Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 450slcguy
Those are the key words "THe company hires a known drug addict." Then I agree, the company is liable, only common sense. If you have a clean criminal record free of any questional history, why should the employer be held responsible for liability? If you pass the backround check OK, that should it. Now if the employee exhibits any signs of problems, then OK I can agree for further investigation. I'm not being unreasonable here, just trying to protect our constitutional rights of reasonable cause and search. I guess alot of people here feel that law doesn't apply to private entities. There seems to be end to the erosion of rights and liberties, just more excuses and reasons to violate them.
|
Well the line that divides recreational user from drug addicts is open to a lot of interpretation I agree, and they are going to to err on the side of caution.
And since it does take weeks to clear your system they can successfully argue what you do on their dime is their business.
Unless you are part of the ole boys club you can safely assume they will highly frown upon you haveing a few beers or any other alcoholic beverage before the end of your work day.
Now if that means a lot to you then search out a company with a leanient policy towards this. They exist. Now if you know they test for this sort of thing and you go out and do it anyway knowing several things are detecible weeks or months later then who do you have to blame when you get caught?
You can be sure if I tied one on at lunch and came back or went to a customers office I would not have this job for long.
Like dress codes, and codes of conduct. WHen you accept the job its something you have agreed to honor.