bbauska wrote:So drug use is something that can be judged differently based upon type of employment? That sounds like discrimination to me...

Indeed, it is, but there are two kinds of discrimination:

1) evidence based.
2) prejudice based.

I do not believe an employer can do anything he/she wants. I think most employers are fine people that you would want to work for. The ones that are jerks shouldn't have employees anyway. Where is the big issue?

That you fail to understand the imbalance in the power relationship. Jerks maybe shouldn't have employees, but in the real world they do, and can be the main employer in a town, even. A successful business does not have to be nice to it's employees, and vice versa. After all, it's probably in the interests of raw profit to drive down employee conditions (even if it makes you unpopular).

As for not wanting the employer to give the information to the police, I guess I could be swayed to accept reporting if Sass, Heck Tate and Danivon want. It seems a bit off base for them, but what the heck!

You'll have to point me to where I supported employer snitching, seeing as I'm pretty sceptical about them snooping in the first place. Mind you, in the exceptions that I think would be acceptable for such testing, I think it's also not unacceptable for employers to contact law enforcement if they suspect that a crime has taken place. Whether the police or courts would consider employer-administered drug tests admissible evidence is a different matter.

Look at Unions and tell me they DON'T have power. Yes, employers have power. So do the employees. Are you saying they don't, Danivon?

Well, they have some power, but it is much reduced compared to 30-40 years ago. And it depends greatly on employees' power and whether they combine or not.

If an employer discriminates based upon race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Civil Rights Act of 1964), then he/she should be brought up on charges.
I have already covered race
I have already covered color

Ok, that's you being law-abiding. But I'm still wondering what you'd prefer to be the case, whether you see such laws as being at times an encroachment on the rights of employers.

A person's sex is not the issue. If a woman who is not pregnant can have a job, but a pregnant woman is released, it is not an issue of sex

That's not what you said before. Notwithstanding the law, you said it was fine to not hire a young woman based on the idea that she might become pregnant.

I have no problem with a business hiring anyone based upon religion. I would be surprised if a Jew or Muslim would work at a hog farm, but they could if they chose to.

Sure, they may not want to. But they may want to work in a concern that does not conflict with their faith, but find that a rabidly Christian employer doesn't want them. Sounds like that's ok with you.

Am I following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with my way of thinking? Why or why not? The employee has the choice as to where they work.

Sure they do. Remind me what the unemployment rate is in the USA, and how many open vacancies there are?

Archduke Russell John wrote:Well, since you don't give your own explanation of why it isn't any of the companies business, we must assume it is because of the same reasoning of Sass, whose comment you endorse?

If that is not the case, please elucidate. Please inform us of why personal drug use is not an employer's business.

So the default position should be that everything about the employee's private life is the employer's concern and it's my job to argue for exceptions to that blanket rule?

No thanks, not playing. I've offered one reason (health and safety) for an exception to the opposite general rule. If I must really explain why a worker's private life is, generally speaking, private then we're approaching this topic from such different places that any attempt to find a middle ground would be folly.

wow, just wow

Again, I've seen people posting lists, and providing bases for them.

Why do you have to misrepresent the debate so much, Tom?

ummmm, the misrepresentation is from YOU.
we have people saying this or that job only should be tested, an example is made of one more they did not mention and then another and another. That is what this is all about, you simply can not draw a line can you? So instead of defining your position and drawing that line, instead of actually answering the question, you chose to muddy the waters and change the topic into a slam on me misrepresenting the issue. Nope, you failed to answer a simple question and attempted to turn it on me, now can I ask who is misrepresenting themselves?

Lets try answering the question, a fair question at that. Several suggested only SOME jobs should be tested, you are trying to claim the same when you claim all jobs are not equal, So answer the question, draw your line please.

And yes, all jobs are different but an employer can expect his employees to be drug free, you admit drugs affect ones job, If all employees are supposedly equal, then why are not all employers also equal and allowed to test ALL employees? The only answer is because you want to let your liberal ideals run free unless they happen to affect people that you actually care about being drug free, you embrace liberalism until it affects you then suddenly you get conservative when it comes to teachers and police officers being clean. And teachers? really? They are the same degree of responsible as cops? Nobody gets hurt if a teacher is stoned. Your whole safety issue kind of suffers when you include them in your list, but the inner conservative can't allow it, c'mon Dan, embrace the conservative in you!

GMTom wrote:we have people saying this or that job only should be tested, an example is made of one more they did not mention and then another and another.

Heck Tate is right, you just want to score stupid points in a game.

That is what this is all about, you simply can not draw a line can you? So instead of defining your position and drawing that line, instead of actually answering the question, you chose to muddy the waters and change the topic into a slam on me misrepresenting the issue. Nope, you failed to answer a simple question and attempted to turn it on me, now can I ask who is misrepresenting themselves?

ahhh, so this is not 'all about' what employers and employees have rights to do, it's about your strange contention that because you can't see how to draw a line, and because we haven't produced an exhaustive list, it can't be done. However, there have been people who have set out guiding principles, which can clearly be used.

Lets try answering the question, a fair question at that. Several suggested only SOME jobs should be tested, you are trying to claim the same when you claim all jobs are not equal, So answer the question, draw your line please.

I think you missed where I outlined the principles. They define the line. Try applying your mind instead of expecting to be spoonfed.

And yes, all jobs are different but an employer can expect his employees to be drug free, you admit drugs affect ones job, If all employees are supposedly equal, then why are not all employers also equal and allowed to test ALL employees?

Where did I say that drugs always affect performance? I accept that they have the potential to, but that is not the same thing.

The only answer is because you want to let your liberal ideals run free unless they happen to affect people that you actually care about being drug free, you embrace liberalism until it affects you then suddenly you get conservative when it comes to teachers and police officers being clean.

Sorry, but other than trying to slap labels on people and force this into a left-v-right discussion, your point is what, exactly?

And teachers? really? They are the same degree of responsible as cops? Nobody gets hurt if a teacher is stoned. Your whole safety issue kind of suffers when you include them in your list, but the inner conservative can't allow it, c'mon Dan, embrace the conservative in you!

I never said teachers were to the same degree as cops. I said all jobs were different. Try reading what I write, not what you want me to so you can cry 'gotcha!'.

Wow indeed, Tom. I guess you will want to maintain that it is I who is the childish one?

OK, you want to make that claim?
This is not about employer vs employee rights?
please do tell me what this is about then, silly me, I thought that was what just about every post was about, but you seem to know more than I, please explain to me (and everyone else) where we went wrong and what this post is actually about. You want to claim only certain jobs can be tested but you can not define what jobs should be tested, that sounds like you really don't know what you think now doesn't it? You have some grand ideas but no clue how to make them work. Please try to stick to the question posed, YOU claim some should be tested, how about telling me what jobs should be tested and we will find more and more and more that suddenly should be added based on your own definition of "safety"

You want to claim I said drugs always affect performance, excuse me, the quote you grabbed says no such thing now does it? Another stupid attempt to try and discredit me that went sour on you only discrediting yourself yet again.

The teachers part...please follow, please read what was posted earlier not what was posted just now, try to follow the events, It was mentioned cops should be tested. I asked about teachers and some added them to the list of testable occupations. Who said all jobs were the same, yes all jobs are different but all employers should have rights that you want to take away. There is a fine line of rights EACH party has. You lean heavy towards employee rights, Brad leans heavy to employer rights, the discussion is about where we think the balance is. You want to make a point that some should and some should not be tested I make a point that all should be tested (if the employer wishes) neither is right neither is wrong, it's an opinion. Yet if you have an opinion, you should be able to back up your opinion and answer questions about it I simply ask if you have some sort of allowable list of occupations, how about defining it, simply stating anything that affects safety simply leaves it open to everyone to be tested and you can't handle that nor can you answer it so you instead turn to personal insults, try getting with the program, try being civil.

Tom, the thing is that some of us have come out with clear guidelines that should be used to inform a decision on whether a job should be testable and you've simply ignored them. Simply saying that we can't define what jobs should be ok to test doesn't make it so, I've defined it four or five times now.

No, I get it, I really do.
Please show me a "clear guideline" I have not yet seen one.
A few people posted something like "where safety is involved" that's anything but clear, I am not ignoring that, I (and Bbauska) posted a few possible examples where other jobs should be added to that definition and it crumbled apart, that is what I am saying. Please define your "clear" position again, lets see how clear it really is?
If it is clear, wonderful, I missed it earlier

I went back and found the following as your only suggestion of a "clear guideline":

As I said earlier, while I believe there should be a presumption in favour of personal privacy in the law, i do accept that there are certain caveats to that when it comes to certain jobs in which the risks to public safety are particularly acute. the military is obviously one of these since military personnel tend to be handling lethal weapons, and since by the very act of joining the military you implicitly surrender your rights to personal privacy anyway to some degree. Similarly airline pilots or people who operate dangerous machinery place themselves in a situation where their rights of privacy are trumped by other concerns. I don't believe this applies to most jobs but it certainly does in some cases.

maybe I missed another?
but this is anything but clear
"risks to public safety"
You mention airline pilots
how about a stewardess who is responsible for people getting safely off an airplane if their were an accident?
how about the security check point people? If they missed a weapon, that would certainly matter
what about those people who drive golf carts around the terminals, running people over isn't safe?
how about food service people, if they served undercooked meat, that would greatly affect the public health?
seems the definition is not so clear and that's what I am getting at, the exceptions are so many, it makes no sense to have such a flimsy allowance. So it would boil down to all testing is allowed or testing is never allowed (in MY mind) and it would appear you agree there are some who should be tested ...do you really want a pilot flying high? A cop stoned? and so on. That is my point, I agree some should be tested, I agree it doesn't matter TOO much for others, but there are degrees of this of course.

Not to mention employer rights, some can but some can not test when you agree drug use can affect ones job and that drug use is illegal.

I think you do understand what I'm getting at better than you say you do, but if you absolutely insist on being so obtuse about it then I guess I'll need to spell it out in much more detail.

Ok, well I think it's important to understand exactly what the potential problem is. Obviously if people turn up to work high on drugs then they're a liability and could/should be fired by the employer no matter what their job is. But what we've been discussing is whether employers should be able to conduct mandatory tests to find out whether they do drugs in their own spare time, which is rather different. The chances of private recreational drug use seriously impinging on your work are not really all that significant. In the vast majority of cases all it might mean is that you occasionally turn up to work a little bit groggy with slightly impaired reactions and slightly less clearheaded in your thinking than you would otherwise be. I'm not talking about anything that even vaguely resembles being high and unable to function, just a bit less sharp than usual. Most jobs this wouldn't really be a problem. You may be a bit slower, a bit less productive, but you wouldn't be putting anybody's safety at risk. Obviously though there are certain positions where it's very important to be clearheaded and have fast reactions to prevent serious accidents. I mentioned airline pilots and this is a very good example because not only are pilots subject to drug testing they're also forbidden to drink alcohol within a certain number of hours of flying and they can be breathalised and possibly even blood tested to determine the level of alcohol in their bloodstream. This makes a lot of sense because if they make a mistake through being groggy, tired or just not reacting quickly enough it could cause a crash which would kill all the passengers. The same doesn't really apply to air stewardesses because they're not really in a position where a small mistake due to slightly reduced attentiveness and diminished reactions is going to put any lives at risk. Do you see the distinction yet ?

I'm not going to draw up an exhaustive list of jobs for you, that would be ridiculous, but some of the jobs I'd have in mind would be things like, train drivers, people who operate heavy mining equipment, people who handle explosives, surgeons, air traffic controllers, that kind of thing. In all those cases you could say with conviction that slightly reduced alertness and slower reaction times could have potentially fatal consequences. Obviously there are plenty more jobs you could add to that list but I'm not going to waste my time listing them all. I certainly wouldn't include teachers because while they do have responsibility for children and a failure in their duty of care could have serious consequences, it's very unlikely that the lingering effects of earlier drug use is going to make any difference one way or the other, certainly there isn't likely to be an immediate risk of injury from it. I wouldn't include people who work in food preparation because the only risk from them is through poor hygiene, which is an absolute basic requirement of the job and which is unlikely to be affected by a slight lapse of concentration. Either they wash their hands and look after the food properly or they don't, I can't conceive of how it's in any way likely that having smoked a few joints at the weekend will make them more or less likely to do this.

I do break away from my own rule a bit where it comes to police and the armed forces. Obviously many of these carry guns, which is certainly a justification for allowing them to be tested, but a lot of them don't and I'd still allow testing of them anyway. In the case of the police this is for the obvious reason that people responsible for enforcing the law should never be breaking it and so they need to be held to much stricter standards. To an extent the same reasoning applies to the forces too in that they're responsible for the security of the state, but there's also a feeling in my mind that the military have a clear need to impose a far greater amount of discipline generally than civilian employers do and should therefore be allowed a little more leeway in these matters.

There you have it, what I've been saying all along in a slightly elongated form.

So an employee who is a bit slower and less productive is what the employer must accept?

Your wilful refusal to comprehend the point is getting tiresome. I've already said that if an employer is not happy with the performance of his staff he has the right to get rid of them. What I'm talking about here is the potential for serious injury that might theoretically result from a momentary lapse in concentration or dulled reactions that might theoretically result from having taken drugs in your spare time. I'm not saying this will always happen by any means (and you know this), what I'm saying is that the potential consequences if it does happen are such that it justifies drug testing in these cases.

I really am not trying to be obtuse or pigheaded or anything else, maybe it's coming across that way in writing.
I do get what you mean, I said just that. But the line that can be drawn is not so clear, it really isn't. And you pretty much summed things up quite well.
You stated yourself that "most" recreational drug use does not affect ones job or very marginally does. I do agree with that!
Here's the problem, employers also know that. Remember the story of where I work, we are quite aware of this and for many positions here we can work with that no problem. But, if an employer wants top notch bright and alert employees and he is willing to take on the possibly constant retraining of new employees until they get that "perfect" person (plus the cost of such testing), isn't that their option? The market pretty much already demands such testing be either not done or minimally done.
Further, an employer willing to accept such for one position would have a real hard time then testing for another position.
take the police for example. You agree cops should be tested I think, we agree! But can the department test only those on a beat, they have to also test the clerks and other positions that are not "as critical" don't they? (it being a department policy no doubt , can you see them allowing illegal drug use by some and not others?)
Again, the market works pretty well in sorting this out. Let them test, let them test all they want, it's not going to make a big difference and if an employer can get rid of a real bad egg this way, good for them, they should be able to do so, I don't see how my private life doing illegal drugs that affect my work is NOT my employers business. You see your private life as just that private. But the devil is in the details and unless you agree 100% non-testing or 100% an employers right (not a requirement mind you, again, it will not happen all that often) then I see things that just don't make any sense. (and note I do see the logic in having zero testing, I do not agree with it but the logic remains sound)

We obviously disagree. I say the employer has the right to test, you don't. Fine. No worries on that.

I cannot accept that a business cannot test it's employees, if the employees choose to retain employment by accepting the drug test. What legal precedent is there that prohibits drug testing in the workplace.

I have shown that workplace violence has drug use as a factor.
We both agree that drugs affect the work environment. Otherwise why test pilots and cops. (this is Tom's point)
We both agree that (and I quote you) you occasionally turn up to work a little bit groggy with slightly impaired reactions and slightly less clearheaded in your thinking than you would otherwise be.

My question is (and I am not trying to be obtuse, please understand) why does the employer have to accept recreational drug use (which is illegal) and an employee who would occasionally show groggy due to drug use.

What legal precedent prohibits employers from testing it's employees based upon free choice of the employee?

I understand how you feel. Truly I do. You hate the thought of the employer having control over the private times in your life. I accept that. It is a freedom issue to you. That is why I don't think the Government has right to testing. That would be mandatory. I am for testing as a requisite for employment. I see that as a choice of the employee. You (et al.) think it is not an employee choice. We disagree there.

Danivon,
I never intended to say that I would prohibit a woman from working, just on the chance of her becoming pregnant. That would be discrimination. Mea culpa

Teachers have been brought up again over the last page. I was the one who added them to my list of people who should be regularly tested. In case people don't know (or don't realize who I am under my new handle), I am a high school teacher. Teachers are responsible for the daily safety and well being of other people's children. Some teachers supervise the use of welding and woodworking equipment. Some teachers supervise physical activities which, if done without clear-headed supervision, can lead to serious injury. Teachers regularly supervise field trips to other cities and even other continents. All teachers, on a daily basis, are responsible for responding to any and all of the following incidents: student intoxication, student possession/use of weapons, student health emergencies such as seizure or anaphylactic shock, detection of and response to indications that a student may be depressed, suicidal, the victim of bullying by classmates, the victim of abuse or neglect by parents, liable to act out violently toward classmates...

I don't want any of my colleagues to be stoned while I'm counting on them to keep a sharp eye out for any or all of the above while my attention is directed at my own share of students.


(On a totally unrelated point

Danivon wrote:Heck Tate is right, you just want to score stupid points in a game.

No big deal, but I don't think I ever said anything about scoring points in this thread.)