From page 1 of the thread:

Sassenach wrote:If they're not doing a job where drug use could have public safety implications then it's none of their employer's business.

That pretty much sums it up for me, with the slight addition that any employer should be permitted to dismiss an employee who has given demonstrable grounds for suspecting that (1) there is a drug problem and (2) the drug problem is or could interfere with the employer's business, if that employee refuses to be tested. If those elements are not present, it's none of the employer's business unless the job involves health or safety. I would go along with mandatory drug testing for pilots, cops, firefighters, teachers, doctors, nurses, anyone involved in food or drug preparation, construction, and so on.

Of course, the same rationale leads me to believe that parents of pre-adolescents should submit to regular government drug testing. Maybe two or three randomly chosen times a year? Would the other pro-testing posters go along with me on that?

A couple problems with the government testing, Heck Tate:
1: A business is paying for the test with it''s own money (the Gov't uses the people's money)
2: Parents would be forced into testing (as opposed to choice)

The government does not have Constitutional Authority to test
Employees are not being forced into testing

I think that is a person went to the government for Welfare assistance, and the Government wanted to test recipient prior to giving benefits, that would be more of precise comparison.

Well, I reckon the government uses the people's money to address other issues of safety and well being. Protecting children from drug-addled parents strikes me as just as important a use for tax dollars as, for instance, the Ride program in Ontario.

Insofar as the mandatory part goes, I suppose you could tie it to something like driver's licenses or car insurance. Arguably, there's a more pressing public interest in making sure that people who drive with kids in their cars are clean and sober. That way, the vast majority of parents would get tested. The non-drivers would have to get swept up under some other rubric.

Considering some of the drivers that I have seen in many states (Sorry Steve) that might not be too far from the realm of reality. Is it in the US Government's scope? Not by any documents I have seen. (Not that has stopped politicians before)

So Heck Tate agrees drug use affects one job adversely, he says so in his suggestion it only matters where public safety is at stake. This caveat tells us he agrees drug use affects ones job performance. But we are to ignore this unless safety is at stake, performance be damned?
also, teachers? I guess they can come to work stoned since nobody's safety is at risk? They may not do a good job of teaching ...and the union will prevent them from being fired for poor performance, so teachers can come to work stoned, not be tested and their poor performance also be protected (and have summers off....ah the life of a teacher)

Teachers don't need to be public employees, a voucher system would eliminate that issue. Then you'd choose schools on which best appeared to serve your child's particular needs. If a school offered better services because it's teachers were drug screened, then so be it.

GMTom wrote:So Heck Tate agrees drug use affects one job adversely, he says so in his suggestion it only matters where public safety is at stake. This caveat tells us he agrees drug use affects ones job performance. But we are to ignore this unless safety is at stake, performance be damned?

What I actually said, Tom, was:

any employer should be permitted to dismiss an employee who has given demonstrable grounds for suspecting that (1) there is a drug problem and (2) the drug problem is or could interfere with the employer's business, if that employee refuses to be tested

I don't know how you get "performance be damned" from that statement.

GMTom wrote:also, teachers? I guess they can come to work stoned since nobody's safety is at risk?

Not sure if you're still replying to me, but what I said was:

I would go along with mandatory drug testing for pilots, cops, firefighters, teachers, doctors, nurses, anyone involved in food or drug preparation, construction, and so on.

In other words, I'm not sure we're disagreeing here.

Neal Anderth wrote:Teachers don't need to be public employees, a voucher system would eliminate that issue. Then you'd choose schools on which best appeared to serve your child's particular needs. If a school offered better services because it's teachers were drug screened, then so be it.

Public or private, if a teacher is responsible for the safety of minors, he should be drug tested. That pretty much covers K-12, with a few 18-19 year old exceptions here and there.

Heck,

You start of by saying you agree with Sass's comment that drug testing in only implicated when public safety is an issue and then expand it to include health work. You list a group of professions that should be subject to mandatory drug testing based on these two categories, i.e. public safety and health. You include teachers in that list.

Tom is questioning that because they don't seem to fall into public safety, i.e. police, fire, pilots, construction, or health, i.e. Doctors, nurses, EMS, people involved in food and drug prep. I have to tend to agree with him. Why are teachers included in that list?

Also how far into food prep workers would you require mandatory testing. Just at the processing plants or those that serve the food. Do McDonald's employees have to be subject to mandatory testing. After all they are in food service.

Archduke Russell John wrote:You list a group of professions that should be subject to mandatory drug testing based on these two categories, i.e. public safety and health. You include teachers in that list.

A teacher in a classroom full of minors is in loco parentis and responsible for the health and safety of his students. Teachers are often the sole supervising adults in various situations that can lead to health and safety hazards, including sporting events, machine operation, and field trips to anywhere from other cities to other continents. In some respects, it's a heavier safety burden than the typical cop on the beat, since the teacher is always dealing with minors whereas the cop can at least count on the rational behaviour of his charges some of the time.

Also how far into food prep workers would you require mandatory testing. Just at the processing plants or those that serve the food. Do McDonald's employees have to be subject to mandatory testing. After all they are in food service.

Definitely food processing and safety inspection regimes. I don't know how sick a poorly handled McDonald's meal can make you. Ceteris paribus, the test for me would be all about the worst that could likely happen.

and once again, you prove drugs indeed do have an adverse affect on job performance or else it simply would not matter. So why are we allowed (in your view) to test some but not others when you are agreeing it harms your performance. If you can point to something affecting your job and you can test for it, then why oh why is it wrong for an employer to watch out for his best interests.

And here's an example, where do you draw the line?
The food service example was just made, how about this one:
I am a purchasing manager, I sit behind a desk most of the day. According to several here, that "type" of job should not be subjected to such testing?
Every so often I need to visit vendors for various reasons, if I were on drugs and got into an accident in my own car while on company time, the company is liable for my actions. So their not testing me caused them possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars. Such visits are not all that common but they are not rare either and how many jobs can we point to that are just the same?

I have to agree with Tom on this one. Your whole premise is that as long as employees are not coming to work impaired is shouldn't matter what they do in their private life because that is no effect on performance when not stoned/drunk.

However, you immediately contradict this by listing a group that should be subject to mandatory drug testing. So either, you are saying non-impaired performance is impacted by drug use or you are saying that drug users can't help but come to work impaired so all should be tested before being hired.

So why can't I as a private employer test for drugs because those drug users can't help but come to work under the influence.

GMTom wrote:If you can point to something affecting your job and you can test for it, then why oh why is it wrong for an employer to watch out for his best interests.

Where did I say that it was wrong for an employer to watch out for his best interests? I only said that the threshold should involve a reasonable suspicion that the employee has a drug habit that is interfering with performance. Otherwise, where do you draw the line, Tom? Should the employer have access to the employee's family? After all, marital troubles can seriously conflict with an employee's ability to focus on job tasks. How about a mandatory psychiatric evaluation? All things being equal, I draw the line at obvious signs of a habit interfering with performance. Where's yours?

Archduke Russell John wrote:Your whole premise is that as long as employees are not coming to work impaired is shouldn't matter what they do in their private life because that is no effect on performance when not stoned/drunk.

However, you immediately contradict this by listing a group that should be subject to mandatory drug testing.

Since when is an exception a contradiction?

The problem with "reasonable suspicion" opens the door for discrimination. A random drug testing policy or better yet, a full testing program for all employees avoids such messiness.

BTW Heck Tate,
Do you think the employer has the right to set standards for employment, as long as they are used equally on all employees?