Should workers be fired for weekend drug use?

We have random drug testing where I work and I have been tested three times in the last year and a half. If an individual tests positive for drugs they are let go until thet go through a program which costs about $2000 at their own expense, then they can come back after they are tested and clean. I have seen good people let go who tested positve and one fella in particular never came back because he couldnt afford to go through the rehab program. He was a very hard worker too.
I really think it is very hypocritical myself that a man can come to work with a hangover after a night of drinking scotch and someone smokes a joint two weeks ago on the weekend gets canned.
I was a cannibus worshipper before I met Christ and my buddies and I would sneak a joint while on the job and I worked with 200 ton press brakes, 100 ton hydraulic shears and punch presses, and machine shop equipment. Any horseplay that occurred on the job was usually committed by those who came back to work after their liquid lunch at the pub.

 

Union contracts establish working conditions and live with them. Scabs make their own deal and live with it.

 

I'm with the union here.

 

I hate to say it, but I'm with the union.

 

I tend to disagree with you guys. I think if a company doesnt want drug users in their midst then they have that right. Dont they have a right to run their company as they wish?

 

I am unsure about this. I tend towards Ps104_33's opinion most of the time, but would it be all right if the company decided to come poke through your tax records for the past five years to see if just maybe you had cheated on your taxes? Random drug tests are rather like this: baseless invasions of privacy.

I can understand random drug tests in professional sports, where steroid use ruins the integrity of the game. I guess I can understand random drug tests for operators of heavy machinery. But for your average worker I don't know if it's excuseable. Perhaps tests should be required only if a worker shows impairment on the job.

 

Frankly people who use illegal drugs should be fired.

 

I smoked marijuana for 15 years and I wouldnt want a steady user working at my company. Just because someone isnt high on pot at the time doesnt mean his judgements and hand-eye coordination isnt what it would be if totally sober. The effects of marijuana on an individual's ability to be "quick on his feet" is definately impaired. It just makes one stupid. "Why do yopu think they call it dope?"

Would you want to be operated on by a heart surgeon who smoked a couple of joints over the weekend? And who would get into a jet liner with a pilot who imbibed last night? You cant have random drug tests for heavy equipment operators and not for accountants and engineers.

BTW. A compnay does poke through my tax records from time to time. The IRS.
Personally if a person wants to smoke pot on his free time thats his business but allow private companies the right to discriminate if they want

 

Agree that a privat company should be able to reject any application for employment for ANY reason but if the company has a union contract they have to live with it.

I support union contracts.

 

Why not? And surgeons are watched for drug use and watched for inability to operate safely. I believe pilots are required to take random drug tests--and yes, I would consider a pilot an operator of heavy machinery.

That's like saying that because my bank has access to my bank records, my employer ought to as well.

I agree. But I don't think they should be able to invade my privacy without giving a good rationalization for it.

 

Are they applying the law unilaterally across the company from executives down? If so, then fine. My company only wants to drug test the low level employees. I expect they will be sued.

 

I wonder if they drug test our representatives in the congress and the senate. That would get rid of alot of Democrats
Hey it might even get rid of a few republicans. Republicans would most likely hold on to their majority.
Hey that would be a good topic. What do you think. Madatory drug testing for our government representatives? From the president on down?

 

Yes they do. Dont like not being able to get high on company time? Find another job.

They wouldnt just come up with random testing for fun and games. It is likely someone already suspects poor work habits and illegal activity taking place on the premises.

 

You missed the point of the op - the workers Ben asked about were getting high on their own time - does the company have the right to dictate what you do at home?

Not necessarily, they might. Sometimes they institute these things for marketing and PR, especially if they are a service provider (rather than a product producer).

 

I'd just like to point out Genesis 1:29 -- "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed , which is upon the face of all the earth..."

Ganja is a gift from God -- but it should be used in moderation and responsibly. To condemn it is to condemn something that was given to us by our Father, and seems to me to be an error akin to the heretics of the early church which looked down at other gifts from God, such as marriage, marital relations, art, and even the body itself as evil.

 

Some insurance providers require companies to drug test their employees.

A good friend works in a shop, staining tables. The company knows that most of it's employees smoke pot, and drug testing will eliminate several experienced workers, so they drug test only after a work-related accident. The result was a huge drop in the injury reports.

 

I've never met or worked with a drunk or drug addict yet that didn't have problems getting to work and more problems after they got there.

Whatever needs to be done to expose them and protect your "clean" workers needs to be done.

 

I agree with you about the drunks, but in 30 years I've never met a pot smoker who HAD problems working, other than legal problems created by our onerous drug laws. Some of the brightest, hardest workers I've known relaxed with some weed AFTER work. On the other hand, I've known some people who used cocaine, meth, or LSD who were a discredit to their employers, yet managed to pass the drug tests. Go figure.

 

It is a matter of property rights. A company or individual has a right to protect its property. Drugs have both immediate and lingering effects.

I am personally libertarian on the issue. IF, but only IF, property rights were restored to companies and individuals that allowed them to do whatever testing that was needed to protect their business TO THEIR OWN SATISFACTION... and if crimes committed while under the influence of mind altering drugs could be treated more severely then I would be in favor of legalization.

If the goal is reducing drug use, our current system in the US is pretty stupid. The most direct way to eliminate drug use is to make it economically and socially difficult.

The US had a drug problem back in the 1920's. Without the benefit of a law enforcement effort, the loss of jobs and property along with the images of addicts living in the streets was enough to both serve as a deterent and a call for private social action. The problem didn't reappear in force until the 1950's and 1960's.

The best way to eliminate a problem like this is to let people make free choices then require them to bear the consequences without being rescued or mothered by government.