What would happen to you if you tested positive for drugs? (1 Viewer)

[roadkill1292]

Employers should have to apply for special exemptions to the no-testing rules that we should have. Accounting firms and football teams and a host of others wouldn't qualify for it.

I don't get it.

The default should be that employers aren't allowed to test for pot unless they have a specific demonstrable reason for needing to do so. If a day care center or airline company applies for the exemption, they'd have a pretty good argument. Football teams, not so much.

 

[jwb]

Absolutely nothing.

Same here. I work for myself, and the boss encourages periodic imbibing (for creative purposes, of course).

 

[mr roboto]

Employers should have to apply for special exemptions to the no-testing rules that we should have. Accounting firms and football teams and a host of others wouldn't qualify for it.

I don't get it.

The default should be that employers aren't allowed to test for pot unless they have a specific demonstrable reason for needing to do so. If a day care center or airline company applies for the exemption, they'd have a pretty good argument. Football teams, not so much.

I'm a fan of this.

 

[FUBAR]

Employers should have to apply for special exemptions to the no-testing rules that we should have. Accounting firms and football teams and a host of others wouldn't qualify for it.

I don't get it.

The default should be that employers aren't allowed to test for pot unless they have a specific demonstrable reason for needing to do so. If a day care center or airline company applies for the exemption, they'd have a pretty good argument. Football teams, not so much.

Disagree. Default should be for non government business, you want to work for the employer, employer sets the rules. You don't like the rules, don't work for that company.

 

[moleculo]

Employers should have to apply for special exemptions to the no-testing rules that we should have. Accounting firms and football teams and a host of others wouldn't qualify for it.

I don't get it.

The default should be that employers aren't allowed to test for pot unless they have a specific demonstrable reason for needing to do so. If a day care center or airline company applies for the exemption, they'd have a pretty good argument. Football teams, not so much.

Disagree. Default should be for non government business, you want to work for the employer, employer sets the rules. You don't like the rules, don't work for that company.

yeah, default should be employers can do whatever the hell they want. You want to smoke it up and your employer doesn't think it's ok, maybe that's not the job for you.

Folks, it's not the same for alcohol. Alcohol is out of your system within 24 hours so it's really impossible to test. That being said, if I failed an alcohol test during working hours (i.e. BAC>0.0), I'd be in pretty big trouble and presumably everyone else be too.

 

[Sand]

I presume we're talking about illegal drugs here. Once marijuana is legal, the debate should be over -- employers shouldn't have the right to information about an employee's use of it.

alcohol is legal. How's that beer bong at work going?

We had a guy get a couple DUIs and was let go as he would not be able to maintain his security clearance.

If I got caught with something illegal there would be a 10 minute HR meeting and I'd be walked out.

 

[roadkill1292]

I don't understand this love for a tremendous and unnecessary extension of an employer's powers over his employees. The employer already enjoys the most powerful leverage in the relationship -- to discontinue it if the work performance doesn't meet the company's needs.

 

[FUBAR]

I don't understand this love for a tremendous and unnecessary extension of an employer's powers over his employees. The employer already enjoys the most powerful leverage in the relationship -- to discontinue it if the work performance doesn't meet the company's needs.

Love? Hope you're not referring to anything i wrote.

I simply believe employers should be able to hire whomever they want and set rules. The good companies will hire those who will help their company most. Those individuals may very well include weed smokers, or not.

The apparent belief in a right to employment is not helpful to society.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'd be placed on a disciplinary probationary period and informed that I need to enter thr assistance program for lawyers with drug problems. If something happened and I got nailed again, there would be disciplinary proceedings which would result in either a slap on the wrist or suspension from the practice of law. Ultimately, if it happened enough times, I'd be disbarred.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Software developer. I'd be fired. Each of my last 2 jobs have had random testing as well.

 

[roadkill1292]

I don't understand this love for a tremendous and unnecessary extension of an employer's powers over his employees. The employer already enjoys the most powerful leverage in the relationship -- to discontinue it if the work performance doesn't meet the company's needs.

Love? Hope you're not referring to anything i wrote.

I simply believe employers should be able to hire whomever they want and set rules. The good companies will hire those who will help their company most. Those individuals may very well include weed smokers, or not.

The apparent belief in a right to employment is not helpful to society.

I'm not arguing for guaranteed employment. I'm arguing for moving the line a little. An employer can let an employee go pretty much at will, with or without drug testing. I don't have a problem with that. But I think the standard for regulating an employee's off-work activities ought to be pretty restricted. Some professions can make a good argument for it; others not so much.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I would be fired without the formality of due process in front of Human Resources.

 

[Josie Maran]

Bartender here. I could be in a three year coma and still test positive.

If I tested negative, my boss would slip me an 8 ball and a bag of weed and tell me to take the night off.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Bartender here. I could be in a three year coma and still test positive.

If I tested negative, my boss would slip me an 8 ball and a bag of weed and tell me to take the night off.

A rather unusual medical plan, but one that I think other insurers ought to explore. I'm hoping Kaiser Permanente get behind this wellness program.

 

[Josie Maran]

Bartender here. I could be in a three year coma and still test positive.

If I tested negative, my boss would slip me an 8 ball and a bag of weed and tell me to take the night off.

A rather unusual medical plan, but one that I think other insurers ought to explore. I'm hoping Kaiser Permanente get behind this wellness program.

Time for a paradigm shift IMO.

 

[NCCommish]

Employers should have to apply for special exemptions to the no-testing rules that we should have. Accounting firms and football teams and a host of others wouldn't qualify for it.

I don't get it.

The default should be that employers aren't allowed to test for pot unless they have a specific demonstrable reason for needing to do so. If a day care center or airline company applies for the exemption, they'd have a pretty good argument. Football teams, not so much.

Disagree. Default should be for non government business, you want to work for the employer, employer sets the rules. You don't like the rules, don't work for that company.

There's this thing called the 4th amendment you may want to look into it. Employers testing you falls under a search. Companies aren't law enforcement entities, they shouldn't have that power. And in fact there are few jobs where there should be an exemption. It all started out as testing for jobs like pilot. Now it's for ####### bag boys. This is just another of those things where we throw away our rights for what? So we could see wages stagnant while CEO pay shoots through the roof? Bad trade.

 

[Kanil]

I'd lose my clearances and probably be out of a job.

This... except no "probably" about it.

 

[FUBAR]

Employers should have to apply for special exemptions to the no-testing rules that we should have. Accounting firms and football teams and a host of others wouldn't qualify for it.

I don't get it.

The default should be that employers aren't allowed to test for pot unless they have a specific demonstrable reason for needing to do so. If a day care center or airline company applies for the exemption, they'd have a pretty good argument. Football teams, not so much.

Disagree. Default should be for non government business, you want to work for the employer, employer sets the rules. You don't like the rules, don't work for that company.

There's this thing called the 4th amendment you may want to look into it. Employers testing you falls under a search. Companies aren't law enforcement entities, they shouldn't have that power. And in fact there are few jobs where there should be an exemption. It all started out as testing for jobs like pilot. Now it's for ####### bag boys. This is just another of those things where we throw away our rights for what? So we could see wages stagnant while CEO pay shoots through the roof? Bad trade.

You don't think business owners have rights?

I'd like to hear more about how a business drug testing violates the 4th amendment.

 

[Sand]

Employers should have to apply for special exemptions to the no-testing rules that we should have. Accounting firms and football teams and a host of others wouldn't qualify for it.

I don't get it.

The default should be that employers aren't allowed to test for pot unless they have a specific demonstrable reason for needing to do so. If a day care center or airline company applies for the exemption, they'd have a pretty good argument. Football teams, not so much.

Disagree. Default should be for non government business, you want to work for the employer, employer sets the rules. You don't like the rules, don't work for that company.

There's this thing called the 4th amendment you may want to look into it. Employers testing you falls under a search. Companies aren't law enforcement entities, they shouldn't have that power. And in fact there are few jobs where there should be an exemption. It all started out as testing for jobs like pilot. Now it's for ####### bag boys. This is just another of those things where we throw away our rights for what? So we could see wages stagnant while CEO pay shoots through the roof? Bad trade.

You have every right to refuse the search. They have every right to fire you.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

I work for myself now, so no worries. I just retired from a job as a high school administrator. No school in my state tests teachers (or admins), so nothing.

Yeah, nothing here.

It's funny because when I used to play disc golf a lot guys used to always offer me hits of their weed. I don't smoke but have no problem with it. I would usually just answer "Aw man...I can't. I'm a teacher." Usually the reaction would be "Oh, yeah. Guess you can't get high, huh?"

There are people who play disc golf and don't get high?

but then again I do really suck at it

 

[renesauz]

Would likely lose my license, or at the least be placed in an overbearing and painful 3 year monitoring program.

 

[roadkill1292]

Employers should have to apply for special exemptions to the no-testing rules that we should have. Accounting firms and football teams and a host of others wouldn't qualify for it.

I don't get it.

The default should be that employers aren't allowed to test for pot unless they have a specific demonstrable reason for needing to do so. If a day care center or airline company applies for the exemption, they'd have a pretty good argument. Football teams, not so much.

Disagree. Default should be for non government business, you want to work for the employer, employer sets the rules. You don't like the rules, don't work for that company.

There's this thing called the 4th amendment you may want to look into it. Employers testing you falls under a search. Companies aren't law enforcement entities, they shouldn't have that power. And in fact there are few jobs where there should be an exemption. It all started out as testing for jobs like pilot. Now it's for ####### bag boys. This is just another of those things where we throw away our rights for what? So we could see wages stagnant while CEO pay shoots through the roof? Bad trade.

You have every right to refuse the search. They have every right to fire you.

The NCAA argument!Why do some of you think employers should have this power?

 

[Sand]

Employers should have to apply for special exemptions to the no-testing rules that we should have. Accounting firms and football teams and a host of others wouldn't qualify for it.

I don't get it.

The default should be that employers aren't allowed to test for pot unless they have a specific demonstrable reason for needing to do so. If a day care center or airline company applies for the exemption, they'd have a pretty good argument. Football teams, not so much.

Disagree. Default should be for non government business, you want to work for the employer, employer sets the rules. You don't like the rules, don't work for that company.

There's this thing called the 4th amendment you may want to look into it. Employers testing you falls under a search. Companies aren't law enforcement entities, they shouldn't have that power. And in fact there are few jobs where there should be an exemption. It all started out as testing for jobs like pilot. Now it's for ####### bag boys. This is just another of those things where we throw away our rights for what? So we could see wages stagnant while CEO pay shoots through the roof? Bad trade.

You have every right to refuse the search. They have every right to fire you.

The NCAA argument!Why do some of you think employers should have this power?

My employer can let me go at any time for no reason at all. Not sure why this disturbs you more than that.

My issue really doesn't track back to my employer, but to the govt. Not sure how the govt. would protect my employment while at the same time denying me the clearances I need to maintain employment.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Software developer. I'd be fired. Each of my last 2 jobs have had random testing as well.

random software dev? wtf

 

[FUBAR]

Employers should have to apply for special exemptions to the no-testing rules that we should have. Accounting firms and football teams and a host of others wouldn't qualify for it.

I don't get it.

The default should be that employers aren't allowed to test for pot unless they have a specific demonstrable reason for needing to do so. If a day care center or airline company applies for the exemption, they'd have a pretty good argument. Football teams, not so much.

Disagree. Default should be for non government business, you want to work for the employer, employer sets the rules. You don't like the rules, don't work for that company.

There's this thing called the 4th amendment you may want to look into it. Employers testing you falls under a search. Companies aren't law enforcement entities, they shouldn't have that power. And in fact there are few jobs where there should be an exemption. It all started out as testing for jobs like pilot. Now it's for ####### bag boys. This is just another of those things where we throw away our rights for what? So we could see wages stagnant while CEO pay shoots through the roof? Bad trade.

You have every right to refuse the search. They have every right to fire you.

The NCAA argument!Why do some of you think employers should have this power?

Why shouldn't they?

 

[Gopher State]

fired and kicked to the curve immediately, same with a DUI, company vehicle, with a pension/generous 401K program and annual bonus, not even worth thinking about. More to life then getting high

 

[NCCommish]

.

You don't think business owners have rights?

I'd like to hear more about how a business drug testing violates the 4th amendment.
It is a search of your person without any evidence of wrong doing. And I am an employer. I don't test. I don't think what you do on your time is my business. If you come into work messed up (drunk,high, whatever) then yeah you are getting fired. if you go home and smoke a joint after work not my business. Any more than it is if you go home and kill a six pack which is much worse for you and me. Excessive drinking costs the economy over 200 billion a year. Oh and your taxes pay for about half of that.

 

[phrozen]

In my line of work, the only way you would get tested is if you had an accident. Then you're kinda hosed if you test positive.

School bus driver?

 

[FUBAR]

You don't think business owners have rights?I'd like to hear more about how a business drug testing violates the 4th amendment.

.

It is a search of your person without any evidence of wrong doing. And I am an employer. I don't test. I don't think what you do on your time is my business. If you come into work messed up (drunk,high, whatever) then yeah you are getting fired. if you go home and smoke a joint after work not my business. Any more than it is if you go home and kill a six pack which is much worse for you and me. Excessive drinking costs the economy over 200 billion a year. Oh and your taxes pay for about half of that.

A search - by whom? And what makes it unreasonable? A moderate SCOTUS would disagree with your interpretation.

It will be interesting to see what weed costs us if it became legal throughout the nation.

FWIW, I think on the whole, an typical business (outside exceptions that we would likely agree on for the most part) will probably do better if it doesn't test its employees, but I have no problem if owners decide differently and testing is part of the contract, voluntarily entered into by both parties. I'd much rather provide freedom to both parties than have the government dictate terms to either side on this issue (again, outside certain fields).

 

[Mile High]

Would this be an issue if marijuana was out of your system in 24 hours?

 

[FUBAR]

Would this be an issue if marijuana was out of your system in 24 hours?

Cocaine and heroin only stay in your urine 3-4 days, in your blood for 12 hours.

In some ways, the smart move if you're in a business where they test, is to use one of those. Of course, they're much more addicting so there's that issue.

 

[TxBuckeye]

In some ways, the smart move if you're in a business where they test, is to use one of those.

Uhm, no, that's not even close to the smart move. The really obvious choice is.

 

[phrozen]

Would this be an issue if marijuana was out of your system in 24 hours?

Cocaine and heroin only stay in your urine 3-4 days, in your blood for 12 hours.

In some ways, the smart move if you're in a business where they test, is to use one of those. Of course, they're much more addicting so there's that issue.

if you do crystal meth, your boss will be so excited that you worked 40 hours straight and will never bother testing for drugs.

 

[FUBAR]

In some ways, the smart move if you're in a business where they test, is to use one of those.

Uhm, no, that's not even close to the smart move. The really obvious choice is.

Just sayin', I've been told guys have done coke on the first day of a long weekend, we did drug testing the day after we returned to work and they passed. (Many of us have shaved heads and really nobody tests hair).

Obviously there are other issues at play.

 

[the moops]

fired and kicked to the curve immediately, same with a DUI, company vehicle, with a pension/generous 401K program and annual bonus, not even worth thinking about. More to life then getting high

More to life than working too

 

[fred_1_15301]

Good chance my employer wouldn't even find out, so nothing. If they did find out, no idea. Based on my track record I'd think I could save my job, but they might have no choice but to let me go.

This