Only in America could the party and its supporters who go bonkers about the ever expanding, intrusive big government, support a measure that intrudes in the private lives of people. But then people usually only complain about big and intrusive government if it does something they don't support or are in favor of.

Tom, it's possible thatthe legality of mandatory drug testing hasn't been challenged at a high enough court yet. The article seemed to suggest that some cases against it had already been fought and won though. The fact that a lot of people do something doesn't always mean that what they're doing is legal, although in this case it's probably fair to say that it's legally acceptable until they lose a legal challenge on it.

It is Government that intrudes into the life of the business. They have no reason to make a choice for an employee. The employee can make that choice. Sometimes there are hard choices in life.

bbauska wrote:It is Government that intrudes into the life of the business. They have no reason to make a choice for an employee. The employee can make that choice. Sometimes there are hard choices in life.

Right, but in your lala land employer and employee are on an equal footing, which in reality they aren't. But leaving that aside, following your logic everything in my private life would be open to employer scrutiny if he so choses, because in the end everything in my private life could impact my work performance.
Funny enough you'd probably hate the idea the the employees form a union and start to pressure the company for stuff it doesn't like.

Fax,
That is not true. If the employer is treating the employee unfairly or discriminatorily (sp?), then the employees should leave and find work elsewhere. If enough of them do this, then the business will suffer. As an employer, this is what hurts business. Treat the employee fairly, but get the best employees. Still no answer about two employees that are the same except for drug use.

Which do you prefer?

Faxmonkey wrote:

bbauska wrote:It is Government that intrudes into the life of the business. They have no reason to make a choice for an employee. The employee can make that choice. Sometimes there are hard choices in life.

Right, but in your lala land employer and employee are on an equal footing, which in reality they aren't. But leaving that aside, following your logic everything in my private life would be open to employer scrutiny if he so choses, because in the end everything in my private life could impact my work performance.
Funny enough you'd probably hate the idea the the employees form a union and start to pressure the company for stuff it doesn't like.

If everything in your private life could affect your work, doesn't the employer have right to use factors that affect work, and thus his/her business, in determining employment? If not, do employers have to hire ANYONE who puts in an application? What is a factor that can be used to determine who gets a job?

Still no answer about two employees that are the same except for drug use.

It's a ridiculous question. Quite apart from the obvious fact that it's utterly hypothetical and doesn't exist in the real world because no two people are ever the same, it also presupposes that employee drug use is going to be a problem for the employer. The reality in the overwhelming majority of cases is very different. Casual, occasional drug use, which is the case with most drug users, has very little impact, if any, on job performance. Hell, even habitual and everyday drug use needn't be a problem. I know a guy who joined a major bank in a lowly position at the age of 17 and worked his way up over a decade to a senior managerial position where he now has responsibility for hundreds of staff and earns a high 6-figure salary. He's one of the biggest stoners I've ever met and smokes weed pretty much every day. He does it in his own spare time at his own expense and clearly it hasn't affected his work because his employer keeps on promoting him, so why should it be any of their business ?

My private life is exactly that, private. My employer shouldn't have any right to nosy around in my private life just on the off-chance that what I do privately may hypothetically have an impact on my work performance. If I'm not performing in my job they have a right to discipline me, or fire me if I continue to underperform. They certainly do not have the right to know everything about what i get up to when I'm not at work.

Also, your argument about employee choice is bullshit, not to put too fine a point on it. No employee would choose to have a drug test unless forced to do so.

I will take that as a non answer. Yes it is hypothetical. I was asking you to think beyond real world. Sorry you chose not to do the thinking needed. I would have expected better.

Your words above:
"has very little impact"... This denotes that drug use CAN have impact. Are you saying that an employer MUST accept that impact on his/her business? You can point to anecdotal people in your life, as I can mine.

I am all for your life being private. Just don't ask to work for an employer that is asking for a drug test. Do you think it is right that an employer has to accept someone's drug use? Isn't that an infringement on the employer's business? Where is the choice in that. I consider your argument defending the infringement upon an employer to show little regard for fairness. Both the employer AND employee have a choice.

The employer has a choice to drug test
The employee has a choice on whether or not to take test
The employer has a choice on whether to terminate for willful non-testing

Should the military have the right to terminate my employment if I chose to not participate in the drug testing program? I have seen it happen. (BTW, the 3 people that chose to not test were admitted drug users [recreational, of course...]).

Your words above:
"has very little impact"... This denotes that drug use CAN have impact. Are you saying that an employer MUST accept that impact on his/her business? You can point to anecdotal people in your life, as I can mine.

Not at all. An employer certainly doesn't have to accept it if it has an impact on work performance. You measure that impact by how an employee performs in their job, not by what they do in their private life and your own pre-judgment of how that might hypothetically impact on work performance.

I am all for your life being private. Just don't ask to work for an employer that is asking for a drug test. Do you think it is right that an employer has to accept someone's drug use? Isn't that an infringement on the employer's business? Where is the choice in that. I consider your argument defending the infringement upon an employer to show little regard for fairness. Both the employer AND employee have a choice.

If the drug use is not taking place in the workplace and if the employee is not underperforming in their job then no, i don't consider that it's any business whatsoever of the employer. An employer does not have the right to dictate private behaviour. they do have the right to fire people who are not coming up to scratch, but that should be based on actual performance in the job.

When you talk about 'choice' the only choice you're willing to offer an employee is the choice between surrendering their privacy or surrendering their livelihood. That's not a choice, it's a threat.

Should the military have the right to terminate my employment if I chose to not participate in the drug testing program? I have seen it happen. (BTW, the 3 people that chose to not test were admitted drug users [recreational, of course...]).

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.

What are the rules in Britain, Sass? Are employers allowed to test? Do employees have the right to deny testing? Just curious.

Would you work for an employer that asked for random testing?

Tbh I'm not 100% sure what the rules are, but I've only ever heard of it taking place for jobs that I wouldn't really have a problem with such as police, armed forces and people who operate heavy machinery etc. As for whether I'd ever work for a company that operated mandatory testing, that's a tricky one. I don't take drugs anymore and haven't done for many years, so I have nothing to fear personally. Good jobs are hard to come by these days and I'd have to think long and hard about making myself unemployed on a matter of principle. This is partly my point really, it's unfair to place the burden of such a decision on people.

On a related note, there are problems with drug testing that go beyond the matters of principle that are my chief concern. For example, traces of cannabis can be detected by drug tests up to 30 days after you take it. Needless to say this is way beyond the stage where any lingering effects of the drug may remain. By contrast, heroin is completely out of the bloodstream within about 48 hrs (I'm going from memory, but it's something like that). So a casual dope smoker who has a few tokes at a party on a saturday night could find himself fired because his employer tested him a month later whereas a heroin addict could quite easily fly under the radar altogether. That's obviously an extreme example, but not all heroin addicts are useless junkies so it's not all that far-fetched. That doesn't strike me as being especially fair.

I agree that many people are minimally affected by drugs while at work.

Let me just make sure I understand you please. Are you saying that:
an employer does not have the right to test?
should not have the right to test?
government should be the deciding agency to determine who is tested or not?

In my opinion it is not a decision that an agency could make for a business or employee. It is a choice. A difficult one, surely.

You are correct on the time frames for heroin and marijuana. I guess the best way to be safe is to not do drugs.

Again... A choice

an employer does not have the right to test?
should not have the right to test?
government should be the deciding agency to determine who is tested or not?

I didn't mention government at any stage in any of my arguments. Government is of course a major employer, the biggest in fact, and should be subject to the law just like anybody else.

In all honesty I don't know the exact legality of mandatory drug testing by employers. What I'm saying is that there should be a presumption in law that employees have a right to privacy which cannot be lightly infringed by their employers. If an employer wants to enforce mandatory drug testing they should be able to argue a clear public interest case in a court of law, and the only grounds under which they could expect to win their case would be in terms of acute risk to public safety or state security. I think I've been consistently clear on this all along.

This forum started with the link about the State of Florida testing it's employees. It was a while ago...

You have been clear in your position. I just disagree with it.

I feel it is the choice of the employee, and you feel the employer does not have a choice. I have been tested for every job I have applied for and received an offer for. I have taken ZERO offense, as it was always my choice.

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
Choice just the same...

Well, yes, but not all choices are the same, are they? The choice seems to be to take a test that may see you fired, or leave your job. Similare results, meaning it's about the same kind of choice as asking whether you want to be shot, or to shoot yourself.

You don't object because (I assume), you know you'd pass. But someone who might fail? Perhaps you could try the empathy thing and put yourself in the position of someone who might fail. In all other respects they are (or would be) good at their job, and they use some recreational drugs out of work that don't have an effect on their day job. Yes, what they do is illegal. But is it the business of their employer regardless?

Where drug use may impinge on work, and for certain types of job, it seems to be reasonable to allow companies to require testing. But blanket testing of all kinds of employees for some other reason - and let's face it, the one in question seems to be motivated by politics as much as anything else - would appear to me to be going too far.

By the way, it can also be discriminatory. Some people can generate positive results on drug tests despite not taking drugs, due to abberant chemistry.