States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[Ravi]

As an employer Ravi, it's definitely your prerogative to hire anyone you wish as it is your prerogative to require drug testing or not. However, as an employer I would think, regardless the nature of business or service, you would prefer to employ people who had their head screwed on straight, at least while on your nickel. After all, because your employees represent you, it's your reputation on the line. Of course that's moot if you live in California and run a pot shop.
gb

heh...I trust my own judgment. If you don't, test away.

You are not being rational Ravi, or you really just don't give a shit. Either way you would be the loser in the long run. It's possibly you stay high all the time and it would be hypocritical for you to expect otherwise from others. My advice to you is, stay away from self employment and get a menial job where you have little responsibility and cannot be a danger to others.
gb

You sound pretty bitter. I don't use drugs and I'm not going to support drug testing welfare recipients or mandatory testing for employees. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Care4all]

Care sometimes makes these blanket statements and then leaves the thread. I hope she comes back.

any bank, any corporation, even Jackson Memorial hospital, john elliot community blood bank center, the holiday inn for goodness sakes, and shoe vendors like Tommy Hilfiger and Aerosoles and Nine West and Kenneth Cole and Reebok and Rockport, jcpenneys, filenes, Dillards Dept stores etc....none required drug tests...NONE?

Do you guys work for companies that required drug tests?

That's news to me....

Care

The majority of Fortune 500 companies require drug testing. That includes JC Penneys, Dillards (located in Little Rock), Holiday Inn, etc. Every single company I have ever worked for including a 50 employee start-up required drug testing.

Sorry Xsisted, but i call BULLSHIT!

my husband worked for jcp management and NO DRUG TEST, my dear!

i worked many moons ago for holiday inn as an auditor, no drug tests...

i worked for Dillard's as a Buyer for 5 years, NO DRUG test.

soooooooooo, either these companies have TWO STANDARDS, where PEONS get drug tested and us Executives DID NOT, or you are just lying....which i find hard to believe, honestly.

so, lets say it is the former....and they test sales people and dock workers but NOT the executives....is that fair?

For the record, I am not a drug user, but I too....as with Ravi, do not support drug testing by our gvt or the private sector for hiring purposes.....I believe it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in premise...regardless of higher court decisions on it.

care

 

[American Horse]

so, lets say it is the former....and they test sales people and dock workers but NOT the executives....is that fair?

For the record, I am not a drug user, but I too....as with Ravi, do not support drug testing by our gvt or the private sector for hiring purposes.....I believe it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in premise...regardless of higher court decisions on it.

care

It's not about fairness. These two groups you mentioned have direct contact with the public, and/or handle equipment which could cause injury to the public. Seems to be a well directed effort to me. But about being unconsitutional; would that be right to privacy, or equal treatment under the law? I say test'em all. But there are economic issues there; how to direct a company's economic resources. Random testing might be best, after initial, hire-in testing.

 

[aka520]

heh...I trust my own judgment. If you don't, test away.

You are not being rational Ravi, or you really just don't give a shit. Either way you would be the loser in the long run. It's possibly you stay high all the time and it would be hypocritical for you to expect otherwise from others. My advice to you is, stay away from self employment and get a menial job where you have little responsibility and cannot be a danger to others.
gb

You sound pretty bitter. I don't use drugs and I'm not going to support drug testing welfare recipients or mandatory testing for employees. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Actually Ravi, I am a pretty laid back person. However, I don't smoke. So no thanks, I can live without em. As to the drug testing, it's your nickel. Do as you like. This has become pointless and fruitless. So, bye.
gb

 

[Sarah G]

Care sometimes makes these blanket statements and then leaves the thread. I hope she comes back.

any bank, any corporation, even Jackson Memorial hospital, john elliot community blood bank center, the holiday inn for goodness sakes, and shoe vendors like Tommy Hilfiger and Aerosoles and Nine West and Kenneth Cole and Reebok and Rockport, jcpenneys, filenes, Dillards Dept stores etc....none required drug tests...NONE?

Do you guys work for companies that required drug tests?

That's news to me....

Care

The majority of Fortune 500 companies require drug testing. That includes JC Penneys, Dillards (located in Little Rock), Holiday Inn, etc. Every single company I have ever worked for including a 50 employee start-up required drug testing.

Random drug testing?

 

[DvDud1]

Good idea. It's a shame that some employers miss out on some fine people because they smoke a little pot.

Of course, I'd be inclined to say that pot is pretty much the exception. Coke and crack and heroin and such surely have a greater affect on one's character and reliability than pot. I know far too many well paid, well positioned pot smokers.

One of the major problems with all this drug testing-whether it's for work or for food stamps-is that it primarily targets marijuana smokers, while savvy users of other substances will be able to beat it in most cases.
Meth, cocaine, heroin, and most recreational pharmaceuticals won't show up at detectable levels within anywhere from 24 to 72 hours after you last used them. And someone who knows how to flush their system can beat a drug test even if they're a chronic user, with a little prep time.
But pot's different...the THC is stored in your fat cells, and depending on one's metabolism it is entirely possible that someone who smoked ONE joint a week ago could still have enough of a trace to test positive a week later, even more in some cases.
So all it's really accomplishing is to target people who may be occasional users of marijuana, one of the more benign substances of choice, while in fact not really serving as much if any deterrent to those who are using harder drugs. And the added cost to taxpayers is such that even the people who might start off saying "test 'em-I want to make sure that nobody recieving a government check is getting high on my dime" will be singing a different tune when it finally sinks in just how costly-and ridiculous-that testing is.
Take the money we would spend for drug testing and it it into something more productive...for every stoner you catch, 50 more will just beat it anyway.

I CAN understand Gib ("aka") testing his employess, though, I'd bet that the majority of people who work for Gib wind up turning to drugs to cope.

Not being an expert on substance abuse as you Dud, I was dependent on the competence of testing professionals. However, I was assured other drug abuse was detectable, regardless of your nonchalant disregard. Although, I have been retired from business for a number of years, I would think the testing professionals would have modern safeguards in place to prevent tampering sophisticated enough to foil even the most clever deceiver. Fortunately, I don't think chronic abusers of hard substances will be among those seeking employment nor among those able to maintain a degree of steady employment

From your post you indicate the occasional use of marijuana is an acceptable recreational drug. I don't think the purpose of this thread is to debate the question concerning the harmful or benign effects of the occasional use of marijuana.

The question at hand is, do we want those accepting government assistance to be free to use funds allocated for bare necessities for themselves and their children to be squandered on drugs, benign or not. You will also note the purchase of cigarettes and alcohol is a non purchasable item. Why should recreational drugs not also be classified as non purchasable. Just as when you apply for a drivers license, you sign an implied consent form agreeing to breathalyzer testing. Mandatory alcohol and drug testing should also be implied consent upon acceptance of assistance. My vote would be to require testing, because any funds for drug use would be diverted from those mostly needing assistance. Namely children.
gb

Oh, c'mon Gib:"...I was assured other drug abuse was detectable, regardless of your nonchalant disregard. Although, I have been retired from business for a number of years, I would think the testing professionals would have modern safeguards in place to prevent tampering sophisticated enough to foil even the most clever deceiver."

Of course you were given assurances...these are SALESMEN, Gib, intent on selling YOU their product-in this case, their testing services.
Did you take the time to research it independently? If you had, you would find that there's no shortage of websites devoted to telling people exactly how to beat drug tests, for a variety of substances...and you would see for yourself that it's quite feasible to do so, especially with drugs that pass through your system quicker than marijuana does.

Random employment screening can be somewhat more effective, IF you are able to just walk up to an employee at random and request a sample...there's little if any opportunity for them to prepare for such a test.

But people on public assistance are another story. What would you propose? Have government caseworkers roving around knocking on the doors of welfare recipients at random and demanding samples on the spot? Good luck with that...AND, consider the cost.

I'm not arguing the fact that there are people out there who collect benefits who abuse drugs, some with serious addictive diseases...what I am saying is that drug testing would be a costly exercise in futility to attempt to combat it.
The hardcore users and addicts will generally be the ones who are most savvy on how to beat the tests-and there are plenty among those who are doing more than just smoking an occasional joint.
And there are many who have problems with alcohol abuse-but that's legal, and good luck catching them unless you can somehow catch them drinking and check their BAC on the spot.

As enormous as the costs of testing would be, and as ineffective as it would be in the bigger picture, it would make better sense to put that kind of money into more available and aggressive subsidized rehabilitation for those who have bottomed out and who are truly trying to beat an addiction.

 

[Peejay]

Not being an expert on substance abuse as you Dud, I was dependent on the competence of testing professionals. However, I was assured other drug abuse was detectable, regardless of your nonchalant disregard. Although, I have been retired from business for a number of years, I would think the testing professionals would have modern safeguards in place to prevent tampering sophisticated enough to foil even the most clever deceiver.

This is where you would be wrong. The most clever deceivers certainly do get away with cheating drug test. In the drug testing industry, pre employment drug test are so easily beaten that they have earned the nick name "IQ Test", because you have to be a near idiot to fail.

Now, I am sure that you were assured the drug test were fool proof. And just as surely, my used car salesman assures me that '76 Pinto is "cherry". The fact is, abstainence is certainly the easiest way to avoid detection. You just stop using for a brief period before your pre employment test. Poof....you're hired. As pointed out by DVdud, nearly all drugs, other than marijuana, leave the body in a matter of hours. There is a table here: Drug test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Testing urine for drugs is for all intents, a marijuana test. All other common drugs are not present in urine, generally within 48 hours. Even if there are drugs in your system, the most common way to beat the test is drinking water. Yeah, water beats a drug test. It takes about an hour of prep time to dillute one's urine to the point of making a drug test ineffective. There are countless other ways to beat the test using masking and flushing agents, including a number of natural herbs that act on the kidneys and urine.

All of the employemnt issues aside, the question here, again, is how much are you willing to spend ? As pointed out above, a study of government drug testing revealed that the government spent $77,000 per postive result. That's a pretty hefty price tag to pull a few food stamps.

 

[Peejay]

But people on public assistance are another story. What would you propose? Have government caseworkers roving around knocking on the doors of welfare recipients at random and demanding samples on the spot? Good luck with that...AND, consider the cost.

The drug testing bills in question allow for a positive results and then you get 60 days to take a second test before your benefits are denied. What do you think Dvdud ? Could we beat a drug test if given 60 days to do so ? I'm pretty sure I could go on an absolute binge for three weeks and still pass the test in 60 days.

What a joke this is.

 

[Ravi]

You are not being rational Ravi, or you really just don't give a shit. Either way you would be the loser in the long run. It's possibly you stay high all the time and it would be hypocritical for you to expect otherwise from others. My advice to you is, stay away from self employment and get a menial job where you have little responsibility and cannot be a danger to others.
gb

You sound pretty bitter. I don't use drugs and I'm not going to support drug testing welfare recipients or mandatory testing for employees. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Actually Ravi, I am a pretty laid back person. However, I don't smoke. So no thanks, I can live without em. As to the drug testing, it's your nickel. Do as you like. This has become pointless and fruitless. So, bye.
gb

When you lose the argument, it often is...

 

[DvDud1]

But people on public assistance are another story. What would you propose? Have government caseworkers roving around knocking on the doors of welfare recipients at random and demanding samples on the spot? Good luck with that...AND, consider the cost.

The drug testing bills in question allow for a positive results and then you get 60 days to take a second test before your benefits are denied. What do you think Dvdud ? Could we beat a drug test if given 60 days to do so ? I'm pretty sure I could go on an absolute binge for three weeks and still pass the test in 60 days.

What a joke this is.

I agree that it's completely asinine, but I'm not sure it's a joke.
First a bill like this gets passed, then a year or two later we have some hardcore wingnuts arguing that the costs of public assistance have risen dramatically and it is just too expensive, we need to put an end to it...throw a little propaganda in the mix about any welfare recipients who HAVE been busted for "hot" test results, make it sound like all our indigent and troubled citizens are just a bunch of gol-dang junkies...next thing you know, all the Goobers are screaming about it and some asshole's using it as a campaign platform!

 

[Peejay]

make it sound like all our indigent and troubled citizens are just a bunch of gol-dang junkies...next thing you know, all the Goobers are screaming about it and some asshole's using it as a campaign platform!

Wow.....sure would hate to see one of our political parties resort to such unheard of tactics.

 

[aka520]

One of the major problems with all this drug testing-whether it's for work or for food stamps-is that it primarily targets marijuana smokers, while savvy users of other substances will be able to beat it in most cases.
Meth, cocaine, heroin, and most recreational pharmaceuticals won't show up at detectable levels within anywhere from 24 to 72 hours after you last used them. And someone who knows how to flush their system can beat a drug test even if they're a chronic user, with a little prep time.
But pot's different...the THC is stored in your fat cells, and depending on one's metabolism it is entirely possible that someone who smoked ONE joint a week ago could still have enough of a trace to test positive a week later, even more in some cases.
So all it's really accomplishing is to target people who may be occasional users of marijuana, one of the more benign substances of choice, while in fact not really serving as much if any deterrent to those who are using harder drugs. And the added cost to taxpayers is such that even the people who might start off saying "test 'em-I want to make sure that nobody recieving a government check is getting high on my dime" will be singing a different tune when it finally sinks in just how costly-and ridiculous-that testing is.
Take the money we would spend for drug testing and it it into something more productive...for every stoner you catch, 50 more will just beat it anyway.

I CAN understand Gib ("aka") testing his employess, though, I'd bet that the majority of people who work for Gib wind up turning to drugs to cope.

Not being an expert on substance abuse as you Dud, I was dependent on the competence of testing professionals. However, I was assured other drug abuse was detectable, regardless of your nonchalant disregard. Although, I have been retired from business for a number of years, I would think the testing professionals would have modern safeguards in place to prevent tampering sophisticated enough to foil even the most clever deceiver. Fortunately, I don't think chronic abusers of hard substances will be among those seeking employment nor among those able to maintain a degree of steady employment

From your post you indicate the occasional use of marijuana is an acceptable recreational drug. I don't think the purpose of this thread is to debate the question concerning the harmful or benign effects of the occasional use of marijuana.

The question at hand is, do we want those accepting government assistance to be free to use funds allocated for bare necessities for themselves and their children to be squandered on drugs, benign or not. You will also note the purchase of cigarettes and alcohol is a non purchasable item. Why should recreational drugs not also be classified as non purchasable. Just as when you apply for a drivers license, you sign an implied consent form agreeing to breathalyzer testing. Mandatory alcohol and drug testing should also be implied consent upon acceptance of assistance. My vote would be to require testing, because any funds for drug use would be diverted from those mostly needing assistance. Namely children.
gb

Oh, c'mon Gib:"...I was assured other drug abuse was detectable, regardless of your nonchalant disregard. Although, I have been retired from business for a number of years, I would think the testing professionals would have modern safeguards in place to prevent tampering sophisticated enough to foil even the most clever deceiver."

Of course you were given assurances...these are SALESMEN, Gib, intent on selling YOU their product-in this case, their testing services.
Did you take the time to research it independently? If you had, you would find that there's no shortage of websites devoted to telling people exactly how to beat drug tests, for a variety of substances...and you would see for yourself that it's quite feasible to do so, especially with drugs that pass through your system quicker than marijuana does.

Random employment screening can be somewhat more effective, IF you are able to just walk up to an employee at random and request a sample...there's little if any opportunity for them to prepare for such a test.

But people on public assistance are another story. What would you propose? Have government caseworkers roving around knocking on the doors of welfare recipients at random and demanding samples on the spot? Good luck with that...AND, consider the cost.

I'm not arguing the fact that there are people out there who collect benefits who abuse drugs, some with serious addictive diseases...what I am saying is that drug testing would be a costly exercise in futility to attempt to combat it.
The hardcore users and addicts will generally be the ones who are most savvy on how to beat the tests-and there are plenty among those who are doing more than just smoking an occasional joint.
And there are many who have problems with alcohol abuse-but that's legal, and good luck catching them unless you can somehow catch them drinking and check their BAC on the spot.

As enormous as the costs of testing would be, and as ineffective as it would be in the bigger picture, it would make better sense to put that kind of money into more available and aggressive subsidized rehabilitation for those who have bottomed out and who are truly trying to beat an addiction.

So what you are suggesting Dud, is to just give up because these druggies are just too smart to be caught. However, I would submit these druggies are not the sharpest tool in the shed or they wouldn't be doing the drugs to start with. What you say about all the clever methods to mask detection is true. However, you fail to mention the use of masking agents is detectable in urine. The most common being the myth of drinking a lot of water. Yes, drinking a lot of water will dilute the test, negating the results. But it will also change the specific gravity of the urine and is easily detectable as being aberrant. All other supposed remedies are also detectable. The presence of aberrant urine is a red flag. Those showing masking agents in urine are then subject to further testing. Samples of hair is the final word in drug use. This cannot be beaten even by death.

The financial aspect is a moot point. I can't think of any instance enforcing the law being cost effective.
gb

 

[Peejay]

The financial aspect is a moot point. I can't think of any instance enforcing the law being cost effective.
gb

And there it is. Cost is no concern. We know where you stand and thank you for your contribution.

 

[AllieBaba]

Cost is not a moot point because the money you're spending on the drug tests is coming directly out of the money that could otherwise be used to actually help these people. Some of them smoke weed, some are true addicts, some are raging alcoholics.

Hellow, that's why they aren't able to maintain a job that pays a living wage, or hold down a job. THey are the people the welfare system is trying to help. Food stamps are an ENTITLEMENT program. We TRY to find a way to get bennies out to these people. We are doing our best to reach as many as possible. The psychology of the program isn't, "Oh shit, we only have this much money so we need to exclude as many people as possible so only the high functioning starving people get help". It's "We need to reach these people who otherwise are on the streets and hungry".

And that's where you're putting them if you require drug tests for food. And they are a bigger liability there than they ever have been getting their little debit cards and being able to get doritos because they used $10 to buy a dime bag.

 

[aka520]

You sound pretty bitter. I don't use drugs and I'm not going to support drug testing welfare recipients or mandatory testing for employees. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Actually Ravi, I am a pretty laid back person. However, I don't smoke. So no thanks, I can live without em. As to the drug testing, it's your nickel. Do as you like. This has become pointless and fruitless. So, bye.
gb

When you lose the argument, it often is...

I don't see this as a case of winning or losing Ravi. You refuse to accept any outcome other than, "I don't like it and I'm not going to do it". Why should I waste my time arguing with a fool? You will eventually drag me down to your level and beat me with your low life experience.
gb

 

[DvDud1]

Not being an expert on substance abuse as you Dud, I was dependent on the competence of testing professionals. However, I was assured other drug abuse was detectable, regardless of your nonchalant disregard. Although, I have been retired from business for a number of years, I would think the testing professionals would have modern safeguards in place to prevent tampering sophisticated enough to foil even the most clever deceiver. Fortunately, I don't think chronic abusers of hard substances will be among those seeking employment nor among those able to maintain a degree of steady employment

From your post you indicate the occasional use of marijuana is an acceptable recreational drug. I don't think the purpose of this thread is to debate the question concerning the harmful or benign effects of the occasional use of marijuana.

The question at hand is, do we want those accepting government assistance to be free to use funds allocated for bare necessities for themselves and their children to be squandered on drugs, benign or not. You will also note the purchase of cigarettes and alcohol is a non purchasable item. Why should recreational drugs not also be classified as non purchasable. Just as when you apply for a drivers license, you sign an implied consent form agreeing to breathalyzer testing. Mandatory alcohol and drug testing should also be implied consent upon acceptance of assistance. My vote would be to require testing, because any funds for drug use would be diverted from those mostly needing assistance. Namely children.
gb

Oh, c'mon Gib:"...I was assured other drug abuse was detectable, regardless of your nonchalant disregard. Although, I have been retired from business for a number of years, I would think the testing professionals would have modern safeguards in place to prevent tampering sophisticated enough to foil even the most clever deceiver."

Of course you were given assurances...these are SALESMEN, Gib, intent on selling YOU their product-in this case, their testing services.
Did you take the time to research it independently? If you had, you would find that there's no shortage of websites devoted to telling people exactly how to beat drug tests, for a variety of substances...and you would see for yourself that it's quite feasible to do so, especially with drugs that pass through your system quicker than marijuana does.

Random employment screening can be somewhat more effective, IF you are able to just walk up to an employee at random and request a sample...there's little if any opportunity for them to prepare for such a test.

But people on public assistance are another story. What would you propose? Have government caseworkers roving around knocking on the doors of welfare recipients at random and demanding samples on the spot? Good luck with that...AND, consider the cost.

I'm not arguing the fact that there are people out there who collect benefits who abuse drugs, some with serious addictive diseases...what I am saying is that drug testing would be a costly exercise in futility to attempt to combat it.
The hardcore users and addicts will generally be the ones who are most savvy on how to beat the tests-and there are plenty among those who are doing more than just smoking an occasional joint.
And there are many who have problems with alcohol abuse-but that's legal, and good luck catching them unless you can somehow catch them drinking and check their BAC on the spot.

As enormous as the costs of testing would be, and as ineffective as it would be in the bigger picture, it would make better sense to put that kind of money into more available and aggressive subsidized rehabilitation for those who have bottomed out and who are truly trying to beat an addiction.

So what you are suggesting Dud, is to just give up because these druggies are just too smart to be caught. However, I would submit these druggies are not the sharpest tool in the shed or they wouldn't be doing the drugs to start with. What you say about all the clever methods to mask detection is true. However, you fail to mention the use of masking agents is detectable in urine. The most common being the myth of drinking a lot of water. Yes, drinking a lot of water will dilute the test, negating the results. But it will also change the specific gravity of the urine and is easily detectable as being aberrant. All other supposed remedies are also detectable. The presence of aberrant urine is a red flag. Those showing masking agents in urine are then subject to further testing. Samples of hair is the final word in drug use. This cannot be beaten even by death.

The financial aspect is a moot point. I can't think of any instance enforcing the law being cost effective.
gb

When I am talking about "beating the drug test" I am NOT talking about "masking" it...I am talking about abstaining just long enough to flush out your system, and also you can dilute your urine to further confound the test without it being detected...unless you are proposing tests to test the results of the tests, and further tests to test for other potential indicators that someone "prepped" for the test...wow, you sure are getting free and easy with my tax dollars, Gib...

Hair testing is tougher, granted, BUT hair testing can also be beaten nowadays, hate to tell ya...the "shaved" look is "in" currently, so that could be limiting...and again, it's cost prohibitive.


And if we have all this money to throw around on drug testing, why bitch about who's getting public assistance in the first place?

 

[Peejay]

Cost is not a moot point because the money you're spending on the drug tests is coming directly out of the money that could otherwise be used to actually help these people. Some of them smoke weed, some are true addicts, some are raging alcoholics.

Hellow, that's why they aren't able to maintain a job that pays a living wage, or hold down a job. THey are the people the welfare system is trying to help. Food stamps are an ENTITLEMENT program. We TRY to find a way to get bennies out to these people. We are doing our best to reach as many as possible. The psychology of the program isn't, "Oh shit, we only have this much money so we need to exclude as many people as possible so only the high functioning starving people get help". It's "We need to reach these people who otherwise are on the streets and hungry".

And that's where you're putting them if you require drug tests for food. And they are a bigger liability there than they ever have been getting their little debit cards and being able to get doritos because they used $10 to buy a dime bag.

Unfortunately, many will not be satisfied until these people are breaking into their homes and car jacking them at an exponential rate. If you think people will do anything for drugs, wait until you see what they will do to feed their kids.

 

[Care4all]

so, lets say it is the former....and they test sales people and dock workers but NOT the executives....is that fair?

For the record, I am not a drug user, but I too....as with Ravi, do not support drug testing by our gvt or the private sector for hiring purposes.....I believe it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in premise...regardless of higher court decisions on it.

care

It's not about fairness. These two groups you mentioned have direct contact with the public, and/or handle equipment which could cause injury to the public. Seems to be a well directed effort to me. But about being unconsitutional; would that be right to privacy, or equal treatment under the law? I say test'em all. But there are economic issues there; how to direct a company's economic resources. Random testing might be best, after initial, hire-in testing.

What happened to this being the responsibility of the person that has the final say on the hiring of the individual?

WHAT happened to the "old days" when you could tell who you were hiring and whether they were going to be a good, productive employee for you and the "company" through the hiring "process"???

When the boss had to intervue the potential employee and also the human resource director and also, maybe your boss if possible and from this and the background check with references and previous employers, you...the boss...made a decision to hire someone that you thought would be the best person for the position?

Does no one take responsibility for their own judgements anymore? Not even the "boss"?
And have to rely on a drug test, via invading the intervuee's right to privacy, to make a quick decision on elimination?

I can tell you, that i have hired people, that were some of my greatest employees of all time, that i later found out were mj smokers....after I was no longer their boss and there was no way that I would have known such, by what they produced for me and the 'company'. It was NONE of my business to know what these fellas did on their spare time if they were producing on the job, never late, never over used or abused their sicktime.

And I am no pushover as some of you may think....i came in to one position with 15 existing employees, and when i was done firing, there were 4 left standing and the rest got their pink slips. Not because I knew what they were doing in their spare time or their personal time, which i didn't....but because I knew hands on what they were not doing "on the job"....producing positive results.

Care

 

[DvDud1]

so, lets say it is the former....and they test sales people and dock workers but NOT the executives....is that fair?

For the record, I am not a drug user, but I too....as with Ravi, do not support drug testing by our gvt or the private sector for hiring purposes.....I believe it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in premise...regardless of higher court decisions on it.

care

It's not about fairness. These two groups you mentioned have direct contact with the public, and/or handle equipment which could cause injury to the public. Seems to be a well directed effort to me. But about being unconsitutional; would that be right to privacy, or equal treatment under the law? I say test'em all. But there are economic issues there; how to direct a company's economic resources. Random testing might be best, after initial, hire-in testing.

What happened to this being the responsibility of the person that has the final say on the hiring of the individual?

WHAT happened to the "old days" when you could tell who you were hiring and whether they were going to be a good, productive employee for you and the "company" through the hiring "process"???

When the boss had to intervue the potential employee and also the human resource director and also, maybe your boss if possible and from this and the background check with references and previous employers, you...the boss...made a decision to hire someone that you thought would be the best person for the position?

Does no one take responsibility for their own judgements anymore? Not even the "boss"?
And have to rely on a drug test, via invading the intervuee's right to privacy, to make a quick decision on elimination?

I can tell you, that i have hired people, that were some of my greatest employees of all time, that i later found out were mj smokers....after I was no longer their boss and there was no way that I would have known such, by what they produced for me and the 'company'. It was NONE of my business to know what these fellas did on their spare time if they were producing on the job, never late, never over used or abused their sicktime.

And I am no pushover as some of you may think....i came in to one position with 15 existing employees, and when i was done firing, there were 4 left standing and the rest got their pink slips. Not because I knew what they were doing in their spare time or their personal time, which i didn't....but because I knew hands on what they were not doing "on the job".

Care

I can see some of the arguments in favor of employment-related drug testing...certainly jobs that affect the safety and well-being of others have to be considered...there's also the fact that in today's litigious society you will have some applicants who seem GREAT initially and then turn into the "employee from hell" once they're in the door-and if you terminate them based on "suspicion" you may find yourself being sued.
I can't disagree with a business owner who reserves the right to request a test in the event that they feel they have an employee who is abusing drugs on the job...I've dealt with employees with drug problems, and it can indeed impact the workplace, and the well-being and even the safety of other employees.
The problem with drug testing, in my humble opinion, is that it's become more of a sword to wield than a tool to use when neccessary.

 

[Care4all]

Cost is not a moot point because the money you're spending on the drug tests is coming directly out of the money that could otherwise be used to actually help these people. Some of them smoke weed, some are true addicts, some are raging alcoholics.

Hellow, that's why they aren't able to maintain a job that pays a living wage, or hold down a job. THey are the people the welfare system is trying to help. Food stamps are an ENTITLEMENT program. We TRY to find a way to get bennies out to these people. We are doing our best to reach as many as possible. The psychology of the program isn't, "Oh shit, we only have this much money so we need to exclude as many people as possible so only the high functioning starving people get help". It's "We need to reach these people who otherwise are on the streets and hungry".

And that's where you're putting them if you require drug tests for food. And they are a bigger liability there than they ever have been getting their little debit cards and being able to get doritos because they used $10 to buy a dime bag.

SPOT ON allie!