I'll keep it short: This thread is for the express purpose of disseminating information on which employers drug-test and which don't. It is also for requests for information on a prospective employer. This is mainly to ensure that our Fourth Amendment rights are not violated.
Disclaimer: I invoke the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Amendment the First wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment the Fourth wrote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So here goes:
Winn Dixie DOES Drug Test.
Papa John's Pizza DOES NOT Drug Test.
Wendy's DOES NOT Drug Test.
McDonald's DOES NOT Drug Test.
Feel free to move this to HoS to thwart any DEA agents who wish to illegally disobey our Constitution by attempting to suppress by coercion of any form this thread or any information therein. My apologies for the rampant legalese, but in this day and age one cannot be too careful...
The constitution does not apply to private business.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
All of which is irrelevent when it comes to private businesses.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Alyeska wrote:All of which is irrelevent when it comes to private businesses.
Then deny the private businesses their constitutional rights.
If companies are truly private, then let them have no Civil Rights as companies/corporations (Each person in a corporation already has his/her own rights.). Ban all company/corporate influence in politics. Deny all political donations by companies/corporations. Deny companies all access to any governmental/political affairs. And overturn GATT (Global Alliance for Tariffs and Trade) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) which gives companies/corporations more power than the governments of countries the corporation resides in.
Alyeska: private businesses are not exempt from the Constitution. This is why a private business can be charged if it violates the rights of an employee. The fact that they are not held up to the standards of the government by the Constution does not mean they can ignore it.
Einy: sorry, but in order to show that drug testing is "unreasonable search and seizure", you must show that it is unreasonable. And quite frankly, there are numerous perfectly reasonable justifications to do drug testing on employees; marijuana may not be the Devil in Disguise as people said in the 1950s, but all other things being equal, a prospective employee who does drugs frequently enough to fail a test when he applies for a job is not my idea of a good risk. A company is offering you something: a job. It is not unreasonable of them to ask that you submit to a drug test in exchange for a job offer.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
For most people, there comes a time in life when you just have to prioritize. Let me show you what I mean. My best friend from high school, Justin, smokes pot every day. He's a hell of a dude, but I don't think he goes two days without smoking a bowl. He didn't finish college, so he's very limited in what he can do for a living. Right now, he's working at a construction site. Here's the shitty part for him. There are two big companies in his town; one that is unionized and one that is not. The union company pays about 19 dollars an hour to start and offers benefits, but it screens its employees for drugs. The other company is non union and starts at about 8 dollars an hour. Guess where he works? He won't stop smoking so he makes 8 bucks an hour. I guess he really likes smoking weed.
I don't smoke pot. I haven't in many many years. My job, not counting my seasonal wrestling or my wife's salary, pays roughly 5,000 per month. I get drug tested.
I think it's a matter of priority. If you can smoke out and make a high salary, then more power to you. If you can't , then hey, those are the choices you make.
Darth Wong wrote:Einy: sorry, but in order to show that drug testing is "unreasonable search and seizure", you must show that it is unreasonable. And quite frankly, there are numerous perfectly reasonable justifications to do drug testing on employees; marijuana may not be the Devil in Disguise as people said in the 1950s, but all other things being equal, a prospective employee who does drugs frequently enough to fail a test when he applies for a job is not my idea of a good risk. A company is offering you something: a job. It is not unreasonable of them to ask that you submit to a drug test in exchange for a job offer.
You must define "frequently enough." You can easily fail a drug test even if you haven't smoked marijuana in months. What's more, do companies rescind job offers they've made to people they found out were drinking the weekend before? No. Do companies monitor the drinking habits of their employees when they're off the clock? No. The only time it becomes an issue for the employer is when off-the-clock habits begin to affect on-the-clock performance. Singling out narcotics in this area is just silly, especially when alcohol is just as likely, if not far more likely, to cause problems.
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Darth Wong wrote:Einy: sorry, but in order to show that drug testing is "unreasonable search and seizure", you must show that it is unreasonable. And quite frankly, there are numerous perfectly reasonable justifications to do drug testing on employees; marijuana may not be the Devil in Disguise as people said in the 1950s, but all other things being equal, a prospective employee who does drugs frequently enough to fail a test when he applies for a job is not my idea of a good risk. A company is offering you something: a job. It is not unreasonable of them to ask that you submit to a drug test in exchange for a job offer.
Urinalysis detects the breakdown products of THC days or weeks after the marijuana is actually smoked. It's perfectly possible to smoke on Saturday night and fail a test Monday morning. Denying someone a job on that basis would be the equivilant of denying someone a job because someone from the company caught him drinking beer in a bar over the weekend. There's no way to tell, through urinalysis, if a marijuana smoker is actually intoxicated at that moment, or how much he smokes (and since companies consider any failure disqualification, it doesn't matter anyway).
Pre-employment drug screening has been sold to companies as a method to weed out potentially troublesome employees, but what it really is is enlisting private industry to enforce drug laws in a way the Constitution would never allow the government.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
Darth Wong wrote:
Einy: sorry, but in order to show that drug testing is "unreasonable search and seizure", you must show that it is unreasonable.
It's unreasonable because it is totally uneccessary. In order for it to be reasonable, the fact that the applicant had smoked pot in the last six weeks (which will still show up on a drug test) would have to have a direct bearing on being able to do a job. It doesn't so it isn't.
Now I'm not against drug testing for certain jobs where pot smoking would be a potential risk (airline pilots for example are regularly tested) but I'd like you to explain to me how a recreational pot smoker can't work as a banker, hotel manager, engineer, etc.
Funny how a business can fire people for expressing 1st ammendment rights...
Businesses are not held anywhere near the same standard as the government and as such search and seisure is an irrelevent issue.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Darth Wong wrote:
Einy: sorry, but in order to show that drug testing is "unreasonable search and seizure", you must show that it is unreasonable.
It's unreasonable because it is totally uneccessary. In order for it to be reasonable, the fact that the applicant had smoked pot in the last six weeks (which will still show up on a drug test) would have to have a direct bearing on being able to do a job. It doesn't so it isn't.
Now I'm not against drug testing for certain jobs where pot smoking would be a potential risk (airline pilots for example are regularly tested) but I'd like you to explain to me how a recreational pot smoker can't work as a banker, hotel manager, engineer, etc.
The fact that it is an illegal drug doesn't have any relevance? A great many companies automaticaly fire you the moment they know you've comitted a crime. Drug testing is just another part of this.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
I don't have any problem submitting to a drug test to get or maintain a job. As a matter of insane coincidental fact, I just took a drug test today as part of the application process for Lenscrafters (I was even going to start a thread on it, albeit a less politically-minded one than this).
Lenscrafters is screening me for drug usage before they hire me. How is that unfair? They don't owe me a job; they can turn me down for any good reason they wish. It's not like they're turning you down for being white or black - whether or not you like to get high actually can have an impact on your job performance.
That's not to say that I believe that it's impossible to enjoy marijuana (or any other number of drugs) and be a good worker: I've worked with several potheads who were exemplary employees (even when they came to work high). But at the application stage, an employer really can't bother to get to know the applicant or go out on a limb out of trust for the applicant. It's simply easier for them to screen against hiring drug addicts.
And you may ask yourself, 'Where does that highway go to?'
Brotherhood of the Monkey - First Monkey|Justice League - Daredevil|Late Knights of Conan O'Brien - Eisenhower Mug Knight (13 Conan Pts.)|SD.Net Chroniclers|HAB
Alyeska wrote:Funny how a business can fire people for expressing 1st ammendment rights...
And a person can be arrested for expressing First Amendment rights if they chose to do it in a way that breaks the law. There is a time and a place for everything and companies can not fire you for expressing you First Amendment rights on your own time except in extreme specialized cases.
Alyeska wrote:
The fact that it is an illegal drug doesn't have any relevance? A great many companies automaticaly fire you the moment they know you've comitted a crime. Drug testing is just another part of this.
No it doesn't; you are not required to report misdemeanor convictions to your employer, so what right does a company have on your personal activities?
Sorry, but being a drug user isn't protected by the Constitution.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
Darth Wong wrote:
Einy: sorry, but in order to show that drug testing is "unreasonable search and seizure", you must show that it is unreasonable.
It's unreasonable because it is totally uneccessary. In order for it to be reasonable, the fact that the applicant had smoked pot in the last six weeks (which will still show up on a drug test) would have to have a direct bearing on being able to do a job. It doesn't so it isn't.
Now I'm not against drug testing for certain jobs where pot smoking would be a potential risk (airline pilots for example are regularly tested) but I'd like you to explain to me how a recreational pot smoker can't work as a banker, hotel manager, engineer, etc.
The fact that it is an illegal drug doesn't have any relevance? A great many companies automaticaly fire you the moment they know you've comitted a crime. Drug testing is just another part of this.
They can fire you after you've been charged by the state and convicted of committing a crime. Unless I was asleep during that part of con-law, failing a privately administered piss test doesn't meet that qualification.
Mind you, private employers do have the right to demand employees take drug tests as a condition of employment, and fire them or disqualify them for hiring if they fail. Using drugs, unlike race, religion, gender and (in some jurisdictions) sexual orientation, isn't protected by anti-discrimination laws. And a company, outside of those laws, is free to hire whomever it wants. But that doesn't make it RIGHT for companies to act as de facto enforcers in the War on Drugs and deny qualified people employment because they smoke marijuana, unless they also plan on firing people for drinking alcohol on their spare time.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
The Kernel wrote:Now I'm not against drug testing for certain jobs where pot smoking would be a potential risk (airline pilots for example are regularly tested) but I'd like you to explain to me how a recreational pot smoker can't work as a banker, hotel manager, engineer, etc.
It's not that they can't be successful in those fields, it's just that the employers aren't obligated to give jobs to just anybody. And it isn't just blatant unjustified discrimination - the employer can look at it this way: who's more likely to get busted for a drug-related crime, the applicant who smoked a bowl last weekend, or the applicant who didn't?
And speaking as someone who's been on the hiring end of the retail business, let me tell you that this is one of the more reasonable reasons an employer could have for turning down (or not even considering) an applicant.
And you may ask yourself, 'Where does that highway go to?'
Brotherhood of the Monkey - First Monkey|Justice League - Daredevil|Late Knights of Conan O'Brien - Eisenhower Mug Knight (13 Conan Pts.)|SD.Net Chroniclers|HAB
Joe wrote:Sorry, but being a drug user isn't protected by the Constitution.
The Constitution contains no provisions against people putting what they want in their own bodies.
Alyseka wrote:The fact that it is an illegal drug doesn't have any relevance? A great many companies automaticaly fire you the moment they know you've comitted a crime. Drug testing is just another part of this.
Don't be ridiculous. Simple possession usually just lands you a citation and a fine, just like what happens to minors when they are caught drinking alcohol. Should minors be required to take some sort of test to determine whether or not they've imbibed alcohol in the past 6 to 8 weeks?
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
The Kernel wrote:Now I'm not against drug testing for certain jobs where pot smoking would be a potential risk (airline pilots for example are regularly tested) but I'd like you to explain to me how a recreational pot smoker can't work as a banker, hotel manager, engineer, etc.
It's not that they can't be successful in those fields, it's just that the employers aren't obligated to give jobs to just anybody. And it isn't just blatant unjustified discrimination - the employer can look at it this way: who's more likely to get busted for a drug-related crime, the applicant who smoked a bowl last weekend, or the applicant who didn't?
Which brings us into the reasonableness of marijuana prohibition to begin with. And if I wasn't going out drinking in ten minutes (can you feel the irony?), I'd get into it.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
Robert Treder wrote:
It's not that they can't be successful in those fields, it's just that the employers aren't obligated to give jobs to just anybody. And it isn't just blatant unjustified discrimination - the employer can look at it this way: who's more likely to get busted for a drug-related crime, the applicant who smoked a bowl last weekend, or the applicant who didn't?
And speaking as someone who's been on the hiring end of the retail business, let me tell you that this is one of the more reasonable reasons an employer could have for turning down (or not even considering) an applicant.
It would also make sense to do genetic screening for potential applicants (a la Gattaca), does that mean this is a good idea too?
Recreational pot smoking has no inherent effect on the ability to do ones job any more than off-time recreational drinking does. The fact that pot use is singled out is frankly ridiculous.
Robert Treder wrote:It's not that they can't be successful in those fields, it's just that the employers aren't obligated to give jobs to just anybody. And it isn't just blatant unjustified discrimination - the employer can look at it this way: who's more likely to get busted for a drug-related crime, the applicant who smoked a bowl last weekend, or the applicant who didn't?
Which brings us into the reasonableness of marijuana prohibition to begin with. And if I wasn't going out drinking in ten minutes (can you feel the irony?), I'd get into it.
True. I don't feel that marijuana should be restricted any more than tobacco. But that's not the way it is, and that's what businesses have to deal with.
Whether they should or not, businesses fire people for things such as misdemeanors (or whatever the fuck possession/selling/intent to sell gets you).
The way I see it, it's just the way the world is, and it's not that hard to just play ball. In a perfect world, no one would have to write essays about the symbolism in Nathaniel Hawthorne books, but most of us have been forced to do that, too.
And you may ask yourself, 'Where does that highway go to?'
Brotherhood of the Monkey - First Monkey|Justice League - Daredevil|Late Knights of Conan O'Brien - Eisenhower Mug Knight (13 Conan Pts.)|SD.Net Chroniclers|HAB
The Kernel wrote:Recreational pot smoking has no inherent effect on the ability to do ones job any more than off-time recreational drinking does. The fact that pot use is singled out is frankly ridiculous.
I agree that employers don't need to engage in this practice. What I'm not convinced of is the idea that employers should not be allowed to administer drug tests in order to determine eligibility of employment.
And you may ask yourself, 'Where does that highway go to?'
Brotherhood of the Monkey - First Monkey|Justice League - Daredevil|Late Knights of Conan O'Brien - Eisenhower Mug Knight (13 Conan Pts.)|SD.Net Chroniclers|HAB
Robert Treder wrote:It's not that they can't be successful in those fields, it's just that the employers aren't obligated to give jobs to just anybody. And it isn't just blatant unjustified discrimination - the employer can look at it this way: who's more likely to get busted for a drug-related crime, the applicant who smoked a bowl last weekend, or the applicant who didn't?
Which brings us into the reasonableness of marijuana prohibition to begin with. And if I wasn't going out drinking in ten minutes (can you feel the irony?), I'd get into it.
True. I don't feel that marijuana should be restricted any more than tobacco. But that's not the way it is, and that's what businesses have to deal with.
Whether they should or not, businesses fire people for things such as misdemeanors (or whatever the fuck possession/selling/intent to sell gets you).
The way I see it, it's just the way the world is, and it's not that hard to just play ball. In a perfect world, no one would have to write essays about the symbolism in Nathaniel Hawthorne books, but most of us have been forced to do that, too.
I see where you're coming from (and frankly, it's not that hard to spoof a piss test if you know how anyway), but I think the debate here isn't so much on whether an employee should deal with them (obviously we do or we'd starve), but whether there's justification.
And as I pointed out to Aly, businesses fire people for convictions handed down in a court of law. Failing a privately administered drug test, from the point of view of the law, doesn't prove the employee committed a misdemeanor.
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
