Employment Drug Testing - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Zeus · #31 05-15-2006, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el presidente

Along the same lines as drug testing, background checks on persons seeking employment (for any kinds of job these days) routinely includes a criminal background investigation, credit/financial check and often times a driving record history.

If I apply for a job writing software code for a company (no company travel involved), why is it important that they look to see who my creditors are or if I have a speeding ticket?

Intrusive?

.....discuss.

Yes, it is intrusive. Necessary? For the company, perhaps. The real question IMO is should it be legally permitted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

Much like driving, working is a privilege, not a right.

The problem is that for many, working is a necessity. Who regulates how much a company can look into your past? Into your personal life?

Hatterasguy · #32 05-15-2006, 11:08 AM

With liability and lawsuits the way they are these days. Companies are liabal for what happens. They probably don't care about speeding tickets unless you are driving on their time, but major crimes in the past I can see why they would want to know that.

450slcguy · #33 05-15-2006, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

With liability and lawsuits the way they are these days. Companies are liabal for what happens. They probably don't care about speeding tickets unless you are driving on their time, but major crimes in the past I can see why they would want to know that.

Reform is needed to stop the ever increasing diameter of the liability circle. What ever happened to a individual being held responsibily for his own actions?

I was stopped at traffic red light several years ago and I heard this big bang coming from somewhere on the highway. 2 or 3 seconds later my car lurched forward as the guy behind smacked my bumper. Turns out a truck 4 vehicles behind approaching the light couldn't stop and he hit the car in front of him. This caused a chain reaction of 3 cars being pushed forward, ending with me as I was stopped at the light. Somehow I get sued from the guy 3 cars behind me. I was totally innocent of any liability, just a victim myself. Talk about a frivilous lawsuit without merit. How are such things permitted under the law? Why should my insurance company have to defend me when I was clearly not at fault? The only one guilty was the truck driver for speeding and losing control. Why would the driver 3 cars behind me think I was liable for the truck driver that hit him from behind? When it comes to lawyers and insurance co. something is broken and needs to be fixed to stop the BS from ever occuring.

Hatterasguy · #34 05-15-2006, 12:32 PM

Yep, I am a big fan of stopping all these stupid lawsuits. I have heard cases where a pizza delivery guy crashed, and the people not only sued him but coperate HQ for having some rule that said the pizza would be delivered quick. Lawyers head for the deapest pocket's.

We need laws in this country to cap damages.

boneheaddoctor · #35 05-15-2006, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeus

Yes, it is intrusive. Necessary? For the company, perhaps. The real question IMO is should it be legally permitted.

The problem is that for many, working is a necessity. Who regulates how much a company can look into your past? Into your personal life?

Think of it this way. THe company hires a known drug addict. That person under the influence does something that results in the deaths of several innocent people. Who do you think the legal community and the courts are going to go after? THe worker who likely has little money thanks to pay and benifits being eroded to line the pockets of the CEO? Or the company who he was on paid duty when this took place?

You can safely assume its the Company they will be going after since he was representing that company at that time. And opened them up to potientially hundreds of millions of dollars of liability. Extra insurance premiums even if they are accquitted, and millions in legal costs win or lose.

Thats the motivating factor of drug testing above many of the others. They could care less about that worker but thats millions they won't have to hand out in unwarranted bonuses throughout the ole boys club that year.

450slcguy · #36 05-15-2006, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Think of it this way. THe company hires a known drug addict.

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.

Zeus · #37 05-15-2006, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

Think of it this way. THe company hires a known drug addict. That person under the influence does something that results in the deaths of several innocent people. Who do you think the legal community and the courts are going to go after? THe worker who likely has little money thanks to pay and benifits being eroded to line the pockets of the CEO? Or the company who he was on paid duty when this took place?

You can safely assume its the Company they will be going after since he was representing that company at that time. And opened them up to potientially hundreds of millions of dollars of liability. Extra insurance premiums even if they are accquitted, and millions in legal costs win or lose.

Thats the motivating factor of drug testing above many of the others. They could care less about that worker but thats millions they won't have to hand out in unwarranted bonuses throughout the ole boys club that year.

Why would they hire a 'known' drug addict? *Just kidding*

I see your point and I think you're probably right as to why it happens. I just don't agree with it in principle.

Don't get me started on CEOs and their benefits...

boneheaddoctor · #38 05-15-2006, 01:40 PM

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.

boneheaddoctor · #39 05-15-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeus

Don't get me started on CEOs and their benefits...

heh heh....you and me both.....

John Doe · #40 05-15-2006, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waybomb

I also fully believe that if a prospective employee flunks a drug screen, the employer should be legally required to notify the law, and then there should be quick turn around procedings to jail you for breaking the law.

I missed this earlier. This is the single greatest violation of privacy that has been suggested in this thread.

BTW, what law has one broken by failing a drug test required by an employer?

John Doe · #41 05-15-2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeus

The problem is that for many, working is a necessity. Who regulates how much a company can look into your past? Into your personal life?

A necessity does still not make it a right. My company, my rules aside from the ADA and a few other constraints.

I hate to get Bone started, but here it is: Casual toker software geek gets in his car and leaves IBM to go pick up some nerd stuff to finish a project and on his return to work plows into a 3 y.o. At the hospital, he tests hot for pot. IBM has no drug screening policy, so they get nailed for negligence in allowing a guy who they have not screened operate a vehicle during his course and scope of employment.

mikemover · #42 05-15-2006, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

Yes I know the rules. When your on company time, fine. Judge me by my job performance, and accomplishments. When I'm on my time, stay out of my personal life, thats none of their business. This country and it's employers did quite well in the past without having to search a persons body for whatever they could find to use against you.

My point being what I do behind closed doors in the privacy of my home should not subject for invasive intrusion. Just another example of the chipping away of our constitutional rights, similar to the current domestic spying and phone records debakle.

Yep. You are correct, sir.

As long as you are doing your job in an acceptable manner, that SHOULD be the limit of what concerns your employer. Unfortunately, many people think they should be able to dictate what you do with your off-time as well.

Mike

John Doe · #43 05-15-2006, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

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.

I think you are confusing probable cause here. The easiest thing I know to compare it to (as I did earlier) is the Implied Consent laws regarding driving a vehicle.

aklim · #44 05-15-2006, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

When it comes to lawyers and insurance co. something is broken and needs to be fixed to stop the BS from ever occuring.

Fix the 12 morons that decide the case. The lawyer is doing what is legal. However, if the jury uses a whit of common sense, they would not just simply give huge awards. 1/3 of nothing is nothing. lawyers would not waste their time on these stupid suits. Further to that, they would consider carefully when it comes to the settlement issue. Right now they sue you for 10000, you settle for 6000 and they get 2000 for writing a couple pieces of paper. Doesn't hurt them to try since the morons tend to side the with the little guy (their client) whenever they can instead of weighing the nature of the issue.

mikemover · #45 05-15-2006, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boneheaddoctor

And since it does take weeks to clear your system they can successfully argue what you do on their dime is their business.

You are correct in saying that observable traces of certain drugs hang around for this long (even longer for some drugs)...but the EFFECTS upon the mind and body certainly do NOT. If you smoke pot today, evidence of it MIGHT show up in a drug test administered one or two weeks later... but you are certainly NOT still under the influence of it.

It is my understanding that evidence of LSD use remains in one's spinal fluid for LIFE... Does this mean that someone who used LSD 30 years ago should not be hired today, based entirely on failing that test? Seems pretty preposterous to me.

I fully support an employer's right to make the rules... "You own the company, you make the rules." But I question the fairness and the logic of such "zero tolerance" policies.

A lot of well-qualified, brilliant people are occasional pot smokers, and it is ridiculous for a company to dismiss them or deny them employment based upon something they have done on their OWN time, and something which has not affected their work.

Mike