Fired For Recreational Drug Use

[AliEnvy]

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

So it's OK to give up your right to privacy at home in order to gain the priveledge to work and earn a living?

 

[nbcrusader]

So it's OK to give up your right to privacy at home in order to gain the priveledge to work and earn a living?

You lose no privacy at home. When one brings the lingering effect of drugs into the work place, there is no right of privacy.

 

[Irvine511]

You lose no privacy at home. When one brings the lingering effect of drugs into the work place, there is no right of privacy.

what are the lingering effects? a small amount of THC in one's urine? if it doesn't affect workplace function, haven't we violated one's right to privacy?

how about this as an example: say at home i have a laptop, and at home i go to websites that i would never go to at work. one day, i bring my laptop into work because my computer is broken, i log onto the internet through the company, and then my internet history is revealed. all of the sites i have visited have been on my computer, on my own time, yet, because the employer was able to view my internet history, might i be in danger of being fired if the employer were to so choose?

this seems like what's going on in regards to drug use. it might have nothing to do with my performance, but if you catch me doing something illegal in my off hours -- like THC in my urine, or a list of NSFW websites -- then you are under legal grounds to fire me?

that strikes me as an invasion of privacy. what business is it of yours, the employer, what i do on my own time if it doesn't affect my performance? there seems to be a false assumption afoot.

(this is all very interesting, though)

 

[AliEnvy]

You lose no privacy at home. When one brings the lingering effect of drugs into the work place, there is no right of privacy.

If what we want is to rid our workplaces of unproductive employees who don't meet work performance standards, great, let's do that. And let's measure that using work performance standards.

If what we want is to stop people from using illegal drugs, great, let's do that. And let's let criminal laws and not labour laws do the punishing.

If what we want is for people to stop smoking, great, let's do that. And let's keep pushing for public bans until people decide between smoking at home and not smoking.

If what we want is to let personal freedom and dignity be pissed on by corporate control and greed, great, pass the piss pot.

 

[Calluna]

If what we want is to let personal freedom and dignity be pissed on by corporate control and greed, great, pass the piss pot.

Great post, AliEnvy.

But seriously guys, I don't see what the big deal about privacy is. We're all good, straight upstanding Christian citizens around here so we have nothing to worry about, right?

 

[indra]

But seriously guys, I don't see what the big deal about privacy is. We're all good, straight upstanding Christian citizens around here so we have nothing to worry about, right?

 

[Kieran McConville]

im goutraged, guys. very much so.

frankly, it's a battle. the employer may be concerned with extracting productivity at all costs - that's his concern. your/our concern should be keeping what we enjoy in our lives - not agreeing with him!

I think, as with so many things of this sort, we're talking large companies here mainly. Such organisations are under the delusion that they constitute their own private nation.

 

[financeguy]

I never cease to be amazed at the readiness of a proportion of the population to give up their liberty to the nanny state.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It isn't the nanny state though, it is the corporation.

 

[financeguy]

It isn't the nanny state though, it is the corporation.

Taking their lead from the nanny state, I would suspect.

I don't know about the States but in Britain organisations which have implemented a policy like this are almost aways public sector.

In any case I view it as an encroachment on liberty pure and simple.

 

[nbcrusader]

But seriously guys, I don't see what the big deal about privacy is. We're all good, straight upstanding Christian citizens around here so we have nothing to worry about, right?

What has religion go to do with this?

 

[nbcrusader]

If what we want is to rid our workplaces of unproductive employees who don't meet work performance standards, great, let's do that. And let's measure that using work performance standards.

If what we want is to stop people from using illegal drugs, great, let's do that. And let's let criminal laws and not labour laws do the punishing.

If what we want is for people to stop smoking, great, let's do that. And let's keep pushing for public bans until people decide between smoking at home and not smoking.

If what we want is to let personal freedom and dignity be pissed on by corporate control and greed, great, pass the piss pot.

A tad dramatic. This is not about corporate greed. This is about healthy work environments. If there are strong correlations between workplace harassment, injuries, accidents, etc. and drug use, it would seem reasonable to allow employers to screen for drug use.


And calling illegal activity "personal freedom and dignity" is a stretch.

 

[financeguy]

If there are strong correlations between workplace harassment, injuries, accidents, etc. and drug use, it would seem reasonable to allow employers to screen for drug use.

A tad dramatic. The article posted refers to nicotine use, not heroin use.

 

[AliEnvy]

This is about healthy work environments. If there are strong correlations between workplace harassment, injuries, accidents, etc. and drug use, it would seem reasonable to allow employers to screen for drug use.

If it's about healthy work environments and you have one set of laws allowing urine testing and another set of laws that say you can fire employees for off-duty activity, the potential for discrimination of basic human rights is rather unlimited.

And calling illegal activity "personal freedom and dignity" is a stretch.

Alcohol and cigarettes are not illegal. Tylenol 3s with codeine are not illegal. Allergy meds are not illegal. Blood pressure meds are not illegal. HIV meds are not illegal. Being pregnant is not illegal. Being genetically predisposed to heart disease is not illegal.

 

[nbcrusader]

If it's about healthy work environments and you have one set of laws allowing urine testing and another set of laws that say you can fire employees for off-duty activity, the potential for discrimination of basic human rights is rather unlimited.

You create a false dilema here. Drug use does not remain a completely off-duty activity. Affects of drug use are brought into the workplace.

The arguments you raise have been considered and rejected by courts at all levels. Drug testing policies are established as a reasonable intrusion for the greater good - especially when they deal with illegal substances.

Alcohol and cigarettes are not illegal. Tylenol 3s with codeine are not illegal. Allergy meds are not illegal. Blood pressure meds are not illegal. HIV meds are not illegal. Being pregnant is not illegal. Being genetically predisposed to heart disease is not illegal.

Talk to the FDA. All the drugs you mentioned are already tiered - some deemed acceptable for consumer purchase, others requiring perscription, others illegal.

 

[nbcrusader]

A tad dramatic. The article posted refers to nicotine use, not heroin use.

The article dealt with a minor who is not legally permitted to purchase cigarettes. And, she wasn't fired for smoking. She was fired for refusing to take a drug test.

 

[AliEnvy]

You create a false dilema here. Drug use does not remain a completely off-duty activity. Affects of drug use are brought into the workplace.

There is nothing false about that dilema and it's at the very least naive to deny the potential for discrimination.

Drug use causes problems in the workplace, we can agree on that. Many of us have witnessed it I'm sure. Some of us have had to manage the ripple effect.

Termination of employment is fairly straightforward without testing.

Personal liberty and the greater good are in constant conflict at opposite ends of the spectrum and sacrifices to personal liberty are often made to serve the greater good. Yup, got that, always has and always will make sense.

The arguments you raise have been considered and rejected by courts at all levels. Drug testing policies are established as a reasonable intrusion for the greater good - especially when they deal with illegal substances.

Who is REALLY being served as "the greater good" with widespread urine testing that is not proven to be a bonafide occupational requirement for safety? An organization can already protect productivity and a healthy working environment by legally firing an employee for any reason at all and not have to justify it. Random testing is nothing more than insidious, systematic behaviour control.

So the courts side with big business as usual, no surprise there. As most American labor law is HEAVILY weighted to employers in a capitalist econmony, I get that (can't say I agree agree with all of it mind you).

It still perplexes me that this particular issue hasn't crossed a freedom boundary for the majority of working Americans though.

Talk to the FDA. All the drugs you mentioned are already tiered - some deemed acceptable for consumer purchase, others requiring perscription, others illegal.

What is illegal among the ones I mentioned?

 

[nbcrusader]

You are jumping back and forth in your arguments. You recognize the problems in the workplace and the burden added by having to manage the ripple effect. Yet, you want to test for the limited purpose of "a bonafide occupational requirement for safety".

Saying that "courts side with big business as usual" completely ignores the significant evaluation that has occurred over the years in favor of simple bias. In fact, there are judicial channels that always tip the balance in favor of the employee.

This thread is about testing for illegal drugs. Simply saying that other substances are drugs, so we should test for all or nothing, ignores the years of evaluation and regulation done on that subject.

 

[verte76]

I'd be up a creek without a paddle if they tested for Alleve.

 

[AliEnvy]

You are jumping back and forth in your arguments. You recognize the problems in the workplace and the burden added by having to manage the ripple effect. Yet, you want to test for the limited purpose of "a bonafide occupational requirement for safety".

How am I jumping back and forth? I stated from the beginning that I recognize the workplace (and larger societal) problem, I recognize that for limited types of jobs that random drug testing serves the greater good as it may prevent significant loss of life (i.e. pilot). I also recognize that legislation already allows employers a workable solution without urine testing. So why don't you tell me why that's not enough?

Make me understand why an across-the-board workplace policy that is tantamount to entrapment and guilty until proven innocent and that leaves the door wide open to enable systematic discrimination is acceptable.

 

[Calluna]

The article dealt with a minor who is not legally permitted to purchase cigarettes. And, she wasn't fired for smoking. She was fired for refusing to take a drug test.

No. The article dealt with an employee that had been working for that company for fifteen years, not a fifteen-year-old person. It was perfectly within her legal rights to smoke cigarettes.

 

[nbcrusader]

Make me understand why an across-the-board workplace policy that is tantamount to entrapment and guilty until proven innocent and that leaves the door wide open to enable systematic discrimination is acceptable.

Entrapment? Perhaps if your employer supplied you with the illegal drug, and then tested you for the substance.

Blanket testing is similar to blanket searches when entering an airport. A minimal level of intrusion to support a greater good.

 

[AliEnvy]

Blanket testing is similar to blanket searches when entering an airport. A minimal level of intrusion to support a greater good.

So you're comaring potential residual effects of illegal or legal substances on your workplace to potential terrorism?

Can't say I buy the comparison.

 

[nbcrusader]

So you're comaring potential residual effects of illegal or legal substances on your workplace to potential terrorism?

Can't say I buy the comparison.

Of course you wouldn't. You viewed the comparison in the extreme.

Airport security screens everyone, even people who have dangerous items, but are not terrorists.

 

[AliEnvy]

Of course you wouldn't. You viewed the comparison in the extreme.

You presented an extreme example of personal liberty vs common good.

So it was no more useful to your problem-solving argument than saying a sledghammer will kill the mosquito on the wall that's annoying you. Sure, it kills the mosquito, but it also leaves a gaping hole in the wall.

 

[nbcrusader]

You presented an extreme example of personal liberty vs common good.

So it was no more useful to your problem-solving argument than saying a sledghammer will kill the mosquito on the wall that's annoying you. Sure, it kills the mosquito, but it also leaves a gaping hole in the wall.

Airport security is extreme?

 

[AliEnvy]

Airport security is extreme?

The lack of airport security could have (and has had) extreme consequences.

 

[nbcrusader]

The lack of drug testing could have (and has had) extreme consequences.

 

[Calluna]

Remember guys, we're talking about adult cigarette smoking here not heroin.

 

[AliEnvy]

The lack of drug testing could have (and has had) extreme consequences.

That's why drug testing makes sense in limited cases. You're not making a case for the across-the-board policy.

What extreme consequences are we dealing with when talking about a desk clerk?

Btw, I also challenge the comparison of the intrusion and incovenience of the search of one's luggage to the invasive nature and indignity of provding a urine sample. Hardly similar.