*** This is not a "oh no I smoke pot all the time and have a drug test for my SA gig coming up, how do I cheat it?" drug test type post as I've seen on here before.
But according to an article on CNN there are several jobs going to refugees due to Americans failing drug tests.
This got me thinking, is a drug test technically an invasion of privacy?
I haven't been drug tested for my summer internship yet (Consulting)
Did you get drug tested for your summer or full time gig?
Do you think drug tests should be allowed?
If I were an employer I would probably be ok with employing someone who tests positive for Marijuana. I do not smoke, however if it does not effect their productivity at work and they never show up to work stoned, I do not really care what they do in their free time that doesn't impact society as a whole. (No American Psycho type ish going on in my firm)
Thoughts?
Employers shouldn't be allowed to drug test unless the job puts others in danger if you're high/ you are in the medical industry which interacts with pharmaceuticals. Why a McDonald's cashier needs to be drug tested is beyond me. Of course if you show up to work clearly on substances then they should have the right to drug test you and fire you if you fail the test regardless of profession.
"Clearly on substances"
And where is that line drawn?
When it is noticeable and / or affecting productivity. I run a tech company in CO and would never consider broad drug testing because most of my devs smoke weed, but we fired a guy recently because it was an obvious problem. It's not that hard to see a problem. Screening out people because of weed is nonsense, but if you aren't productive, you are out. Simple as that.
In many cases, it's presented to you as an option. If you refuse to take the test, you might stand to lose your employment on those grounds alone but at least the "invasion of privacy" is not forced upon you.
hmm, was not aware of that. Did you have an experience like that or just know about it
Military service in Sweden and Highschool in Brussels. Both times it was presented as an option (although I think in the military the option would be to get court martialed)
Employers can do whatever they want. If someone can't stop taking drugs to get a job, Fuck the. They also test for alcohol. I know one bank that tests for nicotine. Just stop until you get the job and move on.
why would you test for alcohol or nicotine? Those are both legal....
Insurance id imagine. End of the day this isn't a drug test, it's an idiot test. You know it's coming. You can control the substance. Simply stop. If someone is so obstinate about their rights to do drugs that they won't refrain for a test, do you really want them?
Are they going to refrain before a client event? Or a trip? It's more a test on maturity than anything else.
I can see testing for booze - there is really no excuse for fucking that up. Nicotine is overkill, it is legal and does not impart anyone to a point of being able to not perform.
I would have passed, but I got too high the night before and forgot to study.
there's no constitutional protection for invasion of privacy. you could also say that checking people's credit reports and backgrounds is invasion of privacy.
unless they discriminate on you for a protected status, keep the gummint out of it. I am all for drugs, I think people should be allowed to do what they want, but I'm also all for employers testing on whatever they want.
Credit checks are another thing I'm against. Canada manages to prohibit both these practices and somehow their country hasn't gone up in drug-fueled flames.
I'm against it too, but this sets a dangerous precedent if the gov't can tell you who you can and cannot hire. if this goes to the supreme court and they decide that credit score, drug use, and attire are protected classes, then fine. but until then...while I agree in principal, I have to side with the companies on this one
Unfortunately, the 'other countries don't/do [insert thing]' test doesn't work as a legal principle.
What if they extend it to hiring dumbass morons who aren't qualified to do the job?
Look, companies take a huge risk when they hire someone because more than likely no one really knows the candidate. Running background checks, looking at credit scores, doing drug tests, contacting references, going through your social media, etc. is just an attempt to make sure the person the company is hiring is not a delinquent/idiot/con artist. These aren't supposed to be invasions into your privacy, the company is just trying to see if you're worth hiring.
If I were hiring, anyone that doesn't agree to any of the above searches I mentioned is not getting hired. If you want the job, you'll submit to the tests/checks because outside of the drug test, you can pretty easily collect the other info so saying that you deny access because of privacy is either naive or stupid.
Nothing wrong with going through references/ social media and running a criminal background check. The issue I have with drug tests is that it is basically a weed test, hard drugs like cocaine etc. are out of your system in a matter of a day to three days. So really it does nothing to catch drugs that actually matter, it is simply an idiotic formality testing a "drug" that should definitely be legal. As for credit checks, many people go through hardships and/ or are not financially intelligent so they don't manage their credit well. We shouldn't compound those hardships by denying jobs to them based on that. Jobs should be based on your previous quality of work/ resume, that's it.
I don't see a big problem with weed, I don't smoke it, but if it doesn't affect your performance than whatever. That said, if you're interviewing for a job, you should know that a drug test will likely come shortly after getting an offer. It's a test for self control and situational intelligence. Your employer is likely going to take a see no evil hear no evil type approach to weed as long as you pass the initial test.
Credit checks are a little more of a gray area, imo. First off, if you have any defaults/evictions, you should definitely disclose that up front. I'm sure most companies are more than willing to overlook those if they understand what happened but if it's not disclosed then that would be a red flag.
Just to play devil's advocate, if so much "behind the scenes" testing is needed to evaluate a candidate, don't you think the company should instead spend its time coming up with a more robust interview process? If my employer needs to view my Facebook to evaluate my candidacy, they clearly need to spend some more time developing the proper questions to ask me in an interview process.
Here's the answer - Unions and Transportation-related industries aside because Unions have these issues handled directly in their contracts and Transportation industries are regulated by the FAA/Federal Highway Administration, etc. who have a high degree of oversight - companies can do what they want on the matter for pre-employment screening simply on the basis of wanting a "drug-free" environment. States and the courts recognize that these can be intrusive, but they do not explicitly violate privacy. As a result, state laws can restrict how and when drug screening is done, but it's not viewed as an invasion of privacy or discriminatory for the most part. Why? Because employees are subject to it as a condition of accepting the job. Their insurance rates (Workers Comp and health insurance) benefit by screening out employees who test positive for illicit drug use. Likewise, if you look at the litigious culture in today's society, we're so god damned sue happy that this is a first line measure to protect the company if something goes wrong.
The most important reason why it's not an invasion of privacy is because you are agreeing to take the drug test. You give up your right to claim invasion of privacy (provided only a drug test is done and the sample is not used to screen anything else) because you've waived the right. The best comparison is with a DUI. Driving is a privilege and not a right. Part of the privilege means that you have given "implied consent", by getting your driver's license you agree to follow the driving laws of the state you are currently in despite not formally saying that you will. If you are pulled over for suspicion of driving under the influence, by having a driver's license, you've agreed to submit to a DUI test. If you don't, then you can get hit with the fullest extent of the law as a result of the DUI stop. Drug testing works the same way in you have consented to the drug test as a condition of employment and refusal to take one (revoking consent) means that you can get the fullest extent of what the company can do - which is revoke their offer.
If you want to make the invasion of privacy argument, then it comes down to ensuring that the screen is solely used for the purpose of drug testing. If it's not used for that purpose and additional testing is done without consent, then that can be viewed as a violation of your rights. And then there are the productivity arguments. For the love of me, I don't understand how much potential productivity is lost as a result of drug testing policies.
I've been drug tested before for summer jobs and full-time offers. It's just part of the process as far as I'm concerned. And the answer is yes. I do think that drug tests should be allowed. At the end of the day, they have their liability to worry about - and if you're that concerned about weed that you can't stop smoking for a month or two to make sure you pass free and clear, then it shows to me that you have zero self control, which would worry me as an employer.
We're Americans, we don't do well on tests.
The bank told me to turn in my drug test, but I ain't no snitch.
Honestly, the current policy is fine. Already, if you show up to work intoxicated (causing you to be disruptive and unproductive) in most cases you're gone instantly, per the drug policy. By drug testing in the beginning, the firm makes it clear their position on intoxication in the workplace. Most private sector jobs don't do random drug tests, so it's pretty clear they don't have a big knot in their balls over personal use of drugs. Just be responsible. I mean can you really not split away from your drugs long enough to pass a drug test?
I have not had to take a drug test after the military and really don't care what someone does in their free time. However, if I am going to be paying somebody they better provide results. So if you smoke a joint before work and are kicking ass, I really don't care. However, if you are fucking up, then screw it. While I was in college I worked with methheads who performed very well. It was no secret, one even dropped a bag of ice on the floor. Everyone ignored it and the manager just threw it away.
Ultimately, I do think companies should be able to drug test. I do not see what the big deal is. You have to get to a point where they are interested in you by providing a detailed look at your education and experience. If you don't want an employer to drug test you then do not apply for that job or move on to the next one. The fact that people are freaked out by taking a drug test amazes me.
Perspiciatis sed ut quibusdam placeat nobis dicta aut esse. Iure est qui sapiente et laudantium. Est quam tempora corrupti cupiditate quis repellendus. Et quia est quasi ipsa nulla.
Dicta maiores voluptates rerum veniam velit. Dicta quia in et ut expedita debitis. Quae atque commodi illo laudantium voluptatem reprehenderit. Dolorum maiores id velit harum aut consectetur aut. Ullam voluptas ut nostrum quos consequuntur quo qui. Error maxime ad commodi voluptatem ea magnam a accusantium. Dolore et pariatur laborum iste qui at.
Consequuntur est inventore repellat. Quasi esse qui accusantium dolore. Eveniet ea voluptas quas quia. Omnis impedit officiis reprehenderit occaecati voluptatem ex enim aliquam.
Unde vel non accusamus sit mollitia quia aut. Qui quia ut quia laudantium distinctio iure explicabo.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Possimus officia optio doloribus aliquid illo nobis. Consequuntur dolore aut nobis dolorum placeat culpa. Illum id in et. Minima quisquam aspernatur placeat sapiente deleniti ducimus ab. Delectus minus sapiente praesentium.
Odit eveniet quibusdam beatae voluptatibus vel voluptas distinctio sunt. Facilis molestiae officia voluptatem et recusandae qui modi molestias. Nobis officia assumenda architecto et officiis quaerat.
Veniam doloremque ut iure possimus sint alias at. Culpa beatae aperiam unde amet asperiores ducimus. Porro laudantium earum perspiciatis aut. Earum pariatur numquam dolores occaecati. Labore nulla occaecati voluptates ut.
Nobis aut qui blanditiis similique est dicta et. Eveniet labore sit exercitationem dolores sit voluptas et autem. Iure in error ut expedita sint in aliquam. Eius atque distinctio saepe officia ut et. Voluptas rerum nam autem exercitationem voluptas eaque ut. Voluptate ut reprehenderit atque architecto magni est magnam.