Sassenach wrote: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.

Well how about if I, as an individual person, find drug use to be a serious character flaw and those that do so to be immoral and weak, do not want to employ those that use drugs whether it effects their job performance or not. Should I not, as a private employer, have the right to decide what criteria I use to hire a person?

Archduke is speaking exactly to my point. The employee's rights do not exceed that of the employer's as long as the employee agrees to the testing. Sass, why do you think the employee's right to privacy exceeds the employer's right to maintain a drug-free workplace?

Some items the employer could NOT do:
release results to the police
release results or findings to others (other employees, businesses, family of employee)
test w/o permission of employee

This would certainly violate privacy.

As to the myth of false positives... hair samples solve that issue, and is much less intrusive that urinalysis or blood test.

wow, i missed a lot in a short time, Sass mentioned something that almost made me scratch my head. I am in fact against government getting involved in personal lives. However, this is not an example of that. Yes, in this particular case the employer happens to be the government but this is a case of employer/employee relations. The government is getting into its employees lives and the employees can find another job if they do not like it.

Then some things were mentioned where police and heavy machinery operators were tested and I got the impression this was acceptable (at least to Sass?) but I have to seriously ask, if drugs affect a cops job performance, if they affect a heavy machine operators job, then they must certainly affect all other jobs as well? Are you claiming these few occupations matter because drug use could affect peoples lives and safety? (I would assume so) well, that simply shows drugs do affect a job, it's ok for me to be stoned out of my mind sitting behind my desk and ordering wrong crap for work? The company can certainly be harmed but nobody is at risk of me killing them so it doesn't matter? Seems to me if drugs affect some jobs negatively, then they affect all jobs negatively and the company should have every right to test. You simply can't decide who is going to be MORE affected now can you???? (well, somehow it seems you can and that blows me away)

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Sassenach wrote: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.

Well how about if I, as an individual person, find drug use to be a serious character flaw and those that do so to be immoral and weak, do not want to employ those that use drugs whether it effects their job performance or not. Should I not, as a private employer, have the right to decide what criteria I use to hire a person?

So your position is that everything in an employees life is open to the employers scrutiny if he so choses and the only option for the eployee is to accept or quit ?

GMTom wrote: Are you claiming these few occupations matter because drug use could affect peoples lives and safety? (I would assume so) well, that simply shows drugs do affect a job, it's ok for me to be stoned out of my mind sitting behind my desk and ordering wrong crap for work? The company can certainly be harmed but nobody is at risk of me killing them so it doesn't matter? Seems to me if drugs affect some jobs negatively, then they affect all jobs negatively and the company should have every right to test. You simply can't decide who is going to be MORE affected now can you???? (well, somehow it seems you can and that blows me away)

It's not about people showing up stoned for work. It's about wether you can drug test an employee without his work performance being unsatisfactory.

but if you agree it can affect a cops job?
Heavy equipment operator?
a soldier?
a Teacher?

If you agree these people can be tested, then you have trouble explaining why it would not apply to any other. If it's ok for one, it has to be ok for all. And I have trouble accepting you have no problems with letting at least some of these occupations skate by without random drug testing... maybe you do have no problem? I don't see it myself.

and it certainly is about showing up stoned at work, employers don't want that to happen so they help assure it doesn't happen by having such testing. Let me ask you, do you have no problem with cops who use drugs? You don't think it would affect their jobs adversely? If it does affect THEM adversely, how can you turn around and claim it would not affect a cashier or a purchasing agent or a crosswalk guard or a trucker or a warehouse worker. If you think it affects a cop, how can you claim it would not affect any other? Because he has a gun? ...but it affects him adversely, therefore if it;s simply about the deadliness about the ill affect, it's still agreeing work is affected in a bad way now isn't it?

Well how about if I, as an individual person, find drug use to be a serious character flaw and those that do so to be immoral and weak, do not want to employ those that use drugs whether it effects their job performance or not. Should I not, as a private employer, have the right to decide what criteria I use to hire a person?

No. In this case your rights as an individual to hold certain moral beliefs would be trumped by the rights of your employees to privacy. I'm not saying that you can't fire somebody if you happen to discover that they're a drug user, simply that you can't force them to submit to a test to find out what they're doing in their private lives. Their private life is none of your concern.

Your argument is also a dangerous one because it opens up all sorts of other avenues for discrimination. Substitute 'drug use' for 'homosexuality' or 'voting Republican' and tell me how you feel about it then. If you, as an individual person, feel that voting Republican is a serious character flaw and that all people who vote Republican are immoral and weak should you have the right to insist on accompanying them to the voting booth to ensure that they vote Democrat ?

Or how about a less frivolous example. Let's say you consider sex out of wedlock to be fundamentally immoral and indicative of a serious charcter flaw. Should you as an employer be entitled to demand that all unmarried female employees submit to a test to see if they have an intact hymen ?

Then some things were mentioned where police and heavy machinery operators were tested and I got the impression this was acceptable (at least to Sass?) but I have to seriously ask, if drugs affect a cops job performance, if they affect a heavy machine operators job, then they must certainly affect all other jobs as well? Are you claiming these few occupations matter because drug use could affect peoples lives and safety? (I would assume so) well, that simply shows drugs do affect a job, it's ok for me to be stoned out of my mind sitting behind my desk and ordering wrong crap for work? The company can certainly be harmed but nobody is at risk of me killing them so it doesn't matter? Seems to me if drugs affect some jobs negatively, then they affect all jobs negatively and the company should have every right to test. You simply can't decide who is going to be MORE affected now can you???? (well, somehow it seems you can and that blows me away)

Of course drug use might impair all job performance. I didn't dispute that, although I'd argue that in most cases it doesn't really have much of an impact. The reason I'd allow testing for certain jobs is simply that the level of risk to the individual and more pertinently to others around them is significantly greater if they're not operating with a clear head. If your job involves working heavy machinery or driving a school bus or handling firearms then you could potentially cause serious injury or death if your thinking is impaired by the hangover effects of private drug use. It's the severity of the risk that causes your right to privacy to be trumped by a more serious concern. My point is that an employer should have to justify his invasion of your privacy on stronger grounds than simply 'this guy might cost me a few dollars'.

Your point about turning up stoned to work is not really relevant because in that circumstance your private drug use would be impinging upon your work, causing you to underperform. If you're screwing up at work then your boss has every right to fire you for it. Your boss doesn't have the right to force you to surrender your privacy so that he can make a pre-judgment of whether you're likely to screw up, not unless you're working in a dangerous field where you may pose a risk to the safety of others.

GMTom wrote:
If you agree these people can be tested, then you have trouble explaining why it would not apply to any other. If it's ok for one, it has to be ok for all. And I have trouble accepting you have no problems with letting at least some of these occupations skate by without random drug testing... maybe you do have no problem? I don't see it myself.

I actually don't think they should be randomly drug tested without cause. If you see signs of impairment (be it sickness, drug abuse, alcohol, i don't care what) or suspect drug use for other reasons go ahead check it out, otherwise bugger off.
Why should they basically have to prove that they are fit to do their job if they never have shown themselves to be untrustworthy before ?

GMTom wrote:and it certainly is about showing up stoned at work, employers don't want that to happen so they help assure it doesn't happen by having such testing.

The employer has the option to fire you and you face the threat of being fired if you show up stoned to work.

GMTom wrote:Let me ask you, do you have no problem with cops who use drugs? You don't think it would affect their jobs adversely? If it does affect THEM adversely, how can you turn around and claim it would not affect a cashier or a purchasing agent or a crosswalk guard or a trucker or a warehouse worker. If you think it affects a cop, how can you claim it would not affect any other? Because he has a gun? ...but it affects him adversely, therefore if it;s simply about the deadliness about the ill affect, it's still agreeing work is affected in a bad way now isn't it?

Of course i'd assume that being under the influence while performing any task will alter the level of your performance (depending on the drug). I never claimed otherwise, nor am i supporting working in any occupation stoned. I'm saying you can't blanket test people and fine them, because they drank or took other drugs during their off hours. You usually detect drugs long after their buzz wore off.

I don't want the government snooping in my private life and i don't want my employer to check on my marital status, wether i have children out of wedlock, like to drink in my time off, skydive or anything else.
I mean for the same reason i could argue gun owners ought to be randomly drug tested, they might shoot someone up. The only difference would be one is the government and another a private enterprise. Who invades my privacy really doesn't matter as much as the fact that it's invaded.

Sassenach wrote:Or how about a less frivolous example. Let's say you consider sex out of wedlock to be fundamentally immoral and indicative of a serious charcter flaw.

These cases are happening.
http://gothamist.com/2008/07/30/judge_rules_church_can_fire_teacher.php

There are others as well. All have accepted character as a precept of employment. The cases are being upheld. The interesting thing about the situations brought up (homosexuality, voting Republican, etc) is that they are not illegal. If a person came out of the closet, did not have character as a condition of employment, and was fired; there would be a problem. Same with voting for a Republican. It is not illegal to vote.

It is not illegal to get pregnant, but she signed a 'Honor code", and violated that.

Drug use is illegal and can be discriminated against. Show me where an employer is not allowed to test employees for drugs. The Federal, State, and Local governments do it. Businesses do it all over the world.

I know you think it is OK to partake in drug use. Fine. The employers are not required to think the same way you do. You are not required to work for an employer who doesn't either. Tom gave an example of a business who does not require employees to pass drug tests. That is fine also.

Exactly what I am saying. The employer/employee make the choices.

bbauska wrote:I know you think it is OK to partake in drug use. Fine. The employers are not required to think the same way you do. You are not required to work for an employer who doesn't either. Tom gave an example of a business who does not require employees to pass drug tests. That is fine also.

They might very well like to, same as they'd probably love to have lots more information on their employers, they aren't allowed or seriously impeded by the law for example in Germany and rightly so in my opinion.
What i really won't ever get is how it's always the republican/conservatives who cry so much about the intrusive state that are okay with basically everything a private company does. Personally i really don't like to be buggered over in general and i certainly don't prefer it to be by private companies.

Sassenach wrote:[No. In this case your rights as an individual to hold certain moral beliefs would be trumped by the rights of your employees to privacy. I'm not saying that you can't fire somebody if you happen to discover that they're a drug user, simply that you can't force them to submit to a test to find out what they're doing in their private lives. Their private life is none of your concern.
{snip}
Or how about a less frivolous example. Let's say you consider sex out of wedlock to be fundamentally immoral and indicative of a serious charcter flaw. Should you as an employer be entitled to demand that all unmarried female employees submit to a test to see if they have an intact hymen?

Absolutely if it is a private business. It's called a moral turpidity clause. It's my business and I can do what I want with it.

Further, drug use is, in my opinion, in a special category. A worker can come to work impaired and not have anybody know it. Further, continued drug use can cause non-impaired effect. Your friend the stoner VP is a great anectdotal story. I have one just like it. A Fraternity brother would smoke an ounce of pot every 2 days. He would fall asleep with a bowl on his chest and the first thing he would do when he woke up in the morning was take a toke. Yet, he was able to maintain ad 3.8GPA. However, as our friends in the climate change thread like to say anectdotes don't mean anything. Science tells us that long term drug use effects things like productivity even when not impaired.

The State should absolutely stay out of peoples everyday lives. What we have here is an employer (in the example of Florida, the employer happens to be the state, this example is not one of the state but rather of an employers rights)
This fits conservative values quite well, recreational drug use is not embraced by conservatives, conservatives are also more pro business, it absolutely makes sense why conservatives would accept such testing. It also follow that liberals are against it, they are more pro union (anti business) and more for rights of people to use drugs if they so desire.
Attempting to make this an issue of state interference is not looking at the real issues.

Does Sassenach and Faxmonkey believe in performance based employment in the case of teachers, the NEA and other unions? Certainly the NEA does not.

OK, our liberal thinking pals tell us drugs affecting ones job can be ignored.
...Based on the premise that testing for them is a supposed intrusion.

They tell us if the drug use is noticed, then it might matter since their performance is affected but we are left with no way of proving such use.

And Brad points out, teachers unions are to be protected, so drug use doesn't matter nor does performance matter. So Liberals seem to think anything goes? Jobs for life regardless of drug use, performance, anything else I'm missing?

If it's a government employee I say go apeshit with the drug testing, fine them, imprison them, etc. They get their pockets lined each month exercising the police powers of the State, they can follow their own rules.

As for private business, it's a matter of competition, if one employer is wasting money on testing and losing out on good employees as Sass suggests then another employer will pick them up and profit from it.

Some offices block internet access and others give their employees lots of freedom and judge on results. Some employers have their employees work from home at hours of their own choosing, Others keep cameras on their employees at all times. McDonalds cares absolutely nothing about employees, they have a very precise method and you are either a good little drone or you get sent on your way. Google on the other hand looks for results, wants employees that can expand and develop the company. It's not the State's place to get involved in deciding the merits of either. If you employed Ke$ha you might want to test to ensure that she kept her drunken whore binge going as that's what drives her profitability.