Group 1 - Mandatory Corporate
Drug Testing
.
Instructions: Discuss your views, opinions, and
supporting arguments on the issue of mandatory corporate drug testing.
Support your comments with your experiences, values and supporting arguments
from readings and research. Post at least three messages to your
group discussion each week (from Tuesday to following Tuesday), and try
to reply to other's comments and questions. After you've discussed a range
of viewpoints, compare, contrast & evaluate views and arguments to
establish a common ground & understanding.
Click
here to read about the different ways you can contribute to a group
discussion. For other help, email Allan
Jeong. |
.
Drugs and Workplace - A Real
Life "Case"
by JH
Here's an example for you to wrestle
with, I don't know why I didn't think to bring this up earlier - it is
an absolutely true story.
My father is a production manager
and part owner of a small manufacturing company. There are about 30 employees
total, including office staff of 5 or 6. One of his workers was recently
arrested at work by federal drug authorities for his part in a drug-trafficking
ring a year or so before he was hired. This employee was an excellent,
upstanding worker who passed a drug test when he applied at the company,
and had reportedly been completely clean and sober for almost a year (they
found out after the arrest) prior to the start of his employment there.
After his arrest, the employee was
released on bail pending court date. (His wife was also arrested and immediately
fired from her secretarial job.)
As his employer and a production
manager, WHAT WOULD YOU DO NOW?
Posted on Dec 4, 2000, 11:40 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Give him a second chance!
by KR
Well, for some this migh seam as a naive
answer. But let me see. This employee has been working of me for some time
with perfection. So he as a not so positive background however, he did
seam to get beyond that and is now clean right?
I would offer him help to solve the
pending accusations. Fire him, when his wife is already with out job would
probably mean that they would both get back into trouble. Since he had
worked for me without problems I do not see why I should not help him the
best I can. If he then ends up having to go to jain, well that is not really
anything I can do about that. But do we not all deserve a second change?
If we only believe in the bad things in people nothing is never going to
get better. Since I do not in the first place know why my employee have
got him self into this drug thing - then I should not judge before I know
the whole story.
Since, I can only answer from what
I think I would do. Then a whole other story is how the general polocy
is in the company I work. However, I think it is important that we do not
judge before we know the whole story and then we should still try to understand
and show some compassion for the people that has not been as fortunate
as our self.
Posted on Dec 5, 2000, 12:36 AM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Untitled
by RB
I believe you give a him the benefit
of doubt in this case scenerio.
Since he has been accused but not
convicted, I would put him on leave w/o pay, since he would not be able
to deal with the day to day problems of work and a pending jail sentence.
His job would the depend upon whether he was convicted or acquitted. If
he broke the law and was convicted, he would have to be let go(can't work
while in jail). If he was acquitted, I wouldn't have any grounds to fire
him.
Posted on Dec 5, 2000, 1:45 AM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Give him a second chance
by DC
He had made a mistake. However he was
doing his work efficiently and he seems to have learnt from his mistakes.
Whats the point in punishing him for a mistake he did in the past and which
he is not doing any more. If he does that again, then fire him..but he
deserves a second chance in this situation
Posted on Dec 7, 2000, 11:09 AM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
How would this affect YOU?
by JH
How would this affect you as a manager?
Would you drug test him or put any
other restrictions on his work? Would you let everyone else know what the
situation is?
How would you react on a larger scale
(not just regarding this individual)? Would you change your hiring policies
or implement random drug testing to protect your company?
Posted on Dec 7, 2000, 5:38 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
I would be cautious
by DC
I believe that if the employee made
some mistakes in the past and is now not doing anthing like that..I would
just ignore his mistake. However I would give him the opportunity to address
my employees about his mistake and how he has learnt from that. I would
not try and hide this because I don't want others to seek hidden meanings
to my actions. Will this change my hiring policies....I don't think so.
Like I have said earlier I am not in favor of people using drugs. If I
find that they are using drugs I will fire them...however if they learnt
from their mistakes I will pardon them. If I suspect an employee of using
drugs I will keep a close watch on that employee.
Posted on Dec 10, 2000, 2:26 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Untitled
by RB
That is a tough question. It would depend
on the type of worker he was. I would probably let him go but with special
provision. He could reapply for his job after the trial ( and possibly
doing time). He would have to go through a probationary period of maybe
six months. No need to deny him a job if
a) he didn't commit the crime while
working for me
b) and he was a good worker
Once someone has a record, it is
very difficult to find a job. I would him a second chance to get his life
in order.
Posted on Dec 12, 2000, 7:38 AM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Suggestions for clearification
of standpoints
by KR
What if! we where the pro and the con's
agree and therby we might get some issues singlet out that we then can
agree on or for that matter disagree on.
Issues that we so far have touch
upon
Con
- Privacy of the individual
- division between work and privat
life
- what will it lead to in terms
of constrains from the corporation on your private life
- how will the rights of the individual
be protected?
- mistrust? in relationship
Pro
- interst of the corporation
- productivity and liability
- trust? in relationship
Maybe some of you have something
to add to the list.
Another posibility is that we all
meet - maybe if the discusssion was more freely and at the same time -
it would be easier to negociate something.
Maybe each side could come up with
a priotization of the issues in order to find out if we could work out
a solution with consessions on both sides. Not that we need to agree or
come up with a masterplan for all corporation to follow
Posted on Dec 3, 2000, 6:05 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
good summary of issues
by JK
I appreciate your summation of the issues
we've been discussing and your wish to reach a compromise. However, the
object was to do this all on this message board so we won't be able to
get together to talk this out. In fact, I think both sides have in effect
prioritized the issues in thier discussions. From most of the people in
favor of drug testing I get the sense that they are most concerned with
the interests of the corporation as it pertains to productivity and safety.
On the other side, we tend to have put forth a position based on the importance
of individual rights, which you have continued.
Now, can we agree on a middle ground??
I'm not sure... what do you think of the compromises given so far?
(anyone can answer this question...)
Posted on Dec 4, 2000, 8:49 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
I agree with JK
by JE
I agree with JK in his compromises (03
Dec. message). Actually, I think he's been very flexible so I guess it's
a fair agreement for all of us.
Posted on Dec 5, 2000, 12:05 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Lets reach a compromise based
on JK ideas
by AM
I also agree with JK points, let see
who else agrees so we can reach a compromise...Also, because we only have
less than two weeks, I suggest we all follow the same message(message #7)without
posting a new idea so we can reach an agreement.
AM
Posted on Dec 5, 2000, 10:18 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Compromise??
by JK
Now that we seem to be getting out most
of our points of view how about we start attempting to reach a compromise?
Posted on Nov 29, 2000, 5:13 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Second thougts....
by JE
I think that there are two important
issues that we have discussed:
1)Does it matter if somebody consumes
drugs?
I personally think that it does.
I'm not saying that if somebody consumes drugs is a bad person, I'm just
saying that it's not a person that I wanted to have working in my company.
The reasons are similar to those mentioned before.
2)Do a company has the right to test
its employees?
Legally I think that companies have
the right, at least in Chile. In terms of ethics I think that the main
issue with drug tests is people's privacy. Here I'm not absolutely convinced
about one position or the other. When this discussion started I didn't
see privacy as an issue. Not because I didn't think that privacy was important,
just because in Chile it's not a principle that is as valued as here (in
the States). After some exchange of opinions with JK I thought about it,
and I agree with the idea of giving employees more trust. But, I'm still
thinking that when hiring someone we could use drug tests. After we hire
someone (and they are actually employees), I'm not sure. I guess that it
sounds incongruent, but...
Posted on Nov 30, 2000, 12:16
PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
probably no compromises ever
by DV
i don't think that we will ever reach
a compromise on this issue, as there will probably never be agreements
or voluntary compromises on any debatable issue. i think we can just display
our comments and allow each other to see different points of view.
Posted on Nov 30, 2000, 12:17
PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
You give up easily
by KR
Do not give up just because it does
not go your way. I am sure that we can find some commen ground. The question
is if we can find some issues that we can agree upon or at least is not
that far apart.
Posted on Dec 3, 2000, 5:42 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Solid ideas
by AM
We live in a free country and a free
global economy, companies have the right to take any action to support
their policies and the structure they use to run their companies. After
all, these policies are the base for the company´s success. Now at
days, some companies do test people and others not, so I guess if someone
doesn´t like to be tested then go an apply to another company.
Posted on Nov 30, 2000, 2:10 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
My attempt at a compromise
by JK
In fact AM, I want to agree with you.
We do live in a free society and companies should feel they have the right
to run their companies the way they believe is right and will best guarantee
their success. But when that "right" becomes a right to infrine on others
rights it bothers me. It's like your parents or spouse secretly going through
your things when your not around to make sure your not up to something.
It just conveys a lack of trust.
However, since we are looking for
a compromise I will concede this:
1.) If companies decide to drug screen
during interviews they must be consistent by making sure the applicant
knows it will happen beforehand, doing it for everyone as it will be standard
procedure, and ensuring accuracy by spending an appropriate ammount on
testing (if it's as important as all those in favor contend that shouldn't
be an issue).
2.) No random drug testing.
3.) Any drug testing of an individual
on the job must be after there is sufficient cause to believe he may be
using illeal substances. (remember, I am NOT in favor of using drugs, I
simply do not believe in the arbitrary and insensitive way testing is generally
carried out).
In addition, if it is found that
an employee is using drugs the situation should be handled in a sensitive
manner with concerns for his/her family, reputation, future etc. Addiction
is a disease and should be treated like one. (One potential problem I see
is what constitutes "sufficient cause", but I don't think we have to worry
about that now as long as we can agree on a basic starting point).
Posted on Dec 3, 2000, 2:36 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Excellent Points
by JH
JK -
Great points and a good position
to compromise from. I might argue with point 2 - I feel high security /
public safety professions ought to be able to be tested. However, I could
probably be negotiated away from that.
Points 1 and 3 are excellent. The
latter part of Point 1 is especially important - accuracy (and privacy)
must be maintained. I am in favor of more regulations to control and standardize
drug testing, such as implementing standard protocol, accuracy checks,
lab certification, and mandating that drug tests are done independent of
companies (i.e. at a certified medical site.)
Posted on Dec 3, 2000, 11:11 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Good
by AM
Good points JK, I think we should take
these points as a baseline. Does anyone disagree completely with JK points.
AM
Posted on Dec 5, 2000, 12:36 AM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Untitled
by RB
I agree with JK on the first and second
point.
If companies chose to test applicants
for drugs, this should be made known prior to the first interview. Under
this scenerio, people can decide if it is worth their time continuing the
application process.
The choice will be the applicant
and not the company's and the applicant can bow out the process gracefully.
Since I believe in our fifth admendment
right-the right not to testify against ourselves-any random drug testing
will violate that right.
Posted on Dec 5, 2000, 10:05 AM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
I disagree to point1
by DC
I agree that points 2 and 3 are a compromise
and appear fair. However with respect to point 1, most companies do require
you to take a drug test before employment(at least thats been my experience
so far..I may be wrong). So the question of informing everyone of the requirements
is in place. Just because they let us know in advance does not make it
agreeable. Why should corporations start of by assuming that everyone is
guilty till proven innocent by negative drug tests instead of starting
of by saying everyone is innocent till proven guilty by positive drug tests(which
is what your point 3 addresses). So drug testing should only be done if
there is sufficient reason for doubt
Posted on Dec 7, 2000, 11:16 AM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
I am amazed how you defend
the Corporation
by KR
What is most important to you! Your
self or the corporation. Who' right is most important to you? Your own
or the Corporation? Try to be your self in this discussion and not a corporation.
Try and feel what it would be like to have somebody distrust you and your
capabilities! Try not to be the boss all the time - I mean you do not live
all your life in the company or do you?
Do your soul belong to the corporation
just because you work for it? all you guys that think that this drug testing
is ok. Consider this! I mean I do not hope that all your life is about
is work and the interst of the corporation!
Posted on Dec 3, 2000, 5:47 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Untitled
by JH
My rights are the most important, and
I believe it is my right to be employed in a drug-free workplace.
Posted on Dec 3, 2000, 11:04 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Would you like to be testet?
by KR
Would you like to be testet? or is your
opinion just an expression of your believe that this will never be an issue
for managers? = you!
Yes! you have the right to work in
a drug-free environment, but how do your define as a drug? Because from
all your pro drug testing I get the impression that there is them and us,
maybe I am wrong, but then please tell me how far your think the corporation
can look into your private life. I mean what if your wife was taking some
kind of drug does that mean that it affect you and your performance on
the job?
These questions is for all of you,
not just JH
Posted on Dec 4, 2000, 5:27 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Untitled
by JH
I have been tested several times. Fortunately,
there were no false positives!
I agree that the line needs to be
drawn somewhere, which is why I think there ought to be more regulations
controlling the use and application of drug testing, especially the anonymity
(test away from worksite) and accuracy of the test results.
Posted on Dec 4, 2000, 11:29 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Suggestion for compromise
by AE
Based on must of the comments made so
far, including my own, I would be ready to say that corporate drugtesting
should only be legal and mandatory when: 1) workplace is in certain high-risk
industry - this means that if you are flipping burger at McDonalds then
you wouldn't be faced with this issue 2) When there is clear, independent,
evidence that your job performance is being negatively effected by substance
abuse => "pot smoking" during your private time should not become an issue.
Would this be something that we could
agree on?
Alex
Posted on Nov 30, 2000, 5:42 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Untitled
by DC
Personally I don't agree with the idea
of drug use. But when it comes to using drug testing for hiring purposes,
I see it as an intrusion of privacy and something that gives companies
extra leverage. I agree that we need to solve the problem but again how
do we decide that a particular industry can do with drug addicts or that
a particular one should not have any?
Posted on Dec 1, 2000, 8:03 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Some additional issues
by JK
Up to this point I have based most of
my opposition on the idea that it violates basic human dignity, is a violation
of privacy and an abuse of power that could lead to greater abuses.
I would like to add some more issues.
1) Much of the drug testing that
occurs is done in house and is not regulated causing there to be a significant
amount of innacuracy. This could be a serious problem. Lets say you work
for a company, they test you and get a positive result. You don't do drugs...
How could this happen? It was a mistake. OK, if your lucky they will run
the test again. This time it's negative. Great. Your name is cleared and
no damage done right?? Probably not. From then on people may wonder if
you somehow covered it up the second time and your reputation may be hurt.
2) Some of us have touched on this
already, but I want to know if any of you have any stories about this...
what should happen or what has happened when someone tests positive?
Most of the people that have argued
for drug testing have based their arguements on the fear that if someone
is on drugs they may be violent or at the least, unproductive. However,
if you look at statistics (I don't have them onhand but I'll try to find
some) you will find that most substance orientated work related accidents
are related to alcohol. As was stated earlier, this seems almost hypocritical.
The managers call for drug testing on their employees and then go out for
lunch and have a cocktail. That may be extreme but I know of many that
do drink at lunch. How can this be justified??
Posted on Nov 27, 2000, 5:41 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Agree with JK
by KR
I completly agree with JK about privacy
and the issues about the drinking. I believe that a lot of these issues
will be hard to bring in as a part of the job. What I mean is you job should
not be you identity and you boss should not be giving the roll of Big Brother.
Therefore this thing about getting tested for drugs or other diseases or
alcohol - your personal state of mind should not be part of the job interview
to the extend that it includes issues that has nothing to do with your
job description. ( I hope you understand, despite my bad spelling)
Besides how will you run a business
when you have so little faith in humans that you think you have to make
a drug test before you hire them?
I think that you have a rather pessimistic
view on people - when you more or less accuse them of using drugs before
you hire them. Besides who are you going to build up a trust full relationship
with them?
Posted on Nov 27, 2000, 7:17 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
No, No, No!!
by AM
Consuming drugs is illegal in almost
all countries, as a manager I don´t want to hire a person who is
involved in illegal activities. This would tell me that they have no respect
for the law system and as a consequence their behavior could be the same
inside the company. I would have not trust on this person for two reasons:
how do I know this person will not impact the company performance by being
irresponsible and not doing their work correctly on an important project.
Second, how do I know this person will not be involve in illegal activities
inside the company.
Posted on Nov 27, 2000, 10:46
PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
How do you decide whats illegal?
by DC
I agree that one should not do anything
illegal and so companies should try to take precautions. But it is not
right to give this discretion to the companies. What if a company decides
that people who drink too much tend to be less productive and so it wants
to hire only people who are non-drinkers. Where would you draw the line
then? This might be an extreme scenario but not impossible.
Posted on Nov 27, 2000, 11:13
PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
taking drugs is illegal
by AM
Companies have the right to follow their
own guidelines (as long as they respect the law, if they decide they don't
want people who drink because they are less productive then they have the
right to stop hiring people who drink. After all, its their business and
they will do everything they think will help them succeed.
Here we are talking about drug testing
and for society and companies consuming drugs is illegal.
Posted on Nov 28, 2000, 10:54
PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Where do you stop?
by DC
Agreed that drug use is illegal. But
lets take the case of a person who is abusive towards his pets. That is
illegal too. It suggests that the person's attitude is questionable. But
do you find companies trying to find out about such behavior of a person.
If a person will do his job competently, and is not likely to create trouble
at work, then the company has no reason for discriminating against him.
Posted on Dec 1, 2000, 8:08 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
What problem are corporations
really trying to solve?
by RB
I am not sure that random drug testing
solves the problem of incompetent workers. And I am not sure that there
is a direct (nor single) correlation between drug use and corporate theft.
And what drugs are we talking about
anyway? Is the argument that corporations will only test for illegal drugs
and if it is found in a perspective employee's system the corporation will
act as some citizen police ensuring the good of the public? Or is the argument
broader? Are corporations seeking to pinpoint individuals who are consuming
drugs known to hurt other people directly or indirectly? And if the latter
is true, then these corporations should not only test for illegal drugs
but legal ones as well and on a daily basis and of every employee from
board members to janitors-otherwise it is hypocritical. Or better yet,
lets hand over the responsibility to the governement and have it mandate
drug testing for everyone from zero to death.
For me drug testing is too evasive
and it tends to be discriminating and the results are only as good as the
data.
Randomly testing a pilot for drugs
does not stop the pilot from using them. In fact my pilot could have tested
negative and still have some unknown harmful drug in his system.
Posted on Nov 29, 2000, 11:08
PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
agree
by DV
i agree with everything that JK said.
good points, especially the one about alcohol as i brought up in a different
thread. seems very hypocritical to denounce drug use and then go out for
a cocktail lunch and return to work for an unproductive afternoon in the
office.
Posted on Nov 30, 2000, 12:10
PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Untitled
by JH
(I hit the wrong button and sent the
last one incomplete...)
... companies only receive a "no
pass" if the employee failed twice.
3) I have never had an alcoholic
drink at lunch nor has anyone I have worked with that I have been to lunch
with. The "three martini lunch" is old-time business, long before drug
testing
Posted on Dec 3, 2000, 10:55 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
2 Threads / test prior to
Hire vs. aftrer hire
by JH
I think there are two distinct issues
with drug testing that have been touched upon in these discussions, but
not explicitly separated.
1) Drug testing as a condition of
pre-hire. I am definitely in favor of this one. HOWEVER, there must be
a second test for failures to mitigate the possibility of false positives
2) Random (or for cause) drug testing
after hire. This one I am a little fuzzy on, as I have not experienced
it. I am in favor of drug testing for documented performance issues with
reasonable suspicion of drug use. I am not particularly in favor of random
testing, except perhaps in some of the high safety jobs we've mentioned
(pilots, etc.)
Posted on Nov 26, 2000, 8:42 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Untitled
by KR
So you would accept to be drugt tested
in order to get a job? Do you not se a danger in this - before you know
it will also have to take an HIV test before you can get a job. I see the
importance of the latter for some jobs - but consider how many that would
not get a job or atleast your job will know that you are take prozac or
something else? Would you like that? And who will decide anyway what drugs
to test for!
Posted on Nov 27, 2000, 5:30 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
no drug testing at all, before
or after hire
by DV
i disagree, JH. i don't think that one's
hiring should be contingent on a pre-employment drug test. if a company
is impressed enough to hire a person, i don't feel a drug test should be
a possible employment disqualifier. i do agree with KR's response, where
does the testing and suspicion stop? drug tests, then hiv tests, then pregnancy
tests for women, then ...?
and as far as after hire is concerned,
i already expressed that i don't think random drug tests are reasonable.
anyways, if someone wants enough to do drugs, there are ways around testing
positive for them, as evidenced by one of our readings for this course.
as an aside, i was a mathematician
for four years after undergrad and i personally know people that perform
their jobs much better when under the influence of drugs (marijuana). seems
crazy, but i know people who couldn't get 4 out of adding 2 and 2 without
using drugs but seriously are math geniuses while under the influence.
seems crazy, i know, but truth is stranger than fiction.
Posted on Nov 30, 2000, 12:05
PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Let Us Vote for who is an
favor and who is not
by AE
This way we can decide - just like in
the presidential elections - of who is on top :-)
Posted on Nov 20, 2000, 11:33
AM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
1 Vote For Drugtesting
by AE
Remeber: We will recount until the pro
drug testing will win :-)
Posted on Nov 20, 2000, 11:35
AM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
I'm beginning to feel like
Nader.
by JK
Is anyone out there with me in opposition
to corporate infringement upon our dignity and rights?
Remember, no recount will help Nader
win...
Posted on Nov 20, 2000, 6:14 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
In favor of Drug Testing
by JH
Obviously, I am in favor of drug testing
- with several wishy-washy caveats (see other msgs)
I believe a complete LACK of drug
testing would infringe on personal rights of those who DO NOT use or abuse
drugs.
Posted on Nov 26, 2000, 8:47 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Second vote for drug testing
by AM
I am totally in favor!!
Posted on Nov 21, 2000, 7:47 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
I am against drug testing
by DC
JK..keep the fight going. I am with
you
Posted on Nov 22, 2000, 12:25
AM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
against drug testing
by DV
i am against mandatory drug testing.
Posted on Nov 25, 2000, 1:09 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
The opposition speaks...
by JK
I have experienced manditory drug testing
at my last job and I not only found it humiliating, I also found it to
be degrading. It communicated to me a lack of trust from my managers.
I believe manditory drug testing
to be against personal rights. Even though I do not do drugs and will never
do them I believe it is not the corporation's business to know what I choose
to do outside of work. If they test for that what rights will they feel
inclined to infringe upon next? I do not need 'big brother' accusingly
looking over my shoulder. We are all grown adults and are be able to make
rational decisions without having to rely on the corporation to tell us
what we can and cannot do outside of work.
Posted on Nov 19, 2000, 7:52 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Disagree
by AM
I think every employer has the right
to perform mandatory drug testing since our performance might be affected
if we are on drugs. After all, the reason we get hired and paid is to get
results and definitely being on drugs can affect your performance at work.
Posted on Nov 19, 2000, 8:28 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
I agree with AM
by AE
I can agree that what you do during
your spare time is not the business of your employer, however, anything
that affects your work negatively does matter. And as it happens drugs
are usually not a one time thing but they will rather have serious long-term
adverse effects on everything you do. Thus it is something that your employer
should be aware of!! Especially with regards to jobs where you have a responsibility
of other people.
For instance would you like to work
on a construction site where the guy in charge of the explosives is doing
cocain?
Posted on Nov 19, 2000, 9:57 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Drug testing is NOT a right
by JK
I do agree that if performance is being
affected that something should be done. However, this is the case for anything
that may be affecting performance. If someone is having family problems
which are affecting performance perhaps he or she should have counseling.
If someone is an alcoholic he or she should recieve help for that too.
If someone has a performance problem it is the manager's job to get to
the root of it and help that person out. This is my point: This takes place
AFTER you learn that the person has a problem, NOT before as in the case
of drug testing. Let's take the case of having family problems... say a
manager for some unlucky reason has the misfortune of having had several
employees with family problems that affected performance. Then with your
line of reasoning shouldn't he be able to do a background check on you
and your relationships?? Performance may be affected! He has the right!
No he doesn't. Drug testing is not a manager's right. Rather, it infringes
upon our own rights.
Posted on Nov 20, 2000, 6:11 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Some questions....
by JE
I understand your point, but let's say
you start your own business after graduation: a restaurant.
You hire a cashier who will work
for you full time, you are going to pay him x dollars. You know that x
is not enough money for a person to live AND consume drugs. Wouldn't you
be concerned about the posibbility that your cashier could be cocaine adict?
If he is but you don't know, how long will you wait before you do something?
What would you do if you find he's an adict? Fire him or help him? Don't
you think that it would be better to help him before you loose money?
JE.
Posted on Nov 20, 2000, 6:30 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
What would you do?
by JK
Why should I worry that someone I'm
hiring is a cocaine addict? If he showed signs of that during an interview
I would not hire him. I should also not like to have someone working for
me that beat his wife or cheated on his taxes but I cant exactly do an
FBI check on him. I believe that you should give your employees a certain
ammount of dignity and respect and if they show signs of problems to find
some way to help them if they want it. If they dont, let them go.
But what would you do? If you tested
someone and found out they were on drugs what would you do? I'll tell you
what most companies do. FIRE THEM. Even if they are not on drugs but for
whatever reason decide not to take the test they are fired.
Are you telling me that this test
is out of the goodness of your own heart? You would "help him before you
loose money"? I'm not so sure...
Posted on Nov 22, 2000, 4:30 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
OK, this is my answer...
by JE
JK,
I tried to make you think about
a real situation because I feel that for many Americans being politically
correct is very important, and it seems that many people say things that
they don't feel. I don't even know you, but it seems that you really believe
in what you say. Good for you.
In my case I had to take a drug
test the last time I accepted a job. It wasn't a problem for me, and when
I asked my boss about the test I understood his reason: "The bank can't
take the risk of hiring people that will manage our customer's money and
that consume drugs". Now, answering your question I wouldn't hire a drug
addict, but if I found that one of my employees consumes drugs and he/she
wanted to stop I would give him all the help that I could. If he doesn't
change after a reasonable time I would fire him/her.
Posted on Nov 23, 2000, 5:45 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Yes, I'd Care!
by JH
I would completely worry about someone
I hired who had a cocaine addiction or an addiction to some other uncontrolled
substance because of personal safety issues, especially in manufacturing
work. Not only do people on some drugs act violent occasionally when they
are high (or when they CAN'T get their stuff), but strong stimulants or
depressants also affect physical response and judgment, which could affect
safety of the user, those around him, and with certain products, the end
user.
Furthermore,I believe that American
companies CANNOT fire someone on the spot for failing one drug test - I
may need to be corrected on this one. I know for alcohol problems, the
employer has to offer counseling, etc, and cannot do anything specifically
unless there are performance issues.
Companies CAN refuse to hire someone
based on a negative drug test prior to hire.
Posted on Nov 26, 2000, 8:28 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Agree
by DC
I agree with what JK has to say. I believe
that one should be judged by one's behavior at the place of work. After
that or before that its one's business.
Posted on Nov 22, 2000, 12:22
AM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
agree with JK
by DV
i agree with JK in that if drug testing
is a corporation's right, where does it stop? is not alcohol a drug? alcohol
certainly affects work productivity, but because it is legal, many choose
to ignore it as a problem in the workplace. i have gone out with coworkers
and bosses after work many times and gone to work the following morning
with a hangover and was not productive, but because my coworkers and bosses
were out the night before, it was implied that those actions were tolerable,
even encouraged to a certain extent.
however, i also agree with others
in this discussion that certain professions, professions in which an employee
is responsible for another's life and/or well-being, should require drug
testing.
Posted on Nov 25, 2000, 1:20 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Some good points
by JH
DV, you have some good points. The issue
of abusing the drug testing system (there's irony) is very possible.
While I feel drug testing is a company's
right, there ought to be more explicit controls on it's use in the workplace.
Along with those controls, certain companies such as those mentioned should
be required to test.
Side point: I believe companies can
also test somehow for "active" alcoholics". At least I was told that at
a drug test I took - something about residual levels of alcohol and some
funky protein...
Posted on Nov 26, 2000, 8:34 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
Alcohol as a drug
by AE
I agree that alcohol should perhaps
be treated as a drug. The big difference is though that it is much easier
to spot prolonged alcohol mis-use than perhaps mis-use of drugs. And at
least most studies that I have seen(no personal experience) say that you
get hooked on drugs much more easily than you get hooked on alcohol. One
of the reasons is probably the hangover that you feel and do not want to
experience too often.
Posted on Nov 27, 2000, 12:01
PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
In favor of corporate drug testing
by AE
I believe that drug testing should be
mandatory especially in certain professions. This is especially crucial
in professions where your actions have implications on other peoples safety
etc. for instance truck drivers and airline pilots.
I also believe that it should be
mandatory for public servants like teachers.
Posted on Nov 14, 2000, 8:06 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
In favor
by JH
I agree with AE's comments. In these
jobs, I feel it is especially important to drug test. I also feel that
it is within the right of any employer to require employees pass drug test
as a condition of hire.
Random testing after hire is a little
more difficult...
Posted on Nov 17, 2000, 1:43 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index
So, we all agree?
by JE
I also agree. Anyway, it would be interesting
to know why people doesn't... Maybe you think that it's obvious, but remember
that not all of us have the same cultural backrounds. For example, privacy
here in the States seems to be more important than in South America.
JE.
Posted on Nov 19, 2000, 6:09 PM
Respond
to this message
Return to
Index