Drug Testing BULLSHIT

I have always thought that Drug Testing is Unconstitutional. And yes, while it makes sense in heavy equipment operations, for admin. work, filing or answering phones...it is ridiculous to me.

So the guy who goes on a bender all weekend and whose blood or urine is clean by monday can do whatever...but if I smoke a joint it is in my body for a month and I am the one who gets penalized? bullshit!

I have recently re-connected with a temp agency I used to do work for about 10 years ago...and in their NEW! 13 page application and reference and background check, is a form about drug testing... saying that "some" places want their temps tested, and if you test positive, you will be INELIGIBLE. Not just for that particular job, but for ALL positions for 6 months!

Why can't I tell these employers that I refuse to submit to these tests?
Why don't I have the OPTION to refuse and sign a waiver or something?
where are MY rights?


oh, so sorry...I am just a Prole...I have none.

(...THIS is why I need to make my freelancing business work for ME, because this is straight up bullshit and I am NOT working for a fucking PRISON system...)


we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

- this is a control issue and making sure we know our place in the food chain.

...while they snort coke, gobble "prescription" drugs by the fistful, and chase them down with expensive liquor.

Both the employer and employee have right of refusal. Don't get me wrong - I think it makes no sense to hold employees responsible for their off hours actions as a condition of employment - but I fail to see anything even vaguely unconstitutional about it - especially if the policy was stated up front.

Since the employer is inquiring and somewhat dictating what their employee can or can't do with his or her personal life even when not on the clock. To me that seems like walking a very tight rope of unconstitutionality.

We could make a similar defense for segregated businesses, right? I mean no body was "forcing" any black person to take the bus, or to enter the dinners which were for whites only. Yet I don't see anyone in the XXI century thinking that would be even remotely constitutional due to the clear aspect of discrimination.

My point is that, I don't believe the "rights" of private enterprise should be able to trump (or gain priority over) the social contract of the nation as described by our constitution.

Segregation is illegal (now). I am not saying I AGREE with the drug laws. I am just saying employers are entirely withing their rights to refuse to employ people engaged in illegal activity. Last time I checked, smoking pot, snorting coke, smoking crack etc etc etc are ILLEGAL.


If you don't like the law, you fight to change it and follow it until it does. If you chose to break the law (whether through sit ins in the legally segregated south, or through taking illegal drugs) you have to EXPECT to suffer legal and social including employment) consequences. If it is a matter of principle for you, principled stands are NOT guaranteed to be penalty free by the constitution. After all do you think none of the freedom riders lost their jobs?


Jesus. Why is that such a hard concept for people here to understand?

or it could be viewed as the employer protecting themselves in case the employee made a drug induced mistake on the job.

I have never had to be drug tested for any of the jobs that I've held in my life. Which is strange.

When the state mandates it it is no longer a private employers decision to test.

... the correct term would be welcome to the "neoplantation"

And more than one low-down, worthless, devil's-cock-sucking piece of shit unrec'd! (You know who you are!)

I just brought it back to zero for you.

Today is my day of fun with debt collectors and insurance companies.

Yours is a day of drug testing bullshit.

What phase is the moon in? Anyone know?

Oh, and while we're talking drug testing, the company my wife and I both used to work for started implementing that while I was still there. It was completely random testing. I never got asked to give a urine sample but my wife did, twice. The first time was during the first couple days of the routine testing. The "technician" (female, thank god) in the bathroom insisted on being in the stall with my wife while she peed! My wife, spark plug that she can be, raised hell about it and nearly got that lab employee fired. The policies were changed about 5 milliseconds later to include that the techs could only be in the bathroom proper but not the stalls during the tests.

Shoulda sued the assholes. We could have used the money.

http://kalender-365.de/lunar-calendar.php

I stand by my unrec and I'm willing to put my name on it.

I think drug testing employees is eminently reasonable and am sick of all the "Oh noes, they can't do that...it's so unfair (which is just whiny to be frank) or illegal (hint: It's been before both US circuit courts and SCOTUS enough times for me to simply be able to dismiss that argument with "Well, You're wrong.") that they want to make me take a drug test for this job." It's pretty much impossible at this point to be able to argue that drug testing is unconstitutional without talking out one's own ass. It's simply a dead issue...there are some who want to try to argue that it isn't but they're just beating this dead horse into ground equine.

If you don't want to take the drug test, don't apply for that job. It's...just...that...simple. Nobody is going to force you. In fact, they can't even administer you the friggin' test without you signing a release to allow them to. If you don't want to take the test, don't sign the release and take a pass on the potential employment. Or...stop smoking weed.

It's not hard...I knew at 22 that I was applying for a job that required me to take and pass a drug test so I stopped doing drugs. You too can be the sort of person who passes a drug screening test.

Quit being so goddamned whiny, it's unbecoming.

...and it is also a fact that our right to a job trumps their legal privilege to hang a Damocles sword of testing over the job being offered.

I've been fortunate to not have had to take a drug test since boot camp, but with the way this economy is going I'll have to apply for a job one day that will require it...and I'll probably submit, though still I'm hoping I'll the courage to tell them where to stick that little cup.

Finally, quit being such an apologist for the bosses; it's demeaning.

GOVERNMENT ACTIONS. A private employer can place restrictions against illegal activity (and it IS illegal to do schedule drugs without a prescription. And you are free not to work for that employer. It has been through the courts too many times to list.

If you choose to ignore that - then you have consequences, like being fired or not being hired in the first place. There is no such thing as a constitutional right to life with out consequences - good and bad.

if an employer can make giving up your rights a condition of employment what's to prevent them from making demands such as:
- you can't post your opinions online or write letters to the editor that we don't approve
- you can't vote if you work for us
- you can't have an abortion if you work for us
- you can't be a member of x religion

Do you see where this leads? These bastards get away with it because of the war on some drug users.

Try responding to what I actually wrote: And employer can make a condition of employment that their employees (prospective or current) not engage in ILLEGAL activities.

All your examples are of legal activities and of COURSE those things would be illegal for an employer to control or prohibit as a condition of employment.

And just to repeat a point that was made by another: the drug testing by an employer is only via consent. Don't want to consent? Don't. Taking a principled stand is not without consequence either. Just ask folks who spend time in jail expressing themselves in civil disobedience actions. If they can accept that that jail is a possible outcome of their principled actions - why shouldn't those who can't or won't be tested, accept that there are consequences for their principles?

but it's still a slippery slope:
- tax evasion is illegal so we want your tax returns
- child/spouse abuse is illegal so we're sending inspectors to your home to make sure kids/spouse are ok
- child porn is illegal so we want to inspect your home PCs

If you are doing your job and not breaking any laws AT WORK they should have to stay the hell out of your life outside the workplace.
How would a prospective employer react if I were to say "Many Companies commit tax and accounting fraud. I'd like to audit your books so I can make sure you're not a bunch of crooks". I don't think I could require a breach of corporate privacy.

!If you are doing your job and not breaking any laws AT WORK they should have to stay the hell out of your life outside the workplace."-- I feel the exact same way. It sucks that the rights in this situation are with the business and not with the worker. I believe that you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to do outside the job place if it doesn't interfere with your work. It just sucks that workers have no legal protection whatsoever in this case.

which is that the posting of opinions online is protected, (although some companies may take action against you for posting frowned upon comments if they were done during working hours by hiding under the 'you are supposed to be working, not posting.' Which if I were in the position, whether i liked the comment or not, they aren't supposed to be online writing opinions during work hours, voting is protected, having an abortion is protected, as well as freedom of religion. there is no freedom to do drugs. you have the choice to do it. but it's not a protected right per the laws.

A search without reasonable cause (drug-testing) is unconstitutional; the onus is on the employer to follow law and end drug-testing, not on the potential employee to prove they are drug-free. Now if middle- and upper-middle-class people were willing to be routinely tested for high blood alcohol and prescription drug levels in their workplaces, you might have an argument...

And while we're on the subject: numerous antebellum courts ruled that African-Americans were not full citizens and therefore not protected by the Constitution; it took the Fourteenth Amendment to make their citizenship concrete. Therefore, it is quite likely that any and all courts ruling in favor of employer-instigated drug-testing are also wrong; let's hope it won't take another constitutional amendment to set things right.

not agree with their rulings but they are the law of the land. It is quite common for mid and upper management to be tested and more than a few brokers, accountants and attorneys have lost jobs for failed tests.

"Our right to a job...."

Let me ask you a question: Did you have a "right" to your job in the military? Why did that "right" not apply? Or are you of the opinion that only those who carried a gun for a living in the service "had" to submit? The fact is you made a choice then and you are making a choice now. And if you have to (because of the economy) make a different choice in the future. The bottom line is there is a choice to be made, and we all must make them. You said so your self. I would have thought your military training would have taught you that.

...as well as to health care, education, housing, recreation, etc. The United Nations has stipulated such in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the United States is a signatory. Only those in economic/political power in this country prevent these rights from being implemented.

As for military service: any capable person has a right to defend their country; that's a given. But no authority, public or otherwise, has a right to presuppose illicit drug-use and test on that presupposition; that includes the armed forces. I was 18 when I joined, and I'm 45 now; had I known then what I know now, I would never have joined, voluntarily or otherwise, unless this country was in immediate danger of being attacked and occupied, which it was not...that is what I learned from my enlistment.

But the laws that govern us are those that are promulgated under the US Constitution. And there is no right to employment, much less a right to employment with a company that follows principles that have been found consistent with our constitution by the SCOTUS, regardless of whether or not you agree with those policies. You seem to be making the argument that a company has no right to do what it can to insure that its employees are not itinerant law breakers. Would you be making the same arguments against a company's right not to hire those whom they can gather evidence that shows they enjoy robbing convenience stores on their free time? Sans convictions?

Dealing with drug testing of someone who wants to get a visa for teaching in Korea. They make getting a drug test and background check mandatory to get an E2 visa which is a condition of employment. Korea is a signatory of the US Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well.

Personally I believe that Korea does have the right to deny visas to someone who has does drugs. The case was heard before the HRC and they basically turned down they basically refused to rule on that part of the case because of the legal case before the Consitutional Court.

a freelancer. A writer of minutia. (Copy writing, grant writing, script doctoring, ad-copy, press releases, tech writing, short journalism.) The boss I demean myself to tends to share my opinions and knows I can't write well when he has a hangover or is stoned. How'd I get there? I sucked it up and peed in a cup to work as a shitty entry-level AA, learned the business and started my own shop after a lot of detours. Responsibility, it's a real blast.

None-the-less, you're still wrong...the fourth amendment argument has been presented and rejected on more than one occasion. It's why I am now going to laugh and mock and ridicule you. It's the sort of bad argument put forth by a 3rd grader caught cheating on his spelling test for why he should be given an A+ which is subsequently picked-up and repeated by his classmates to no greater effect. A thousand shouting voices do not a truth make. There is no 4th amendment violation here no matter how many times you say it.

And you have no right to a job. None. Neither stated nor implied or inferred. You want a promise of a job, move to Cuba...they've got 0% unemployment...of course if they catch you smoking marijuana they'll just throw you into some festering rot-hole until you expire of some treatable malady.

If you don't like the consequences that go along with your casual use of drugs - then stop using drugs casually. It is cut and dried. The bitching about the system, or "the man," or "conservatives" keeping you down just sounds like someone who want to be able to have all the positives and none of the negatives. Life doesn't work that way.

Every door that opens closes a door, and vice versa. In this case you have a clearly foreseeable door to open and know darn well which door(s) will close. Free will isn't free of consequences. People who don't understand/accept that need to grow the f up.

But I gave it a rec taking it to 107.

I want to tell them that I don't DO those tess because I think they are unconstitutional...but they will politely show me the door because PLENTY of folks are willing to bend over and give a sample of bodily fluids...

UGH
it used to piss me off as it strted to become 'vogue' for employers to do this a few years ago...but it is more and more of a way that employers are using this to KEEP people from even applying for jobs ...

I guess i need to look for some "green friendly" employers list somewhere..?

I worked at two places that allowed weed (and whatever else looks like it, I guess) but disallowed anything else.

Oh, and the results of those tests are PHI, so no one else can use them against you.

That should confuse them. Or even better, consider taking the test and then say the test technician behaved inappropriately towards you...obviously this works better if you know you are going to get a clean test.

More fun ways to mess with drug warriors:

- other outrage; keep up with the pee fetish thing and ask them if you're expected to give them a piece of your underwear or something too. Make them prove it's a policy and not some creepy idea of the interviewer/supervisor

- ask about the lab's accreditation, and who certifies the reliability of thier testing

- know you're clean, the deliberately induce a false positive. Bonus points if you can do it with a prescription: http://www.ipassedmydrugtest.com/false_positives.asp

- demand to see your supervisor's test results, or better yet request they take the test with you; of course, you need to seem like an enthusiast about drug testing to pull this one off

- offer to perform the test right there in their office. Express your enthusiasm for 'whipping it out right now' if you feel you can get away with it

As it is now there is no democracy in the work place, employer can be as totalitarian as they wish. If we had more worker owned places of employment, where workers had a real voice in operations this bullshit would end. The idea that a pot smoker is more impaired than someone that drinks heavily on their time off is ludicrous. People with hang-overs in the morning are not creative problem solvers they are dead weight. If we were to follow the German example and bring democracy to the work place many other problems like polluting the commons and sending jobs overseas would go away. Socializing the work place is a positive for democracy.

Since my employees must remain drug free while in my employ, it helps if a recreational drug user doesn't waste my time submitting an application.

Anyone who doesn't want to take the test has a right to refuse. They don't have a right to force me to employ them.

Why should you be able to dictate your personal terms of employment to a potential employer?

Not getting it.

And the test is so cheap they are making everyone take them more and more.

Not only that they can take a look at how healthy you are. Liver function down? Kidney function abnormal.....you are out.

Cannot raise those group premiums.

I think it costs more to test more, but even so, what's to stop them? At the very least they probably test every female 50 & under for pregnancy.

I worked for a CFO once. When I was hired the company didn't drug test. During my employment there, they started drug testing. She said it was because they couldn't afford to have 'stoners' who weren't productive working for them. She would have shit a brick if she knew I smoked every night. She told me often I was the best admin she'd ever had. Anyway, I asked her about the smokers, who take several breaks a day & how different was that? She conceded my point, but of course, drug testing still went on.


on edit: Love your profile comment!

I have a friend who was on an HCG diet. She mentioned to me that during part of it she had to take a pregnancy test to prove that it left her system. Even if I agreed with drug testing, which I don't, drugs aren't the only thing that can show up as a false positive on these tests.

But those abuses don't make refusing to employ active drug users (casual or addicts makes no diff) illegal, or testing to be sure, abusive. Again - if they go outside the tests CONSENTED to, they should be penalized BIG time - as a deterrent to future abuse by them and other organizations.

Like a Monsoon.

Or we should all be models of perfection.


We are not. Face it.

And stop snorting coke (or whatever your illegal substance of choice). And get about the job of adults: being a responsible citizen who takes whatever job he/she can to get the bills paid as best they can (including starting your own business selling fruit by the freeway - since that is the only sure fire entrepreneurial endeavor open to people who are high all the time).

My wife has a cigarette once a day.

I take a shot of Vodka when dealing with bills.

I am lucky ..own a house ..somehow mange to pay bills.

I do not need a job... I work 14 hours a day sitting behind a computer.

I have no "dog in this fight". It is an invasion of privacy. One we all should defend.


Damn it ..defend your privacy!

I made it clear that I don't think generalized drug testing is a good or necessary thing. I also think the legislature should be lobbied to change the law.

My only point is that it isn't "unconstitutional" - especially since those tested have a choice. Don't consent and get on with finding a place that comports with their personal values. No amount of whining will change those facts until the law is changed.

One of the state mandated requirements for running a business is having workmans compensation insurance for employees.To get WC insurance you have to force employees to take drug tests.Because of that it becomes a state mandated test,therefore in violation of Fourth Amendment.

As more and more employers do it soon it will become the norm... it is a slippery slope.. soon DNA risk assessments will be able to be made without you knowing. They will hire you to put a life policy on you if they think you will die soon. ..Or they will only hire the healthiest of us.

It is hard enough to get a job when you get old... after 40 your body has some wear and tear. After 50 you start to slow down. There are laws against age discrimination and more but but most find it hard to prove it.:

http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeo/overview_practices.html


Discriminatory Practices

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:

* hiring and firing;
* compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
* transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
* job advertisements;
* recruitment;
* testing;
* use of company facilities;
* training and apprenticeship programs;
* fringe benefits;
* pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
* other terms and conditions of employment.

Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:

* harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age;
* retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices;
* employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities; and
* denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group.

Employers are required to post notices to all employees advising them of their rights under the laws EEOC enforces and their right to be free from retaliation. Such notices must be accessible, as needed, to persons with visual or other disabilities that affect reading.

Note: Many states and municipalities also have enacted protections against discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. For information, please contact the EEOC District Office nearest you.
Other Discriminatory Practices Under Federal EEO Laws
Title VII

Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.
National Origin Discrimination

* It is illegal to discriminate against an individual because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group.
* A rule requiring that employees speak only English on the job may violate Title VII unless an employer shows that the requirement is necessary for conducting business. If the employer believes such a rule is necessary, employees must be informed when English is required and the consequences for violating the rule.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 requires employers to assure that employees hired are legally authorized to work in the U.S. However, an employer who requests employment verification only for individuals of a particular national origin, or individuals who appear to be or sound foreign, may violate both Title VII and IRCA; verification must be obtained from all applicants and employees. Employers who impose citizenship requirements or give preferences to U.S. citizens in hiring or employment opportunities also may violate IRCA.

Additional information about IRCA may be obtained from the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices at 1-800-255-7688 (voice), 1-800-237-2515 (TTY for employees/applicants) or 1-800-362-2735 (TTY for employers) or at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/osc .

As we have gained the ability to screen for all kinds of things, including drug use, the law has not kept up with common decency and protections for what most people consider private information. Fight the power to make change absolutely.

All I was saying to others here is don't be pissed off if you engage in actual illegal activity and get sanctioned (criminally or socially) since you knew damn well it was illegal. Grey areas are one thing, but the use of illegal drugs and the testing people for them, for employment purposed, are red letter law now - supported by SCOTUS. There is no sense complaining about a settle issue - go do something.

A great show.

A little humor...


420

http://www.hulu.com/watch/68574/family-guy-420#s-p1-so-...

I've never used an illegal drug but I have refused on principle to be drug tested a couple of times. Once I still got the job. The other time I has already been working at a store for awhile when they instituted a new policy to test everyone. I reminded my boss that I was the best sales person in the store, had never been late or called out, and let her know that if I took it then after it came back negative I would quit. She then decided I could be grandfathered out and the policy would only apply to new staff.

It's very debatable whether or not pre-employment drug testing has any proven benefits but it is expensive-


If somebody acts like they're high at work then it shouldn't matter if they are or aren't since they aren't being productive. I shouldn't have to be watched pissing in a cup so I can hand my urine over to a company that potentially could be running testing I'm not aware of. If we could guarantee that they were honest about only testing for drugs there is still the issue of false positives. A sample can show up as suspicious simply because somebody drank too much water. Many companies don't come out and tell people they won't be hired because they failed a drug test. They simply say they went with someone else and the person who failed the test doesn't get a chance to defend themself.

But that doesn't change my point that there is nothing illegal in a company deciding that they will not hire or keep employed those who take your stand on things. Abuse by testing for things not consented to is just that: abuse. The companies engaged in such practices should be severely penalized, civilly and criminally to the maximum extent of the law.

I admire your principled stand and it works for you because you have the luxury of knowing your skills and hard work have made you a valuable employee to companies that don't have hard and fast requirements for drug testing. I also applaud your willingness to accept the consequences of your principles. That is more than I can say for a lot of the whiners in this thread.

And just to repeat - I don't think drug testing is necessary in generic employment. I would welcome a law banning it in all but occupations where the public safety is at risk. Furthermore I feel that any substance an adult chooses to put in their body is their own business. It is just that it IS illegal to take banned scheduled drugs, and there are legal and social consequences, one of which is complications in employment.

Thanks for the note.

They are always the ones that get along well with others. They are always the ones who can stay calm ..or calm things down in difficult situations.

They are always meticulous. Some are in high level programming jobs. Typing so fast I am amazed.

If my business ever grows big enough to hire I will do no testing. Why...? I could fire you on the spot for almost any reason anyway.

There is no cause for this gross violation of privacy.

They just screw themselves out of good employees.


Thanks for the sig note.. I worry it is a little vulgar.

hot boxing sessions. An amazing chap, always delivered on time, and was a pleasure to work with. I actually miss working with him at that lab. He pulled some legendary debugging sessions, in which he would stay up all night and would submit the code to the repository first thing in the morning, so we had our bugs ironed for the working day. He had some interesting moments, in which we could not figure out his code (he would not leave too many comments) but it would pass all regression tests and it was so baroquely tight that we could not possibly optimize it further. To this day, I was told there are plenty of his code in the system with plenty of comments that say "do not touch this, it works, we don't know why, but it does carry on."


Obviously hard core drugs would have a fairly negative effect in productivity. But honestly, among technical/creative folks... it has been my experience that MJ usually works as a performance enhancement drug, so I would have assumed any private company would be all about that. For some people, believe it or not... it helps them focus and deliver a far better product. Heck, even great scientist like the late Karl Sagan made no qualms about using MJ as part of their "academic" repertoire when trying to find out a creative solution when stuck during a difficult problem.

Probably, part of the problem is that MBAs tend to the of the cokehead persuasion (ever noticed how they don't have to pee in the cup?), and their job requires little to no mental production. So they don't get why anyone who has to "think" for a living would need something that helps them concentrate and dig deeper in their creative repertoire. They also don't seem to get the fact that whatever I do in my own time, it IS MY OWN F*CKING GOD DAMNED BUSINESS. So I much rather have these business types concentrate on running their own, which looking at the current state of the economy they seem to do a piss poor job at, before trying to dictate other people's personal business.

Pretty cut and dried.