Fired For Recreational Drug Use

[A_Wanderer]

Anita Epolito was fired from her job after refusing to submit to a drug test

"It was unbelievable, because I truly believed that what you did after 5 o'clock had nothing to do with your job," said Epolito, then a 15-year employee at Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator in Okemos, Mich.

She took her case to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission but learned that in Michigan, as in 19 other states, her employer had the right to dismiss her for off-duty activity.

link

Of course the evil substance that she was abusing was nicotine.

 

[all_i_want]

well, isnt selling cigarettes to under 18 or 16 (not so sure about the age) illegal in the US? since buying a substance sold under illegal conditions isnt the most ethical of acts, i think the action was justified. this is about the attitude, the respect for the law (which bans underage smoking), which this 15 year old apparently lacks.

 

[financeguy]

which this 15 year old apparently lacks.

I think you misread the article, she was with the company for fifteen years I assume is what it is saying.

 

[melon]

Health insurance is very expensive in the U.S. Since we don't want national healthcare, since we don't want to regulate prices like every other goddamn industrialized nation, since our healthcare system has so much non-competitive bloat and excess with no end in sight, now companies are starting to fire smokers, who are statistically a huge burden on our healthcare system and don't qualify for protection under the law (and I've heard about Weyco, Inc.; health insurance costs are why smokers are fired from that company).

Plus, when you're dealing with "at-will" employment laws, as in 19 other states, you are legally allowed to be fired for absolutely anything.

Why don't we redirect the (g)outrage(!) where it really belongs: the American healthcare hegemony?

Melon

 

[AliEnvy]

Unless your job involves the physical safety of others, drug testing is one of the most vile intrusions on personal freedom and it perplexes me that Americans allow themselves to be subjected to it.

 

[verte76]

I hate drug testing.

 

[nbcrusader]

Unless your job involves the physical safety of others, drug testing is one of the most vile intrusions on personal freedom and it perplexes me that Americans allow themselves to be subjected to it.

Most vile?

The externalities of drug use are not limited to potential physical harm. An employer makes a better workplace for everyone when such baggage is reduced or eliminated.

 

[AliEnvy]

An employer makes a better workplace for everyone when such baggage is reduced or eliminated.

Agreed. I don't agree with the method.

There is all kinds of baggage the workplace would be better without and random drug testing is no more valid a method of reducing baggage than it would be to fire all the women with D-cups because they are too distracting to men and incite jealous cattiness in women.

Don't you find it interesting as an American that you have more right to freely purchase and own an automatic assault weapon than you do to protect the content of your own pee?

 

[Liesje]

I had to do a drug test once when I was 16 before I was allowed to coach gymnastics. The crappy part was, I have a really hard time peeing in a cup, so I handn't gone to the bathroom all day, and then the nurse said they messed up the test and I had to pee in the cup again.

 

[Irvine511]

The externalities of drug use are not limited to potential physical harm. An employer makes a better workplace for everyone when such baggage is reduced or eliminated.

i wonder what other things we can test for in order to ensure that we have the best workplace possible.

if it is in the employers best interets to look deeply into the lives of people to discover the potential for anything less than optimal performance, regardless of whether or not the employee demonstrates any reason for suspicion or declining performance, then it must be done so.

 

[nbcrusader]

i wonder what other things we can test for in order to ensure that we have the best workplace possible.

if it is in the employers best interets to look deeply into the lives of people to discover the potential for anything less than optimal performance, regardless of whether or not the employee demonstrates any reason for suspicion or declining performance, then it must be done so.

Hadn't really thought of that part. Once we eliminate things that can have a significant negative impact on the workplace, then study those factors which will create the optimal workplace.

 

[Irvine511]

Hadn't really thought of that part. Once we eliminate things that can have a significant negative impact on the workplace, then study those factors which will create the optimal workplace.

that would be great! we should do a thorough vetting of every individuals lifestyle, habits, and choices -- let's examine what's in their fridge, how much they exercise, what (if any) religion they practice (can we really expect jews and moslems in the same workplace to contribute to an optimal atmosphere), how they get on with their family members, whether or not they smoke, their high school transcript and SAT scores, what kinds of movies and television they watch (want to make sure they aren't watching anything too existential or depressing, don't want them wondering about the futility of corporate life or anything), what kinds of books they read (only those that will stimulate positive attitudes), how many parking tickets they've gotten, traffic violations, anything that happened before they turned 18 ... the possibilities are endess!

 

[nbcrusader]

My head is spinning. Let's just stick to keeping the drug users out.

 

[indra]

Yet another reason I'm very happy to be working for myself.


(but my boss can be a real bitch sometimes... )

 

[Carek1230]

I don't like drug testing either. The first time I did it for a prospective employer it was a humiliating experience....couldn't pee in the cup and there was saranwrap on the sink and toilet, but the worst was this guard lady with a clipboard and stopwatch stood in the open doorway WATCHING me! Made me feel like a criminal. I turned down the job anyway.

 

[Dismantled]

drug testing is necessary in some cases.

 

[AliEnvy]

Yep for sure, especially when someone's job involves the safety and lives of others. At what point do you determine that drug testing infringes on privacy?

 

[Calluna]

My head is spinning. Let's just stick to keeping the drug users out.

Alright then, let's get rid of all the coffee drinkers too because caffeine is a drug. Especially if they take their coffee with sugar because sugar is a very addictive drug as well.

 

[Muggsy]

Too bad I can't fire myself

 

[Irvine511]

Alright then, let's get rid of all the coffee drinkers too because caffeine is a drug. Especially if they take their coffee with sugar because sugar is a very addictive drug as well.

moving this along, so let's say that i'm engaging in some illegal behavior in my own home that doesn't affect my behavior at work. is it in my employer's interest -- is it even time well spent -- for him to investigate and test me for things that i might be doing that might be illegal, regardless of their impact on my performance?

if i were busted by the police for such behavior, the employer can certainly fire me, but why would the employer view it in his best interests to try to seek out illegal things i may or may not be doing?

like, let's say i liked to eat hallucinogenic mushrooms on friday nights and fall asleep in front of the TV. this is illegal. however, it does nothing to my job performance, since i've got saturday and sunday to recover. however, my employer drug tests me, and i test postitive for whatever substance is in those things, and i get fired.

was that really worth the effort?

 

[AliEnvy]

like, let's say i liked to eat hallucinogenic mushrooms on friday nights and fall asleep in front of the TV. this is illegal. however, it does nothing to my job performance, since i've got saturday and sunday to recover. however, my employer drug tests me, and i test postitive for whatever substance is in those things, and i get fired.

was that really worth the effort?

If it doesn't affect your performance, no, not worth the effort.

But if you called in sick every other Monday, or showed up and caused a work accident, your company would be looking for a cheap, easy way to get rid of you and many more like you, especially if you are unionized.

 

[nbcrusader]

Alright then, let's get rid of all the coffee drinkers too because caffeine is a drug. Especially if they take their coffee with sugar because sugar is a very addictive drug as well.

Do I take cream with my crystal meth?

 

[nbcrusader]

moving this along, so let's say that i'm engaging in some illegal behavior in my own home that doesn't affect my behavior at work. is it in my employer's interest -- is it even time well spent -- for him to investigate and test me for things that i might be doing that might be illegal, regardless of their impact on my performance?

if i were busted by the police for such behavior, the employer can certainly fire me, but why would the employer view it in his best interests to try to seek out illegal things i may or may not be doing?

like, let's say i liked to eat hallucinogenic mushrooms on friday nights and fall asleep in front of the TV. this is illegal. however, it does nothing to my job performance, since i've got saturday and sunday to recover. however, my employer drug tests me, and i test postitive for whatever substance is in those things, and i get fired.

was that really worth the effort?

Perhaps we investigate these other areas if there is a strong correlation between the behavior and the work-related problems.

I think such correlation has been measured with drug use - and it applies to blue collar and white collar positions.

 

[AliEnvy]

Perhaps we investigate these other areas if there is a strong correlation between the behavior and the work-related problems.

I think such correlation has been measured with drug use - and it applies to blue collar and white collar positions.

There is likely a strong correlation between eating unhealthy food and work-related problems/performance.

What would be the appropriate way to investigate this in order to a) not hire you or b) fire you?

 

[Calluna]

Do I take cream with my crystal meth?

You may as well. And while we're at it, cream is right out. Too fattening. As we know, the costs of obesity related diseases are passed on to the corporation through insurance plans.

I'm afraid it's got to be powdered cream substitute for you, NB.

 

[Irvine511]

Perhaps we investigate these other areas if there is a strong correlation between the behavior and the work-related problems.

I think such correlation has been measured with drug use - and it applies to blue collar and white collar positions.

but if there are no work-related problems, and drug testing is a policy of the company regardless of performance, doesn't that absolutely constitute an invasion of privacy?

there's no question that drug use -- especially with things like crystal meth -- are really, really bad and will destroy your life, let alone your performance on the job.

however, if there is no reason to be suspicious, if someone can snort a little cocaine on a saturday evening and not have it affect their job performance, what possible business is that of the employer? unless the employer wants to investigate all aspects of the employee's life to make sure that no laws are being broken on their personal time, why single out drug use?

to complicate this a bit, i can think of some professions where drug use is encouraged, starting with steroids, but also extending to young investment bankers who work 90 hours a week ... and this is just *illegal* drugs ... what about abuse of perscription drugs? what about employees who are encouraged to get, say, perscriptions for ritalin or adderall beause it increases their productivity?

 

[Calluna]

moving this along, so let's say that i'm engaging in some illegal behavior in my own home that doesn't affect my behavior at work. is it in my employer's interest -- is it even time well spent -- for him to investigate and test me for things that i might be doing that might be illegal, regardless of their impact on my performance?

NO.

if i were busted by the police for such behavior, the employer can certainly fire me, but why would the employer view it in his best interests to try to seek out illegal things i may or may not be doing?

Very good question, Irvine. I think what people do in the privacy of their own homes is nobody's business but their own.

And in Seattle, thanks to Initiative 22, private marijuana use is now considered a low priority crime for Seattle Police so I doubt anyone here would be getting arrested for it unless they were way out of line or just plain stupid.

 

[AliEnvy]

I'm afraid it's got to be powdered cream substitute for you, NB.

That shit causes cancer. Insurance companies increase premiums when they pay for expensive cancer treatments.

 

[nbcrusader]

but if there are no work-related problems, and drug testing is a policy of the company regardless of performance, doesn't that absolutely constitute an invasion of privacy?

No. This is a well-settled issue in the courts. Employers can require testing for any new employee or as part of an on-going program.

I think you touch on an interesting issue of "what is the right to privacy?"

An employee has very limited privacy when at work (essentially, the bathroom), but not much more.

 

[AliEnvy]

to complicate this a bit, i can think of some professions where drug use is encouraged, starting with steroids, but also extending to young investment bankers who work 90 hours a week ... and this is just *illegal* drugs ... what about abuse of perscription drugs? what about employees who are encouraged to get, say, perscriptions for ritalin or adderall beause it increases their productivity?

LOL, I was going to mention some sectors could be wiped out due to this kind of policy, namely Wall Street.