and no one irl even has the decency to agree with me because it’s so fucking drilled into the culture that these fucking BuNsInNesSes have a Right to do this because it’s a bSUsniEss. like oh yeah they have an office building so they definitely get to analyze my piss because they say they want to. sick fucking freaks.
preaching to the choir a bit on lemmy (or i would hope so at least) but still
It’s stupid because most jobs are so fucking dull and easy, being on drugs is the only way to get any stimulation at them.
So what’s the alternative? Have employees in an altered state attempting to do their jobs? Recreational drug users love to play the victim because they don’t think their use negatively affects anyone, much in the same way a drunk driver thinks they can drive fine while drunk.
not invade everyone’s privacy because you’re pretending there’s some tremendous concern here. you’re playing the victim right now acting like it’s dangerous and offensive that a Recreational Drug User in an Altered State could commit the horrible crime of trying to hold down a job despite chemical dependency and people like you trying to make their lives harder at every turn
Oh. So people who operate heavy equipment aren’t at risk of causing harm if they’re under the influence?
Besides that, I didn’t say I agreed with doing it. I asked for an alternative.
Have employees in an altered state attempting to do their jobs?
Yes. If you need lab analysis to figure out if they’re doing drugs then I’m pretty sure they’ll be fine getting their work done.
I imagine the lab analysis is for proof that they’re doing drugs. Could you imagine what it might be like without that proof?
Either:
A) you couldn’t be fired while operating heavy machinery in an altered state
Or
B) you could be fired without proof of drug use.
Both seem shitty to me.
You drive better when you’ve had a couple?
In Canada (and I think in most of the world) it’s illegal to randomly test employees unless you have reasonable cause.
Testing of an individual employee may be allowed in specific cases where there is reasonable cause to believe the employee is impaired by drugs or alcohol while on duty or is unable to work safely due to impairment from alcohol or drugs.
Pre-hire and pre-site-access are both still legal though
I run a manufacturing business; you oversimplify.
Quite coincidentally my HR person came to me just an hour ago and told me that two people have complained of a coworker smoking on breaks and at lunch and being high on the job.
He drives a heavy forklift. Am I to ignore the situation? If I do I expose my employees to danger and my small business to lawsuits.
How are the employees that reported it supposed to react if I say “Whatever, that’s his business.”
To a large extent businesses have their hands tied by the rules and laws of society.
But what you are saying is probable cause. I think the OP complains about random testing without any justification.
In your example, even if you were not legally entitled to carry out a drug test, you could simply call the police and let them do the check.
Random tests could be fairer and avoid discrimination or prejudicial testing.
Random tests are used as discriminatory and prejudicial testing.
They are never actually random.
That’s a very easily solvable problem
Unless your idea is to use a daily meeting where a d100 is rolled ro determines who is tested today in front of everyone you cannot really rule out any suspicion for bias.
You just came up with a single super simple way to do it. I’m sure there’s loads of other solutions that offer similar sort of randomness with more convenience.
And remember, we’re comparing this to people asking to be tested on a hunch. Do you not think these randomness measures are better for fighting bias and discrimination, or is the issue that you can’t have 100% always free of bias randomness?
My union pays you $100 if you get hit with a random. They’re also the ones who issue them. Not my employer
This is kinda nice
Random drops are how you catch functionals before they fuck up and cost business.
Not really, the person could refuse and the cops can’t do anything unless it’s operated in public which most forklifts are not.
I’ve also worked a lot in heavy industry and if choices were. I’d rather have drug testing at an interval than not, and alcohol blow test every morning.
Narcotics, and alcohol, do not belong in the workplace and I dispise apologists. Then I’m also biased against since I’ve seen too many ruin their lives catching the next high or dying of it. A bit irrelevant to your post but it really rustles my jimmies.
deleted by creator
You’re being so naive. I can’t get involved in the personal lives of all of my employees, nor is it my place. I’m running a business, which from the sound of it you’ve never done. It takes a lot more effort than you seem to think. A lot.
Hell, in some ways it’s not even legal for me to ask about an employee’s personal life.
I treat my employees well. I have a chef on staff and they get a free lunch every day in a cafeteria. I pay competitively. I didn’t lose a single employee through the pandemic and have employees that have been with my company for 10-20 years. It’s a damn good place to work. Not every problem an employee has stems from a shit work environment.
Malignant task-master? Out of touch with reality? I know Leemy is anti-capitalism, but it may surprise you to learn that not every employer is rolling in profits and lighting cigars with 100 dollar bills. I work damn hard and have employees that have a higher take home pay than I do. Every day is a challenge.
This reads like the world is 100% at fault for your personal problems.
This is a big reason why rational people grow out of the far-left academia: not everything is capitalism’s fault.
deleted by creator
“Rational people grow out of far left academia” - what a provable statement this person said. Certainly doesn’t sound made up in the moment they were writing the comment.
An employer is not a therapist. No small business owner should have to play guidance counselor for their employees.
This was more common back in the days, but the issue is that it will result in societal inefficiencies like alcoholics not getting better. Best is nipping it before it gets a lot worse.
This is why in other countries there are a lot of responsibilities as an employer and they need to help with either private or public healthcare.
I’m going to guess that the “other countries” you mentioned also have functional and affordable health care systems?
Yes, my point was that it can be good for society to burden eachother too. Especially where we’re supposed to earn our daily living, look out for people
Give me a functional healthcare system and I’m down with assigning companies more responsibility.
In Sweden the responsibility comes first, the company are liable for the employee if they don’t take action and know about the substance abuse (for example). And I think the US at least had some laws prohibiting like that, but maybe I’m thinking of wrongful termination
They are neither the fucking police, and here you are drug testing people
I don’t drug test at my business, but if two of my long-term employees come to HR and flat-out tell me that another of their recently-hired coworkers is smoking at breaks and at lunch my hands are legally pretty tied.
I can’t ignore it.
Are there criminal charges following a drug test?
No.
Bad example.
If negative drug tests are a condition for employment, you’ve agreed to them as part of employment. Being let go because you broke a condition for employment is on you.
You are welcome to find jobs where there are no drug tests, or start your own company with that ethos in mind.
deleted by creator
I appreciate my employers policy - you get one free pass if you attend therapy following a positive drug test. A second positive and you’re out.
We do randomly get tested regularly.
I imagine for the pay.
They’re operating heavy machinery, not flipping burgers.
He’s operating heavy machinery while on drugs? I guarantee you he’s signed employment agreement papers saying he wouldn’t do that. He broke an agreement for employment. He should be out. Best of luck to him and I hope he finds a company you’ve started that accepts folks operating heavy machinery while on drugs. Hope the insurance costs aren’t too high because the employees are ;)
Many of the drug tests don’t check for drugs currently in your system. Many of them are akin to checking your liver levels to see if you’ve had alcohol at all in the past week.
Also, what a massive straw man.
Sure…but it’s not on him. Realistically, there’s:
- The insurance company that has the restriction (required by law)
- Lawmakers that make the law putting anyone under the influence responsible for any accidents, and by extension the company for letting it happen (if they knew)
I wouldn’t necessarily blame this guy, but our elected officials. If anyone’s to blame, it’s mostly Republicans (and Democrats in the early 90s) for pushing these laws so hard.
Okay, see, now this is the sort of nuance that I think is good for the discussion!
All it does is punish addicts trying to get back on their feet. For anyone else, you can just get a drink to clear you out the day before or just pretend that your prescription medications are causing a false positive.
I worked for a US company in the past and in my contract there was a phrase that I’m going to paraphrase. “Can be sent to unannounced drug tests (US only)”
This isn’t a worldwide issue.
You know teachers are never drug tested in the US.
Neither should they be unless there is a suspected problem.
I would have to be high AF to take on that much responsibility for such little pay.
Thanks Reagan. Fun fact, in the mid 80’s Reagan’s administration did a big study to show how effective drug testing in the workplace was, and how much it raised productivity. When they got the results back, it found productivity had dropped, and workplace safety hadn’t changed. The results said the program was a complete failure. They tried to bury the report and not release it. Rolling Stone magazine sued the government to get a copy, since it was made with public money, and won. They were the only media outlet to publish the results.
Happen to have a link? That sounds interesting but my Google fu is weak today and couldn’t find it.
I think this was it, but I’m not sure. Google has decided it would rather be an adservice than a search engine.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/why-drug-testing-bad-idea
The rest of the studies I have found say that drug-testing is simply ineffective and bad for morale.
Source ChatGPT Web Scan:
The claim about the Reagan administration conducting a study in the mid-1980s to demonstrate the effectiveness of workplace drug testing, and then trying to bury its negative results, is not supported by the available historical records.
The Reagan administration’s drug policies in the 1980s, particularly under the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, focused primarily on increasing penalties for drug possession, creating minimum sentences for drug-related offenses, and addressing the crack cocaine epidemic. These policies were criticized for creating a racial and class imbalance in drug-related punishments and for being ineffective in addressing the systemic causes of drug abuse [❞] [❞] [❞] [❞].
Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign, which began in the early 1980s, aimed to spread awareness of the dangers of drug use, especially among youth. However, this campaign was criticized for oversimplifying the solution to drug abuse and for being largely ineffective in preventing adolescent drug use [❞].
There is no information available in the sources reviewed about a specific study on workplace drug testing being conducted and its results being suppressed by the Reagan administration, nor about Rolling Stone magazine suing the government for its release. The focus of the Reagan administration’s drug policies seemed more oriented towards legislative measures and public awareness campaigns rather than workplace drug testing studies.
Except in military environments (which I think correlate to environments where heavy equipment is in use). https://prhome.defense.gov/Portals/52/Documents/RFM/Readiness/DDRP/docs/72208/DoD Drug Policy History.pdf
My company does not do drug tests and never has. Someone asked the owner why and he said ‘Id lose a lot of good people’
I worked for one place like that. I worked in another place, in the same industry, where they decided to drug test all their employees one day. They lost everyone from 3rd shift, and everyone from 2nd shift except my supervisor and myself.
After that, they rapidly started to lose customers…
Did they really expect 3rd shift people to be clean lol
My current job and a different job I had, didn’t drug test people. Current job has a few stoners at the upper levels so they just don’t test people. The other company was very small, was mostly developers, and had a high bar for getting an interview, so they knew that also going “also you have to be clean” wasn’t a good idea to do to developers especially after recreational pot became legal.
Honestly I’ve seen a lot less dev jobs do drug testing since it whittles down too many otherwise perfectly competent employees.
Sounds like you work for a good company, at least with respect to drug testing.
They’re good people who take good care of me.
This is what companies used to be like and why people worked at a job for 40+ years
I work in consulting so we often have to follow the rules that our clients impose on us. I once did IT work for a large utility company, who tested all of their employees since they have people operating heavy machinery and working in dangerous situations. One of the people that failed the test was the Client Engagement Lead (the highest ranked person on our project). Fortunately the client realized that IT workers don’t need to be held to the same standards as someone operating dangerous equipment and allowed them to retake the test.
Most recently, one of our clients thought we were drug testing our consultants but then realized we weren’t. So they told us we’d have to all get tested, even though many of us had been working for them for years. They, smartly, gave us a 3 week notice of when the testing would be.
Like ok maybe drug testing someone who is driving/flying a bunch of people around…I kinda get it. Safety of the public etc.
But drug testing at an office job? Come fucking on. That’s political face. Nothing more.
But CEOs have a lot of responsibility. That’s why they deserve the high salaries. We can’t have them coming into work and dropping the stock price by making huge mistakes that effect all of the employees and stock- holders. So, yeah, drug testing.
Yes but that drug testing is to ensure that they keep their cocaine levels high enough. It draws concern if it gets to low and god forbid they gain perspective instead of acting like a drug addict looking for coins in the couch cushions.
Do companies really drug test office workers? I’m in the US, work in an office and have never been drug tested by any company I’ve worked for in the last 10 years
They are moving away from it. As they should. Most alcoholics and drug addicts are people that have the money to do so. Meaning they already work somewhere and haven’t been tested in ages. At least in my observation. There are the homeless with those issues, but I don’t think they are the ones applying to most jobs that are being talked about here.
Not all jobs drug test in the USA, if you get onboarded for a job that does eventually test, refuse, and if they have an issue with it, decide if it’s worth your time to fight them over it or walk away and start the slow job hunt grind again. You don’t have to work for a company that tests, that is ultimately a choice you make. A common issue however with finding jobs that don’t drug test is that you’re going to be footing your bills for all standard healthcare plan costs and such. No biggie if you value your urine privacy!
What a bootlicker comment. “You don’t need to be drug tested if you don’t want to, just be prepared to leave most jobs on the spot losing any job stability and never have health insurance. No big deal” How’s the leather taste?
My last job didn’t test, the one prior didn’t, and my current one doesn’t. Job stability is as stable as being able to get hired, and I pay for health insurance like everyone else. My Jordan’s are like yours, so neither of us wear leather.
I’m not American. I don’t get drug tested. I don’t pay for health insurance. I think the whole concept is insane, I’m surprised that your reaction is to accept the system and work within it as if it’s fine without even acknowledging the inherent insanity.
I understand the confusion now, good for you! Be grateful you’re not here! I think the concept is insane too and I don’t accept it for what it is, but that doesn’t change what adults have to do. Unless you’re the do-what-you-want gov-dodging tax-evasion-suggesting riot-in-the-street kind of player. Just because someone is not happy with the systems in place does not mean they cannot take actions within it in a calm manner.
Damn, América really is crazy. I wouldn’t accept such tests and I’ve never even tried drugs.
Depends what your job was. If you’re my 747 pilot I would be outraged if you refused a drugs test when asked.
There’s a time and a place for regulated drugs tests.
Here is one guy who should’ve been drug tested before doing any work. “Several of his friends recalled him going to work after a night of doing drugs, with one of them saying he would never allow Duntsch to operate on him.”
deleted by creator
The best (worst?) quote was the doctor who said that Duntsch acted in one surgery as if he was deliberately trying to do the opposite of everything you are supposed to. That made him think it was deliberate and not just being “out of it” or incompetent.
You’re right, but also it’s to get cheaper business insurance. Because businesses that don’t test have to pay more to insure themselves. If you own a business, you have to buy insurance for the business to ensure that if your business gets sued, it’s the business that takes the hit, not you personally.
Ding ding ding.
Everything boils down to cost and money eventually
It really depends on the position and what they’re testing for. Do you really want a heavy machinery operator to be a cokehead or heroin addict? There is a real risk of them killing someone. Testing someone in a job like IT for smoking weed? That’s a different story.
Also a lot of the time they only test you post-hiring if you fucked up somehow.
It can definitely be used against people (usually the disenfranchised) though to prevent them being hired or to get them fired.
The place I work will fire you on the spot if you test positive for marijuana. Marijuana is legal in this state. If I smoke on the weekend, and then test positive on Wednesday, I lose my job.
However, if I get ripple-dee-doo-dah shit-faced Tuesday night, come in on Wednesday miserably hung over, I’ll pass that piss test. And still be more impaired than I would be from that joint I had Saturday night.
As a long time stoner, I agree that we are targeted more than nonusers simply because THC hangs out in the body a lot longer than other drugs. It would take me months to piss clean just so I could get a job at something like Family Dollar. It doesn’t matter if I was a drunk or did an 8 ball of coke a few days ago because that wouldn’t show up in a drug test.
deleted by creator
Yeah but the half life for alcohol is way shorter than weed.
Even worse, alcohol is “zero order kinetics” meaning there is no halving, it gets fully metabolized in a given timespan.
Ya if a worker fucking up can directly result in someone dying, I’m not opposed to testing for hard drugs. They also only stay in your system for a few days so if someone can’t pass that, then you can probably find a better fit
deleted by creator
Wow you are exactly what he is complaining about. It’s not like the guy is coding live and each keystroke goes directly to the machine. What risk is it to people if a couple years ago one of the guys typing keys that would later get tested like crazy was high?
deleted by creator
I mean, there are applications where that could be the case. I program PLC’s for a living. Sometimes on live machines running in a plant.
I don’t agree with his overall viewpoint, but he does have a point in this case.
deleted by creator
Bro I knew what safe practices are. But the point being that it is entirely possible.
I work in IT and about half the workforce smokes weed. I worked at a high frequency stock trading firm in NYC that made hundreds of millions of dollars per year and tons of the developers were high during work hours. We had quarterly open bar parties where the CEO himself would openly smoke weed.
Being high on THC doesn’t have the same effect on someone that is drunk, all coked up, or doped up on opiates. Smoking weed tends to open up people’s creative sides and it reduces stress and anxiety when something isn’t working the way you want it to. The same can’t be said for the others because they impair your ability to focus, your vision, and decision making.
Also as someone else said, there are only a few positions where being high as hell can seriously impact the company. Most of the time the stuff you do doesn’t have that much of an impact on the company in general.
I said this elsewhere in the thread- unless you are also giving random breathalyzers, this is a ridiculous and hypocritical policy because lots of people drink before going to work. And they’d be drunk right then and there, not at some unspecified point before the test was taken.
