Do you agree with it or not? Why?

I have an opinion but I'll wait. This is a great mix of people so I want to hear what you have to say.

And please don't dump on someone if their opinion doesn't line up with yours PLAY NICE. Now lets hear it.

I'm on the fence, I think there are a number of drugs that should be tested...then there are substances that shouldn't even be considered drugs that should have special circumstances (only tested for on certain jobs).

Well.....I have been subject to drug AND alcohol testing since the concept first appeared in the workplace. The degree of testing has been suspect for years, but public demand for our testing was overwhelming so it went through and stayed despite constitutional rights objections.

Most people are OK with drug testing as long as it isn't them being tested. I have actually watched that happen many times!!

NOW I am all for it! And hope everyone has to experience the humiliation and degradition of the process and the questioning of your integrity by your employers as a small group of people that I'm in has had to endure.

private companies can do what they want.....

you don't have to work there......

One of the most destructive Drugs (imo) is Alcohol....yet....go ahead and drive that commuter train...

I am a plant manager so I am in that position you speak of.

if applied fairly and not as a punitive measure.
Sure.

and I'll bet you don't have to operate any dangerous equipment either....makes NO sense does it???

Actually I have 2 locomotives, 3 Caterpillar 988F loaders, 1 Caterpillar 824 dozer. Yes I have dangerous equipment. I agree with much of what you said though but before I speak I want to see the gerneral consensus is

I'm fine with it -- haven't touched drugs or alcohol since I was 22, and never will again. All they'll find in me is Pepsi and Tylenol.

I know a woman who runs a temporary employment agency, and she told me a lot of her client companies are cutting back on their drug testing because of the expense....

I think in some professions, it's unfortunately necessary. I used to work in HR for a trucking company (no offense to truck drivers out there, you all have much respect and love from me) and we were required to do drug testing both before and randoms during employment. It kept us from hiring a couple guys. I think the biggest problem, though, is the "random" part. We had maybe 3 guys test positive in the randoms. But every major accident we had, there were drugs and/or alcohol involved and those drivers had never been chosen in the random testing.

I think it's too arbitrary to be effective.

it doesn't bother me

in fact, i'd encourage it for people who are receiving government-subsidized funding in any way (besides obviously ill people)

i don't like the idea of the government having that much control over our lives; however, i would prefer that if it were required to prevent fraudulent uses of tax dollars.

I really agree with that

Myself I have never had to be tested. Now the company I work for does test them upon hiring them which in my book is a waste of time. Due to the fact hey they could get clean then do the drug test and go right back to the drugs. But then they do have the option of random drug testing and they have when it was obvious it was needed.

But now there is so many over the counter drugs that do at times just as much harm in the long run. I have known those that smoke pot at night and on the weekends but not before they went to work or on the job to me that is no difference then drinking.

In reality you hear of a lot more accidents of ones drinking then smoking pot. But regardless neither should be done before work or at work.

The guys I work with put in underground cable for AT&T and use the heavy equipment so it is very critical they are clear headed.

I think it's necessary in most occupations. Even if you are not responsible for dangerous machinery.

I say do them. I have had one done and its no problem for me because I dont do drugs and dont drink much. The last time I had anyting to drink was 4 months ago and that was one girly beer.

I say if you want to test me, that's fine. I'm clean. It can be a factor that employers consider, or for insurance/bonding/grant monies....

It bothers me not.

I agree that drug testing should not be used as a form of humiliation and degradation but unfortunately it is. Me as a plant manager can look at anyone here that pisses me off and send them for a D&A test. I don't or wouldn't do that but I have that power. Some managers abuse that power and it's just not right but it's done in the work place everyday.

I was forced to terminate one of my employees about 3 years ago. He was in a slight accident and because I have to play by the rules I sent him for a d&a test. He tested positive for a strong pain killer. He had woke up on a Sunday night with a really bad toothache. He had an old prescription he found in his medicine cabinet. He took the pills and although his name was on the bottle, the expiration date was expired. Have you ever had a toothache so bad that you would take anything to get rid of the pain? I was informed by HR to terminate him. This was one month before Christmas and he had just gained full custody of his little girl because the mother had abandoned the family. He sat in front of me crying. That was one of the saddest days I have ever been faced with.

If a man tests positive for cocaine or stronger then yes he should be let go. If a man smoked a joint last month during his vacation? then no he shouldn't be terminated.

I understand peoples strong opinion about drug testing but look at the example I just told you. Do you think my employee should have been fired?

No.

No I don't think he should have been fired. But, if it were me, I would have put him on a fairly long probation just to make sure he wasn't lying. And, to play devil's advocate, he could've gone to the ER and got a script. He did have a choice and unfortunately, you got caught in the middle. I've had to fire guys I like immensely, it's not easy.

No I don't think he should have been fired. But, if it were me, I would have put him on a fairly long probation just to make sure he wasn't lying. And, to play devil's advocate, he could've gone to the ER and got a script. He did have a choice and unfortunately, you got caught in the middle. I've had to fire guys I like immensely, it's not easy.


The rules have no room for probation. Believe me I tried everything.