well, never caused any trouble, never had an accident, and NEVER missed work. He was a valued for his knowledge and skills on the job, and really a pretty decent guy.
There were lots of us who smoked weed, too, but we took pride in our work and put out a quality product. Our plant's safety record was good; the only severe accident I can recall in my 25 years there was when some dumbass purposely stuck his forearm in a molding press. (A coworker who was friends with his wife told me she overheard him making a remark about doing that months before it happened--it was no accident). They gave him a settlement, then made him a supervisor to get him out of the union, then fired him. But that's another subject.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 28, 2009 01:52 PM
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp02.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/ Helpful Answer? (0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Employers have their own definitions of hazards that may not be apparent to all employees. These include risk of higher insurance premiums, compromise of sensitive data, lost time if an employee is impaired, etc. The use of random drug testing has not been proven to decrease these risks.
However, I am against random drug testing in general because of the intrusive nature, lack of controls, and grave consequences of test errors. There are essential questions of privacy rights and constitutionality with drug testing as well. These issues do not, in my opinion, outweigh the a potential positive effect of random testing.
Source(s):
However, I am against random drug testing in general because of the intrusive nature, lack of controls, and grave consequences of test errors. There are essential questions of privacy rights and constitutionality with drug testing as well. These issues do not, in my opinion, outweigh the a potential positive effect of random testing.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp02.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/ Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
October 28, 2009 03:16 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
It depends on if the business involves money or merchandise, from a business owner point of view and employee does not have to work at any company that they dont like the rules..People do steal from there employers all the time. If the does not have any habits they should not have anything to worry about.
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Answer this Question
View All General QuestionsAsk a Conundrum
Please visit these retailers to purchase Conundrum or find the wine at these fine restaurants:
-
1991 St Helena Hwy
-
699 St Helena Hwy
-
1115 Main St
-
1321 Main St
-
Caymus Family of Wines, a five-course dinner with wine pairings~www.ranchandcoast.com
3:05 p.m. March 20th, 2010 -
@ninasfeet @davidcook i see you a cakebread and raise you a caymus http://bit.ly/aA5O9s
10 a.m. March 19th, 2010 -
Caymus Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley ... http://bit.ly/cP95OV
8:43 a.m. March 19th, 2010 -
Dinner @ Bandera with an '07 bottle of Caymus w/my baybay xxx
11:27 p.m. March 18th, 2010 -
RT @ToriMarriner: We have a few spots left for Caymus Duckhorn dinner the 24th- To salivate over the menu : www.victoriagastropub.com
10:54 a.m. March 18th, 2010