Employer Drug Test Policies

[Darth Wong]

Irrelevent. I have seen no data that shows recreational drug use to be a detriment to productivity (indeed, Durandal's data seems to point against such a conclusion) while you yourself have admitted that having a family would be a negative effect on productivity.

Obviously, you are too fucking stupid to realize that there are more factors to consider when hiring someone than simple productivity, such as things like competence and trustworthiness.

But anybody who puts his family first before his job is not going to get those promotions. Period.

Bullshit. My parents both found time to have a family and both were highly successful executives.

Wow, the ever-popular Appeal to Daddy fallacy. What a genius you must think you are

Did they put in 40-hour weeks and come straight home? If they did, and they succeeded as executives anyway, they were lucky. If they didn't, then they weren't putting family first. Learn to read, dumb-fuck.

Once again, bullshit. I never said that the potential applicant is putting drug use before their job, merely that they should not be forced to choose between the two since performing a job satisfactorally and recreational drug use are NOT mutually exclusive.

If he isn't willing to give up his drug use in order to get the job, then he IS putting it before his job, you idiot. Companies will accept that for a family, but not for drug use.

Only if you don't understand what's wrong with black/white fallacies, and it appears you don't.

I find it amusing that you can speak to me about black/white fallacies while making the following statement:

Are you saying that you would have no problem with a drug user being hired for a mission-critical job? There's a point where idealism becomes stupidity, and you're reaching it.

Now whose commiting the black/white fallacy asshole?

Obviously, you are too much of a blithering idiot to recognize the difference between a black/white fallacy (either people must be completely oblivious to the personal behaviour of a prospective employee outside of work or they will discriminate to the Nth degree) and an extreme example used to disprove said fallacy (in certain kinds of jobs, even an idiot like you accepts that you don't want a fucking druggie there, hence you acknowledge that it works on a spectrum rather than being black/white).

Did you read my earlier post where I said drug testing of people like airline pilots is perfectly acceptable?

Yes, and then you contradicted yourself by pretending that there is no reason whatsoever to discourage hiring of drug users. Make up your mind; why would it be acceptable in certain cases if you insist that there's no reason whatsoever to discriminate, moron?

If drug use could potentially seriously hamper their job and even cause potential harm to others then by all means drug tests should be employed. It is the drug testing of workers who have jobs in which recreational drug use would have no effect on their work that I object to.

In other words, you acknowledge that it can affect job performance, while simultaneously stating that it has no effect at all on job performance and companies shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on that basis. Make up your mind. What I'm saying is that every company has the right to do so, although some companies obviously think their jobs are more sensitive than they really are. You're trying to promote some bizarre self-contradictory argument where it has no effect whatsoever ... except when the job is important.

[The Kernel]

Obviously, you are too fucking stupid to realize that there are more factors to consider when hiring someone than simple productivity, such as things like competence and trustworthiness.

And?

Wow, the ever-popular Appeal to Daddy fallacy. What a genius you must think you are

Hey asshole, you wrote:

]But anybody who puts his family first before his job is not going to get those promotions. Period.

Don't come crying to me because I presented an example that shot down your bullshit claims. If you wanted to generalize and say that most people couldn't balance home and work that would have been one thing, but you had to go and say it couldn't be done which is bullshit as I have just shown. The fact that it comes from personal experience is irrelevent.

Did they put in 40-hour weeks and come straight home? If they did, and they succeeded as executives anyway, they were lucky. If they didn't, then they weren't putting family first. Learn to read, dumb-fuck.

They didn't work 40 hour weeks but working 70 hours+ a week is not mutually exclusive with putting your family first. In a houshold where both parents work there are many creative ways to budget time.

Besides, all of this is totally irrelevent because in the example of children, companies do not force you out merely for possessing them. They leave it up to you to balance your personal activities and your work which is precicely what I am suggesting they do with recreational drug use.

If he isn't willing to give up his drug use in order to get the job, then he IS putting it before his job, you idiot.

False Dillema. There is no reason why he should be presented with that decision in the first place. Get this through your head, the two are not mutually exclusive. If the worker were in a position where drug use compromised his job, THEN he would be putting drugs before his job.

Companies will accept that for a family, but not for drug use.

Which is hypocritical since both are a personal choice.

Obviously, you are too much of a blithering idiot to recognize the difference between a black/white fallacy (either people must be completely oblivious to the personal behaviour of a prospective employee outside of work or they will discriminate to the Nth degree) and an extreme example used to disprove said fallacy (in certain kinds of jobs, even an idiot like you accepts that you don't want a fucking druggie there, hence you acknowledge that it works on a spectrum rather than being black/white).

If you say that a corporation is perfectly justified in looking at the personal habits of their workers then you conceede that any form of discrimination based on that is acceptable. This is not a black/white fallacy, it is simple logic. If you allow them to intrude into your personal time and life for regulation of drug use then you cannot claim to be violated when they decide to look at other factors.

Yes, and then you contradicted yourself by pretending that there is no reason whatsoever to discourage hiring of drug users. Make up your mind; why would it be acceptable in certain cases if you insist that there's no reason whatsoever to discriminate, moron?

It isn't a contradiction in the slightest. I am saying that drug testing makes no sense so long as it has no relevence to the performance of one's job. This holds true for most jobs (where recreational drug use on your own time will not affect your job) but for pilots for example, it DOES have a direct bearing on their jobs.

Furthermore, if a computer programmer gets drunk or stoned and goes to work, no real harm is done and he can be terminated if they employer figures it out. If a pilot gets drunk or stoned and goes to work, he can kill hundreds of people in the process.

In other words, you acknowledge that it can affect job performance, while simultaneously stating that it has no effect at all on job performance and companies shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on that basis. Make up your mind.

I acknowledge that SOME jobs can be adversely affected by recreational drug use, just as they can be affected by recreational drinking (which is also prohibited in those jobs under most conditions). That doesn't justify the widespread nature of drug testing; perhaps you'd like to tell me how it affects the performance of a clerk at Wal-Mart if he smokes pot on weekends?

What I'm saying is that every company has the right to do so, although some companies obviously think their jobs are more sensitive than they really are. You're trying to promote some bizarre self-contradictory argument where it has no effect whatsoever ... except when the job is important.

Not when the job is important, when the job involves putting other people's lives at risk. In such cases caution is completely justified and since those jobs are a relatively tiny fraction of the job market, it won't adversely affect the ability of recreational drug users to get jobs, just as discrimination based on hair by the entertainment industry doesn't adversely affect 99% of America's ability to get a job.

[Darth Wong]

Wow, the ever-popular Appeal to Daddy fallacy. What a genius you must think you are

Hey asshole, you wrote:

]But anybody who puts his family first before his job is not going to get those promotions. Period.

Don't come crying to me because I presented an example that shot down your bullshit claims.

Ah yes, because a single vague anecdotal example disproves a principle Grow up.

They didn't work 40 hour weeks but working 70 hours+ a week is not mutually exclusive with putting your family first.

Yes it is. This is why I hate the Appeal to Daddy fallacy. Nobody will ever admit that their own parents did anything less than Perfecto Parenting. But thanks for admitting that your example actually proves my point; executives never put family first. Sorry, but 70+ hour workweeks are only "family first" if you're on crack.

Besides, all of this is totally irrelevent because in the example of children, companies do not force you out merely for possessing them.

Again, you are confusing an issue of degrees with one of black and white. Denying promotions, denying jobs, and firing people are just different points on the "we're not happy with this person as an employee" scale, dumb-ass. They're not totally different concepts.

If he isn't willing to give up his drug use in order to get the job, then he IS putting it before his job, you idiot.

False Dillema. There is no reason why he should be presented with that decision in the first place. Get this through your head, the two are not mutually exclusive. If the worker were in a position where drug use compromised his job, THEN he would be putting drugs before his job.

Stop using fallacy names you don't understand. First you think that putting things on a scale is a black/white fallacy , then you think it's a false dilemma to say that someone who refuses to stop doing drugs because his company tells him to is putting his drugs before his job.

No company should be forced to hire someone or continue employing someone if that person is a drug user, even if for no other reason than the fear that this person's drug use might become more severe. And quite frankly, it is not up to YOU to declare what criteria they can and can't use, unless it's a matter of human rights. And since it hasn't sunk into your head despite numerous repetitions, I will say it again: nowhere in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the American Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights, or any other human rights document is freedom from discrimination based on drug use enshrined as a principle. So don't pretend it is.

<snip more repetitions of your asinine belief that companies should totally disregard drug use>

It isn't a contradiction in the slightest. I am saying that drug testing makes no sense so long as it has no relevence to the performance of one's job.

Puh-lease; you are still clinging to your black/white fallacy that drug use can have an impact on important jobs but zero impact on other jobs. That's bullshit; the kinds of things that make people worry about a drug user in a nuclear operator position are the kinds of things that could potentially impact performance in any job; it's only a question of how important that job is and how much it's worth to the company.

[PrinceofLowLight]

*Pokes head up* Eek...uh, does anyone know if Borders does them?

[The Cleric]

*Pokes head up* Eek...uh, does anyone know if Borders does them?

Seriously doubt it. Not cost effective for that kind of job.

[PrinceofLowLight]

Ah, I see. Thanks, and might I compliment you on your avatar.

[Darth Wong]

*Pokes head up* Eek...uh, does anyone know if Borders does them?

Seriously doubt it. Not cost effective for that kind of job.

They're not worth it for CompUSA either, and they still do them. Some of that is probably just managers who like to convince themselves that their activities are more important than they really are. Can't you imagine Joe Manager discovering that pilots are made to undergo drug tests and deciding "well, what we do here is pretty important too"?

[The Cleric]

Ah, I see. Thanks, and might I compliment you on your avatar.

Yes you might.

They're not worth it for CompUSA either, and they still do them. Some of that is probably just managers who like to convince themselves that their activities are more important than they really are. Can't you imagine Joe Manager discovering that pilots are made to undergo drug tests and deciding "well, what we do here is pretty important too"?

That's true. Although I worked for B&N (another bookstore) for a while, and they didn't.

[Wicked Pilot]

As someone who is subject to random spur of the moment piss test I can say that yes they suck and as a card carrying social liberal I think that what one does in his/her private life is their own business, but damnit I don't want some pot head working on my plane.