Marijuana legalization clashes with drug testing in the workplace

[Pogo]

Does this come in English?

I have no doubt you have trouble understanding it ... Especially the parts concerning propriety.

Methinks you have the same problem I do-- longwindedness. Whatever it is just state it directly and quit dancing with euphemisms. You know I don't shy away from debate.

Although I do have to go soon ...

 

[Papageorgio]

I told you it is their right as a business owner, nothing other than that is needed. No rights are being violated, you don't like someone telling you what to do, it get it, you have nothing.

Still nothing.

Again, when I sell you my services I sell my services -- not my bodily fluids.

Just admit it -- there's no justification. The case cannot be made. Period.

You are an idiot, the justification is the business owner wants to and can do it, you don't like it, tough shit. You have no reason or justification not to.

"Wants to" is not a basis.

Still nothing.

Good, but it is legal, it is being done, whether you think it is right or wrong is irrelevant.

Here links and the cost of drug abuse.

How Illicit Drug Use Affects Business and the Economy The White House The Real Cost and Effects of Substance and Prescription Drug Abuse For Professionals and Employers Addiction Hope

Now these are potential losses however a business does not need or want an added expense, potential losses can add up.

I don't care whether you agree with me or not but I deal with people and drug abuse in the work place and I can tell you it cost a lot of money. We had a guy who had an accident in a piece of equipment, it cost us $7,000, then we he tested positive for marijuana, he admitted to smoking just before work, we are required to send him to rehab and foot the bill.

You can bullshit all you want but it costs, why should a business put themselves at risk? Please explain why they need to take a chance, when they can get a person that doesn't have the drug problems?

The point is not, and never was, whether it's "legal" or being done. We all know it is. The question is, is there a justification for it? This is the one you haven't come up with an answer for. Addressing that question separates those of us who just roll over when Authority barks, and those of us who stand up and say, "hold up, this is wrong".

(Edit: see distinction between "drugs" and cannabis, next post. Nothing here has been about actual drugs, addictions or "problems")

Interestingly, it's the same question that can't be addressed about the illegalization of weed in the first place. We languish under a law based on complete bullshit, by now we all know it's bullshit, and yet some o' y'all continue bleating "yes master, may I have another". I find such obsequiousness disgusting.

Legalize pot, I don't care. I have long been on record of legalizing it, in fact I'm for legalizing lots of drugs and tax the hell out of it. They can help fund the rehab facilities.

You want to smoke, shoot up, snort, go right ahead.

I am for, an employer not hiring you because you can't pass a skills test, can't lift one pound, you make stupid posts, whatever the hell his reason is. If a business wants to drug test you, fine by me, and if I don't want to work for an ass that drug tests others fine.

I'm not justifying it, it is an employers right. I don't care if it is justified or not. A business has a right to protect itself from liability and unnecessary risks. The potential of loss is there, the links prove drug abuse causes loss of money. That is justification enough.

Now if a business doesn't want to drug test, more power to them. I don't care.

So, I won't justify it because that is blatantly stupid.

Work for whoever you want, hire who you want.

 

[Pogo]

Well **** that. I don't work for parents; I work for equals.

If we were equal ... The employee wouldn't be looking for a job.

I'm a Liberal; that means I don't believe in castes. The employer is absolutely not some higher life form.
It's a barter. He needs my services, I need his wages. We trade. It's what equals do.

You miss the point ... If you were equal you would be the employer.
It is not a caste ... Not intelligence ... Not superiority ... You just don't own the business.
If you did own your own business ... Then you would be equal and not looking for a job.

You make that separation in opportunities and responsibilities ... And then try to tell me they are the same.

If you were equal you would be the employer. ---- does not follow.

When I work for you, we're a team. That means I'm one of your players --- not the actual football. It still comes down to a simple barter: my services for your wages. If I deliver the services, you owe the wages. That's all there is to it.

I go to the supermarket deli and make the same kind of exchange ---- my money for their goods. Doesn't make the deli counter person some superior caste.

 

[BlackSand]

If you were equal you would be the employer. ---- does not follow.

When I work for you, we're a team. That means I'm one of your players --- not the actual football.

Without me ... You don't have a team to play for ... Much less a football to play with.


.

 

[Pogo]

If you were equal you would be the employer. ---- does not follow.

When I work for you, we're a team. That means I'm one of your players --- not the actual football.

Without me ... You don't have a team to play for ... Much less a football to play with.
I can hire another player.

--- And?

 

[Pogo]

Still nothing.

Again, when I sell you my services I sell my services -- not my bodily fluids.

Just admit it -- there's no justification. The case cannot be made. Period.

You are an idiot, the justification is the business owner wants to and can do it, you don't like it, tough shit. You have no reason or justification not to.

"Wants to" is not a basis.

Still nothing.

Good, but it is legal, it is being done, whether you think it is right or wrong is irrelevant.

Here links and the cost of drug abuse.

How Illicit Drug Use Affects Business and the Economy The White House The Real Cost and Effects of Substance and Prescription Drug Abuse For Professionals and Employers Addiction Hope

Now these are potential losses however a business does not need or want an added expense, potential losses can add up.

I don't care whether you agree with me or not but I deal with people and drug abuse in the work place and I can tell you it cost a lot of money. We had a guy who had an accident in a piece of equipment, it cost us $7,000, then we he tested positive for marijuana, he admitted to smoking just before work, we are required to send him to rehab and foot the bill.

You can bullshit all you want but it costs, why should a business put themselves at risk? Please explain why they need to take a chance, when they can get a person that doesn't have the drug problems?

The point is not, and never was, whether it's "legal" or being done. We all know it is. The question is, is there a justification for it? This is the one you haven't come up with an answer for. Addressing that question separates those of us who just roll over when Authority barks, and those of us who stand up and say, "hold up, this is wrong".

(Edit: see distinction between "drugs" and cannabis, next post. Nothing here has been about actual drugs, addictions or "problems")

Interestingly, it's the same question that can't be addressed about the illegalization of weed in the first place. We languish under a law based on complete bullshit, by now we all know it's bullshit, and yet some o' y'all continue bleating "yes master, may I have another". I find such obsequiousness disgusting.

Legalize pot, I don't care. I have long been on record of legalizing it, in fact I'm for legalizing lots of drugs and tax the hell out of it. They can help fund the rehab facilities.

You want to smoke, shoot up, snort, go right ahead.

I am for, an employer not hiring you because you can't pass a skills test, can't lift one pound, you make stupid posts, whatever the hell his reason is. If a business wants to drug test you, fine by me, and if I don't want to work for an ass that drug tests others fine.

I'm not justifying it, it is an employers right. I don't care if it is justified or not. A business has a right to protect itself from liability and unnecessary risks. The potential of loss is there, the links prove drug abuse causes loss of money. That is justification enough.

Now if a business doesn't want to drug test, more power to them. I don't care.

So, I won't justify it because that is blatantly stupid.

Work for whoever you want, hire who you want.

Sure you can do all of the above, and sure it's all within the law. What you can't do, as you've admitted here again, is justify it.

Now if you can waltz through life supporting stuff you can't justify, then you're a far better dancer than I. And I'm sitting this one out, thank you very much.

 

[Pogo]

OK this is all good stuff but I gotta go to the real world now and git thangs done. Later y'all.

 

[BlackSand]

--- And?

And ... That is the difference in propriety.

The employee doesn't have the same investments and responsibilities as the employer.
For instance ... The cost of the equipment and facilities comes out of my pocket ... Not the employee's pocket.

If the employee thinks it is the same ... Then I suggest they give it a whirl and it won't be long until they figure out the difference.


Edit:

OK this is all good stuff but I gotta go to the real world now and git thangs done. Later y'all.

Take care Pogo ... And have a good day.
Catch up with you later.

.

 

[Papageorgio]

You are an idiot, the justification is the business owner wants to and can do it, you don't like it, tough shit. You have no reason or justification not to.

"Wants to" is not a basis.

Still nothing.

Good, but it is legal, it is being done, whether you think it is right or wrong is irrelevant.

Here links and the cost of drug abuse.

How Illicit Drug Use Affects Business and the Economy The White House The Real Cost and Effects of Substance and Prescription Drug Abuse For Professionals and Employers Addiction Hope

Now these are potential losses however a business does not need or want an added expense, potential losses can add up.

I don't care whether you agree with me or not but I deal with people and drug abuse in the work place and I can tell you it cost a lot of money. We had a guy who had an accident in a piece of equipment, it cost us $7,000, then we he tested positive for marijuana, he admitted to smoking just before work, we are required to send him to rehab and foot the bill.

You can bullshit all you want but it costs, why should a business put themselves at risk? Please explain why they need to take a chance, when they can get a person that doesn't have the drug problems?

The point is not, and never was, whether it's "legal" or being done. We all know it is. The question is, is there a justification for it? This is the one you haven't come up with an answer for. Addressing that question separates those of us who just roll over when Authority barks, and those of us who stand up and say, "hold up, this is wrong".

(Edit: see distinction between "drugs" and cannabis, next post. Nothing here has been about actual drugs, addictions or "problems")

Interestingly, it's the same question that can't be addressed about the illegalization of weed in the first place. We languish under a law based on complete bullshit, by now we all know it's bullshit, and yet some o' y'all continue bleating "yes master, may I have another". I find such obsequiousness disgusting.

Legalize pot, I don't care. I have long been on record of legalizing it, in fact I'm for legalizing lots of drugs and tax the hell out of it. They can help fund the rehab facilities.

You want to smoke, shoot up, snort, go right ahead.

I am for, an employer not hiring you because you can't pass a skills test, can't lift one pound, you make stupid posts, whatever the hell his reason is. If a business wants to drug test you, fine by me, and if I don't want to work for an ass that drug tests others fine.

I'm not justifying it, it is an employers right. I don't care if it is justified or not. A business has a right to protect itself from liability and unnecessary risks. The potential of loss is there, the links prove drug abuse causes loss of money. That is justification enough.

Now if a business doesn't want to drug test, more power to them. I don't care.

So, I won't justify it because that is blatantly stupid.

Work for whoever you want, hire who you want.

Sure you can do all of the above, and sure it's all within the law. What you can't do, as you've admitted here again, is justify it.

Now if you can waltz through life supporting stuff you can't justify, then you're a far better dancer than I. And I'm sitting this one out, thank you very much.

Drug abuse is a huge cost to business, a business is justified in trying to prevent a loss, since drug abusers have a higher crime rate, higher theft rate, higher health risks than the general population, it is justified, except in your little mind.

 

[TooTall]

It's different from "no smokers" in that smoking (tobacco) can't be a solitary act -- it affects everyone around the smoker whether they want the intrusion or not.

~chuckles~ Clearly you've never gotten a contact high...

Anyway, I see what you're saying about it being "past use" - but as I said, speak to your boss and get pot use clarified. IF your boss says that they don't want you using pot either, then that's it - end of argument. If you choose to use pot in that case, then you've chosen it over your job.

If an employer doesn't want you using drugs, including pot, that's their choice - and especially if it's an already established requirement for the position. There's really no debate here.

The question is --- there's no justification for it. When you hire on with an employer, you sell your services. That buyer (employer) has a right to expect your full capacity. Screening for past weed use doesn't address that at all. It just generates a parent-child relationship. Creates a caste system within the workforce.

Well **** that. I don't work for parents; I work for equals.

Why don't you go to work stoned or drunk for the next three days and see how that works out for you.

 

[EverCurious]

Pogo, look I hear what you're saying about "actual skills meeting the needs of the position" and all, but again, and the bottom line, one is choosing to take that particular job - for whatever reason the employer decides to puts drug testing down as a requirement of employment. If one doesn't like that requirement, then they go find a different job, period. An employer has every right to demand that you meet certain requirements for employment and it does NOT have to be job specific skill related at all.

A school crossing guard can be required to know CPR even though that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual "skills" required to hold up a sign and get kids across the street. I was passed over for an interim receptionist job, even though I was more than qualified for the position, simply because I don't like chocolate - no joke. The employer felt very strongly that someone who didn't like chocolate would not fit in with his "chocolate-o-holic" other employees; turns out his employees had an ongoing thing where they all sampled/shared fancy chocolates from around the world. He hired someone else for the job.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what "personal freedom" or "ability" type argument you pull up because if you don't meet the employers requirements for a position, whatever those requirements might be, and for whatever reason the employer has in their head, then you don't get the job. Arguing if x drug has any affect on ones ability to perform x task is pretty much irrelevant. If the employer for whatever reason does NOT want his employee's using drugs, that's it. Maybe one of their current employees is a recovering drug addict and they don't want an employee who might mention their drug use around them?

And if we want to get down to brass tacks on the other argument; the requirement that one show up at X time, or say "no smoking," "no cell phone use at all," "no sitting down while on the clock," "no talking to other employees while on the clock" - all could be argued as a "parent-child" relationship in that the employer is telling the employee what to do. (And those are /all/ examples I have personally heard btw.)

 

[JFK_USA]

Marijuana legalization clashes with drug testing in the workplace Guardian Sustainable Business The Guardian

I do not see a problem at all+
I'm all for employee drug testing but there has to be a better way to test. As it stands now all you are testing is if people have residual drugs in their systems. You could have smoked weed 4 weeks ago and fail a drug test and lose you job.

I am for drug testing but it needs to be a better system for drug testing that can account for how much the person smokes and what level is impairment that makes a person liable.

Now drug tests detect ANY amount and say you're impaired or a heavy drug user. It needs to be a better test.

 

[Papageorgio]

Marijuana legalization clashes with drug testing in the workplace Guardian Sustainable Business The Guardian

I do not see a problem at all+
I'm all for employee drug testing but there has to be a better way to test. As it stands now all you are testing is if people have residual drugs in their systems. You could have smoked weed 4 weeks ago and fail a drug test and lose you job.

I am for drug testing but it needs to be a better system for drug testing that can account for how much the person smokes and what level is impairment that makes a person liable.

Now drug tests detect ANY amount and say you're impaired or a heavy drug user. It needs to be a better test.

They have drug test with hair and nail samples, can tell when, how much, how often.

 

[MaryL]

A conundrum here. IF it's legal to smoke pot in two states, but not the other 48, and federal law mandates drug tests in the wok place in ALL states, what is the sense in that? My position here is and always was, the federal government and all the states in the union have to come to a common consensus here, period. That is it, end of story.

 

[EverCurious]

A conundrum here. IF it's legal to smoke pot in two states, but not the other 48, and federal law mandates drug tests in the wok place in ALL states, what is the sense in that? My position here is and always was, the federal government and all the states in the union have to come to a common consensus here, period. That is it, end of story.

I think I missed something, I've only had two jobs, out of hundreds, that mandated a drug test. Is there some kind of new law out?

 

[MaryL]

I don't know the whyfors or whatzits, but in the last ten years I have had to take two or three drug tests, I think it depends on your position and status. I will bet you a dollar that the CEO of the company you or I work for doesn't have to pee in a cup.

 

[EverCurious]

I don't know the whyfors or whatzits, but in the last ten years I have had to take two or three drug tests, I think it depends on your position and status. I will bet you a dollar that the CEO of the company you or I work for doesn't have to pee in a cup.

Perhaps, as an interim executive I'm generally put into temp management situations because the old manager quit/was fired before they could find a replacement, but their company/store/facility/what-have-you cannot function without one. I'd personally think that I'd have been drug tested more often, but then again my cred's speak for me when I'm hired, plus I'm usually a temporary hire, so maybe I'm just excused from the drug testing /most/ in the position might be given.

In any event, as far as I'm aware, there is no federal law that mandates drug testing, that decision is up to the owner(s)/manager(s) of the company. I'll see if I can hunt up anything though, I /have/ been mostly retired for a while.

 

[EverCurious]

Ah well that didn't take long... Drug-Free Workplace Advisor

"The majority of employers across the United States are NOT required to drug test and many state and local governments have statutes that limit or prohibit workplace testing, unless required by state or Federal regulations for certain jobs. Also, drug testing is NOT required under the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. On the other hand, most private employers have the right to test for a wide variety of substances. It is very important that before designing a drug-testing program you familiarize yourself with the various state and Federal regulations that may apply to your organization."


So it's only mandatory for some federal jobs. Following linkies in above ~ Division of Workplace Programs SAMHSA

"The Division of Workplace Programs (DWP) is mandated by executive order and public law. It provides oversight for the Federal Drug-Free Workplace Program, to eliminate illicit drug use in the federal workforce, and for the National Laboratory Certification Program, which certifies laboratories to conduct forensic drug testing for the federal agencies and for some federally regulated industries."


That being the case you are no longer working under 'state' laws, but 'federal' laws; so there is actually no clash of having pot legalized in any state because the 'federal' job would go off the 'federal' law (which says it's illegal.)

 

[EverCurious]

In continuance, it's a bit more complicated...

I've found a PDF that's interesting on the subject, though it's actually also touching on legalized medical and the business conflict - http://www.datia.org/advocacy/IBH_workplacetesting.pdf

They list Federal mandates for drug testing on, commercial drivers, airline pilots, flight attendants, railroad peeps, nuclear power plant peeps, and "many others" in safety-sensitive positions. Additionally employers who receive federal grants are also apparently subjected to compliance to Drug Free Workplace Act (going to look that one up next)

Though thus far, I will still argue that it's not "state law" that governs those employees (with exception of nuclear workers) because those positions all require travel from state to state.

 

[EverCurious]

RE the Drug Free Workplace Act: elaws - Drug-Free Workplace Advisor

"The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 requires some Federal contractors and all Federal grantees to agree that they will provide drug-free workplaces as a condition of receiving a contract or grant from a Federal agency. The Act does not apply to those who do not have, nor intend to apply for, contracts/grants from the Federal government. The Act also does not apply to subcontractors or subgrantees."


mmk so basically this is probably /why/ a lot of companies do drug testing actually. Because /if/ they are receiving a federal grant - ala a lot of small business grants - then if they do NOT drug test they lose their funding. Also anyone who contracts with a federal department can lose their contract - aka lose money by not drug testing.

"An individual contractor or grantee who is convicted of a criminal drug offense in the workplace—during the performance of the contract or grant activity—has failed to carry out the requirements of the Act and is subject to penalties. Within 10 calendar days of such a conviction, the contractor or grantee must notify in writing the appropriate contract or grant officer in the agency where the contract or grant was awarded."

and:

"
Your organization — if it is covered by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 — will be subject to penalties if it:

• Fails to implement the six steps required to establish a drug-free workplace; or

• Employs individuals* convicted of a criminal drug offense in your workplace.

*Although the exact number of convicted employees is not specified in the Act, the contract or grant officer makes the determination on a case-by-case basis."

So I'm thinking, a lot of places might be requiring drug tests, not only doing so on personal opinion, but because of federal law and the risk to their contracts/grants: because the federal contract/grant they receive is under 'federal' law, not state...


So overall, while we /could/ argue that the feds may/or may not need to repeal the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, we still cannot argue that drug testing by any particular employer isn't "fair" to the employee some how.

EDIT: oops forgot the linky to the actual law ~ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title41/pdf/USCODE-2009-title41-chap10.pdf