Drug Testing

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Let's be clear, I don't think there's any law prohibiting companies from testing for alcohol.

[jenbobblehead]

i don't know if it is legal to not hire someone based on anything other than illegal behavior. I don't think you can not hire someone because they have unsafe gay sex, and i don't think you can not hire someone because they had two beers last night... I could be wrong though--we have had a republican administration the last eleventy hundred years...

[gogo]

What's the $ amount on lost productivity due to excessive non-work-related internet usage?

[plasticeyeball]

Let's be clear, I don't think there's any law prohibiting companies from testing for alcohol.

 

 

you are correct sir.

 

let's also be clear that in a small business environment, there are no insurance benefits realised by instituting a drug testing policy.

 

of the 3 big policies a company pays, (health, workers comp, & liability insurance) none of the premiums are based upon whether or not we drug test.

 

What's the $ amount on lost productivity due to excessive non-work-related internet usage?

 

 

1.2 billion/year and that's on vc alone!!

[jenbobblehead]

What's the $ amount on lost productivity due to excessive non-work-related internet usage?

i suspect that number is so big it hasn't even been invented yet.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

What's the $ amount on lost productivity due to excessive non-work-related internet usage?

A company that has a stake in scaring companies about this pegs it at "more than $85 billion".

[jenbobblehead]

i can tell you that i am far less productive on days that i have to write grant reports to the EPA than days when i access VC from the office.

[EL the Famous]

But if i had to chose between a mom with two little kids and a woman who smokes a little weed on the weekend when she goes to see rock shows, i'd go with the weed smoker. however, that would be illegal for me to make that choice, wouldn't it?

 

soooo...women w/ kids shouldn't work? i don't understand your rationale, but okay. also, raising two kids isn't illegal.

 

if a company wants to regulate internet usage, they can either not allow it at all or set up restrictions to any sites not deemed neccesary to the job. personally, i'm surprised more don't. again, using the internet isn't illegal...unless your surfing child porn sites at work, which likely means you're also stoned on the job.

 

also, drug tests screen for more than just pot...so anybody qualifying it's unfair because you only smoke a little weed seems a little wrong to me as well. unless of course you think crack or H should be legal...then i'd just write off the whole discussion.

[jenbobblehead]

soooo...women w/ kids shouldn't work? i don't understand your rationale, but okay. also, raising two kids isn't illegal.

 

if a company wants to regulate internet usage, they can either not allow it at all or set up restrictions to any sites not deemed neccesary to the job. personally, i'm surprised more don't. again, using the internet isn't illegal...unless your surfing child porn sites at work, which likely means you're also stoned on the job.

 

also, drug tests screen for more than just pot...so anybody qualifying it's unfair because you only smoke a little weed seems a little wrong to me as well. unless of course you think crack or H should be legal...then i'd just write off the whole discussion.

 

where is the science that says folks who smoke pot are more likely to be into kiddie porn? or folks who are into kiddie porn are more likely to be stoned at work?

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Oh boy. He was making a joke, as in...you would have to be out of your mind or out of sorts to look at child porn at work.

[jenbobblehead]

oh. i was hoping there was actual science!

 

how long do other drugs stay in your system, like coke or opiates?

[EL the Famous]

where is the science that says folks who smoke pot are more likely to be into kiddie porn? or folks who are into kiddie porn are more likely to be stoned at work?

 

my point was, that you must be stoned to be that stupid to view something illegal (and that wrong) on the web at work (or in the case of child porn, period). i don't need to be a scientist to tell you that.

 

EDIT: Graham, got it.

 

jen, i'm seriously interested to hear your take on how, potsmoker or no, you find a woman w/out kids to be a better candidate for a job than someone who has them.

[MrRain422]

I'm assuming she meant that a woman with two kids has a lot more responsibilities outside of work that could occassionally get in the way of work.

 

Of course a whole lot of working mothers have also developed some remarkable time management skills that most pot smokers probably can't match, so...

[EL the Famous]

I'm assuming she meant that a woman with two kids has a lot more responsibilities outside of work that could occassionally get in the way of work.

 

Of course a whole lot of working mothers have also developed some remarkable time management skills that most pot smokers probably can't match, so...

 

where is the science that says folks who smoke pot are more likely to not have a lot of responsibilities outside of work? or folks who have a lot of responsibilities outside of work are less likely to be potsmokers?

 

No, I get that...but hiring somebody who's even a potential legal liability over someone who has kids, seems funny to me.

 

Outside of that, all i'm saying there are a myriad of reasons outside of productivity to suggest that testing someone for drugs doesn't seem like that out there of a concept...and if smoking a blunt is more important to you than having to take and keep a job, you may have a problem.

[Lammycat]

i hear you, but that is another debate entirely. i'm not here to debate whether pot should or shouldn't be legal.

Agreed, but do you think it'd be acceptable to test for alcohol on a Monday morning at the office? It's legal, and it could potentially contribute to a decline in work productivity. Alcohol stays in the system roughly 3-4 days after consumption, so those 3-4 beers Fri./Sat. night could do you in.

 

It's the point of intrusion into personal choices made outside the workday that I'm concerned about, not the legality of the substance. If a key point to screening employees (or future employees) is to prevent/circumvent/quash potential productivity problems, it would make sense to screen for alcohol consumption, too. If companies started doing this how many folks would sit idly by and how many would say "screw you, it's none of your business?" I don't make a distiction between alcohol/drugs in this example, legality issues regardless.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I'm considering writing a full blown rant on what seems to be an increasing trend of complaining about benefits for married/parents/attached to family,community,oroutsideworld employees, but I think I can succintly put it this way.

 

Prospective employees with children are attractive because they typically really need a job. They have a greater incentive to stick around and strive to remain employed. They also have greater incentive to strive to do well so that they can be promoted. Obviously, childless employees have the motivation to do well so that they can provide for themselves, but parents share that motivation AND have an additional motivation. I have no stats or science on this, it is just my personal hypothesis.

 

I'm not saying that popping one out makes you instantly productive and responsible, but it certainly provides a possible motivation to try to be.

[Lammycat]

may[/u] have a problem.

Didn't see this befote I posted, but yeah, I'd agree. I don't find it too out there as a concept, but it doesn't work for me (and I rarely smoke weed anymore). AnfdI, again, agree with the fact that you need to weigh what's more important to ou- the job or the weed, in certain circumstances. I just don't agree it should be an issue until the substance use becomes an issue on the job.

[jenbobblehead]

jen, i'm seriously interested to hear your take on how, potsmoker or no, you find a woman w/out kids to be a better candidate for a job than someone who has them.

the best candidate is the best candidate. But,one that isn't going to call in sick for a week while Jamie is home with the chicken pox, or be unable to work her shift at work because there's a snow day or any number of incredibly legitimate child related issues is, to me, someone who will be more productive.

[EL the Famous]

Agreed, but do you think it'd be acceptable to test for alcohol on a Monday morning at the office? It's legal, and it could potentially contribute to a decline in work productivity. Alcohol stays in the system roughly 3-4 days after consumption, so those 3-4 beers Fri./Sat. night could do you in.

 

It's the point of intrusion into personal choices made outside the workday that I'm concerned about, not the legality of the substance. If a key point to screening employees (or future employees) is to prevent/circumvent/quash potential productivity problems, it would make sense to screen for alcohol consumption, too. If companies started doing this how many folks would sit idly by and how many would say "screw you, it's none of your business?" I don't make a distiction between alcohol/drugs in this example, legality issues regardless.

 

but you're probably using 'pot' as 'drugs' in this case, yeah? again, drug screenings cover a lot of stuff i'd consider worse than booze...but that may just be my opinion. i completely agree that alcohol can be just as destructive to somebody's life if abused.

 

I just don't agree it should be an issue until the substance use becomes an issue on the job.

 

my guess is if your an employer, you'd probably want to to go w/ the most qualified candidate who poses less risk of an issue ever arising. i do drugs vs. i don't do drugs...who's the bigger risk?

[EL the Famous]

the best candidate is the best candidate. But,one that isn't going to call in sick for a week while Jamie is home with the chicken pox, or be unable to work her shift at work because there's a snow day or any number of incredibly legitimate child related issues is, to me, someone who will be more productive.

 

i agree...to a point, as that doesn't account for performance/productivity while they actually are at work...or the recent trend in ability to telecommute as well...and the post G made. obviously that seems to happen a lot where you work, so I see your perspective.

[Dreamin']

I have a male coworker who occasionally calls in sick or takes a vacation day because of a family emergency. He's a very hard working guy and an excellent clinician. I don't think he takes any more sick days than my other colleague who doesn't have kids.

[Dr. Steve Brule]

If you want to work for Stanley Steamer, you will be drug tested. Their commericial just made a big point about how their carpet cleaners are drug free.

 

As for drug info, I HIGHly recommend this site: http://www.erowid.org/

[Is Chicago Is Not Chicago]

anyone else have any first hand advice?

[MattZ]

I'm considering writing a full blown rant on what seems to be an increasing trend of complaining about benefits for married/parents/attached to family,community,oroutsideworld employees

 

 

I am not looking to pick a fight on this because I dont feel nearly as strongly about this as you do, but I wouldnt say its a trend of complaining about benefits for parents. Its simply the truth in many cases. Parents call in sick to work when their kids are sick. Parents also leave at 5pm on the dot if they have to pick up their kids from day care. Thats not a critique or a complaint. Its a fact.

 

I work with one other person at my job who has the same/similar functions as me. If a project needs to get completed at the last minute, it invariably ends up with me doing it because she has a young child at home and she cant be at work as late as our employer would like. Again, I dont criticize her for it -- in fact I dont even really get that upset about it because I dont have kids, and I know that if I were her, I would expect the same flexibility.

 

But that being said, if you are employer, when your employees arent there -- whatever the reason -- whether its because someone calls in sick because they were drunk the night before or they call in sick because their kid is sick -- that is a lost day of productivity. On the whole, yes, I think an employer would rather see an employee miss time because of family reasons than partying reasons, but for a small company, missed time is missed time. Especially when deadlines need to be met.

 

Do parents work harder and want to keep their jobs because they have someone to provide for in addition to themselves? I can agree with you on that although we can both acknowledge we have no data on it. And I would also prob agree that someone that prefers to get high to safely passing a drug test probably isnt going to be the most mature or productive employee either. But I also think we need to call a spade a spade here. And that is, if you are an employer, when a project needs to get done, and your employee isnt there to do it, it doesnt matter what the reason is for their absence.

[Dude]

No, I get that...but hiring somebody who's even a potential legal liability

 

I'm not sure I get the "legal liability" angle. People are just as likely to break the law after business hours doing other things (...say, driving while intoxicated) as they are smoking pot. If someone is smoking on company premises / company time, that would be a legitimate concern. But it's just as much a concern as someone drinking on the job.

 

Anything that's done outside of business hours that doesn't interfere with an employee's ability to do their job well and not compete / conflict with company interests they should be free to do.