View Full Version : The ethics of Drug testing
Here is one real life dilemnia that faces managers in most industries.
In a plant that has equipment that can cost you a finger, a hand, and sometimes if your really stupid your arm, the company I work for has a no-drug use policy. The drug testing is not done unless you have an accident at work.
If you are tested postive for drugs - the company policy is to terminate the employee for thier drug use. But at the same time the employee has been involved in a work place accident.
I will discuss my answer after some discussion from others. But is this a ethical practice by the employeer? Is it sound legal policy for the company? And finally is it really the humane thing to do, terminating an employee after they have been hurt at work for a postive test on drugs? Feel free to qualify you answer on this by stating drug use at work, and the testing that happens to determine if you are using drugs outside of the workplace, because it only determines if drugs were used in during a time period, not the exact time.
After this rather simple one - another Drug Testing in the work place issue, will be presented. Its more complex then this one.
It seems a bit late to start tesing for drugs after the accident has happened, though it may help avoid paying out compensation. It could still be argued that the employer let someone under the influence operate dangerous machinery and so failed in their duty of care and in fulfillment of safety reg. But what is there to do? Maybe mandatory drugs testing? Not sure how I would react to that as an employee but if its in your contract......
bmolsson
01-05-2006, 03:04
Staff have to submit to drug tests at any time. The same thing goes if you drive a car, the police can stop and test you. Can't really see any problem with personal integrity or privacy.
Well I am still looking for more discussion - but the policy of drug testing is fine as far as I am concerned. However the way the policy is actually executed - seems to have an ethical issue, or at least to my way of thinking.
the problem with after the fact testing is the accident has already happened, from the example posted it would seem the only point of doing it is for the company to cover their asses.
any litigation brought by the hurt, could be argued he caused his own accident by using drugs.
another example from my experience with this policy was worker a, was hurt by worker b, who tested positive for marijauna, worker b was summarily terminated for violation of the drug policy, but worker a sued my former company for failing to provide a safe work enviroment, that of course led to mandatory and random drug testing.
i dont really see an ethical dispute in this example red, from my point of view, once their injured and tested, you can in essence say the individual contributed to his own accident, from their they would have to file with workmans comp, for medical and potential rehab, i believe everone who is covered under the companies workmans comp insurance should be covered.
Papewaio
01-05-2006, 03:57
The problem is that companines are not the government. Your company has less of a right to infringe on what you do in your free time then the government. A company hires you to perform a job. It rarely has the capacity to infringe on what you do out of ours unless you break regulations at work due to what you were doing ie turning up drunk.
The other side of the coin is if what you do outside of work has an impact on your work, both positive and negative. If you turn up late for work because you were playing TW then you could expect a reprimand. Lack of sleep on the weekend will lead to productivity. Fight with your spouse, poor morale and hence less productivity. Going through a tough divorce less productive. Favourite sports team won the grand final, happier and hence more productive etc.
the problem with after the fact testing is the accident has already happened, from the example posted it would seem the only point of doing it is for the company to cover their asses.
any litigation brought by the hurt, could be argued he caused his own accident by using drugs.
That about sums it up. The company can test him all they want if the victim is seeking compensation. Fair's fair, right?
The problem is that companines are not the government. Your company has less of a right to infringe on what you do in your free time then the government. A company hires you to perform a job. It rarely has the capacity to infringe on what you do out of ours unless you break regulations at work due to what you were doing ie turning up drunk.
actualy companies have more rights than the gov, they do not have to give you a job, i do not believe drug of choice is covered under the equal opportunity employment rules...
from my pov, i work around heavy machinery, i have ten forklifts weighing around 10,000 lbs a piece, semi trucks, trailers, box trucks, and about 80 employees running around my warehouse, and to be honest any drunkard or alchoholic need not apply. my job is to create as safe a working enviorment as possible, and drugs and alchohol, in fact anything that can slow their responses down do not belong in my warehouse..
someone shows up drunk or wasted, first offence i send them home, and give the a verbal warning, second time is grounds for dismissal, ill ua them first to cover myself legally. as for personal problems, ie divorce, i do my best to help them through it, wether that be extra time of to get their affairs in order, or mostly give them a shoulder to cry on, i listen to them and allow them to get their problems off their chests. people with personal problems who are good employees i bend over backwards to allow them whatever they need to get back on track, good employees are hard to find, and im hesitant to loose them. ive gone to the mat for a few before, and told managment if they fired them, id walk with them...but thats me personal morals weighing in there.
solypsist
01-05-2006, 07:11
i imagine the company doesnt want to shell out $$ for an accident that involved an "impaired" employee. sounds like a good way to make sure the staff don't drink too many beers to sneak a toke during the lunch break.
Papewaio
01-05-2006, 07:20
actualy companies have more rights than the gov, they do not have to give you a job, i do not believe drug of choice is covered under the equal opportunity employment rules...
from my pov, i work around heavy machinery, i have ten forklifts weighing around 10,000 lbs a piece, semi trucks, trailers, box trucks, and about 80 employees running around my warehouse, and to be honest any drunkard or alchoholic need not apply. my job is to create as safe a working enviorment as possible, and drugs and alchohol, in fact anything that can slow their responses down do not belong in my warehouse..
someone shows up drunk or wasted, first offence i send them home, and give the a verbal warning, second time is grounds for dismissal, ill ua them first to cover myself legally. as for personal problems, ie divorce, i do my best to help them through it, wether that be extra time of to get their affairs in order, or mostly give them a shoulder to cry on, i listen to them and allow them to get their problems off their chests. people with personal problems who are good employees i bend over backwards to allow them whatever they need to get back on track, good employees are hard to find, and im hesitant to loose them. ive gone to the mat for a few before, and told managment if they fired them, id walk with them...but thats me personal morals weighing in there.
Which is what I wrote:
It rarely has the capacity to infringe on what you do out of ours unless you break regulations at work due to what you were doing ie turning up drunk.
Kind of a laconic version of what you wrote. The difference I am pointing out is that if you get drunk on the weekend and turn up sober a company cannot regulate that.
This then leads to another part can a company regulate (illegal or legal) drug use on your private time if you turn up to work without any hangover/impairment from social life?
What's disturbing is that the policy the company has in place appears to be more of an after-the-fact CYA maneuver, rather than an attempt to encourage a drug-free workplace.
Also, it's fine and dandy to have a company drug test in an environment where personal safety is at stake. But I hear about people being drug tested for all sorts of jobs, things like secretarial work. There would seem to be a privacy issue at play here, assuming you believe in any right to privacy at all.
KafirChobee
01-05-2006, 08:05
i imagine the company doesnt want to shell out $$ for an accident that involved an "impaired" employee. sounds like a good way to make sure the staff don't drink too many beers to sneak a toke during the lunch break.
Excellent response. However, if the company doesnot have a random drug test policy .. or cyclic one ... then one must assume that their testing after an accident is simply a protective device to use in court to deny responsability for unsafe practices.
Here's the grabber; was the equipment safe - were all safety devices active, operative and ? Was the person operating it aware of the danger, and if so were they aware that some of the safety devices were turned off to increase productivity?
It is a unique situation when a company maybe aware of drug use in its facility, but is only concerned after an accident there in. It makes it look like they were willing to turn a blind eye, until it might actually affect their pursestrings.
From example, when I was 18 I was injured on the job (making bearings for the F-4s ... many moons ago), was my fault (was to strong) and the removal of a safety device. Seems that by removing a flange that protects an operators hand from a wheel spinning at 3'000 rpm you can increase productivity by 5 pieces an hour (or $20 in submitted profit) - but, the problem was that to remove the fudgesickle gauge from the working piece the operator had to pull their hand directly towards the 3,000rpm - get the idea? Thing is, I thought it was me - 'til I signed a release and they fired me. At 18 we are all stupid to a point - me anyways.
Thing about this is, were I the injured party, I would certainly want my attorney to be looking into OASHA vialations (or threatening to do so) to make a deal. In todays environment - I doubt your company has anything to concern themselves with. Who gives a hoot about an American getting hurt on the job today? Stoned or sober.
Excellent response. However, if the company doesnot have a random drug test policy .. or cyclic one ... then one must assume that their testing after an accident is simply a protective device to use in court to deny responsability for unsafe practices.
Hence my ethical issue. The company has a random drug test policy - but does not use it. All testing is only done if the employee gets hurt.
Here's the grabber; was the equipment safe - were all safety devices active, operative and ? Was the person operating it aware of the danger, and if so were they aware that some of the safety devices were turned off to increase productivity?
In short the answer is yes all safety devices are in place and the operator was trained and certified on the machine.
It is a unique situation when a company maybe aware of drug use in its facility, but is only concerned after an accident there in. It makes it look like they were willing to turn a blind eye, until it might actually affect their pursestrings.
Nice summation of my ethical issue with the way the policy is not followed by the corporate headquarters.
From example, when I was 18 I was injured on the job (making bearings for the F-4s ... many moons ago), was my fault (was to strong) and the removal of a safety device. Seems that by removing a flange that protects an operators hand from a wheel spinning at 3'000 rpm you can increase productivity by 5 pieces an hour (or $20 in submitted profit) - but, the problem was that to remove the fudgesickle gauge from the working piece the operator had to pull their hand directly towards the 3,000rpm - get the idea? Thing is, I thought it was me - 'til I signed a release and they fired me. At 18 we are all stupid to a point - me anyways.
Young and naive gets you in trouble more often then not.
Thing about this is, were I the injured party, I would certainly want my attorney to be looking into OASHA vialations (or threatening to do so) to make a deal. In todays environment - I doubt your company has anything to concern themselves with. Who gives a hoot about an American getting hurt on the job today? Stoned or sober.
Oh I hope she does go find a lawyer that knows what he is doing. It might make the company actually begin to follow their stated drug testing policy. Which I agree with. But I would addachocal testing to the random test, just to be fair and to insure a safe work place.
Edit: OPPs to much real information there
Now the kicker in my ethicial dilimena is from monitoring the actions of several employees on not only my shift - but the other two, I suspect to a degree of certainity that the plant has other associates using drugs when they are not at work. Well going to have to sleep on it tonight - and deal with it when I go to work tomorrow - ie swing shift today it seems
English assassin
01-05-2006, 10:19
I'm not too sure I see an ethical issue even if they do only test after an accident and even if they are hoping to avoid paying compensation as a result?
At the moment in the common law compensation for an injury depends not on the injury but on fault. (You can argue the pro's and con's of that, but its been that way for many years and isn't likely to change any time soon). That's not the company's doing, that's the law the judges made for them. So I don't see anything unethical in the company seeking to establish whether there might be any fault on the party of the employee. Its a legitimate issue even if it may seem hard nosed.
The failure to test at any other time seems to me to be finely balanced. On the one hand you could say that if the company really wanted to stop accidents, (and felt it had to stop drug use as a result) then it would impose more drug tests. On the other hand there is the privacy argument which would point to having the minimum number of tests possible. You could argue it either way but I don't think the arguments in favour of drug testing will be so strong as to amount to it being unethical not to test in the ordinary run of events.
My two cents.
Major Robert Dump
01-05-2006, 11:07
6 months ago I left upper management of a large corprate entity that drug tested. You folks talk about that place often, and I'd like to start a thread at some point setting you all straight, both those for and agianst, on some facts you may find interesting but it will be a long, long rant on my part.
I have pretty serious ethical problems with drug testing in SOME scenarios. You can't have truck drivers and guards and teachers and construction workers strung out, you just can't. But the only way to ensure that is CONSTANT random testing, which VERY FEW companies do that.
Most places test at applicant stage and IF there is an accident or IF there is reasonable cause to believe they are on something. In cases of workplaces where not being safe can get A LOT OF PEOPLE KILLED I really don't have a problem with this. In fact, I don't have a problem with preemplyment testing for EVERY JOB because people who ABUSE (not use) drugs do not make good employees, and no one likes to work with asshats. It also says something about personal dependebility becuase if you cant stop snorting meth for one month so you can find a freakin job then please, please go work somewhere else.
Heres what I have a problem with:
1. In a lot of cases, it really becomes largely symbolic, as a way to promote a "drug free workplace" you get tested up front. It also gets you brownie points with the city, state and local government for doing so, which helps to secure community support both through buisness-friendly community grants, subsidies etc and through tax incentives. So why not do it?
2. It provides a means to terminate people who may otherwise not be firable. This is good because purging is good in low-skill jobs, it lets you hire repalcements and pay them less. Also, if you can get them to quit through IMPLIED THREAT OF TESTING, you can rehire them later (veteran for lower pay) because they never actually refused a test or failed a test. It's also good at getting rid of people when you are told your staff is too fat. There are pretty serious legal concerns so most places just wont come in and one day test everyone "just because", but implementing a policy or starting a witch hunt (like through a staged drug complaint to corporate, so they get behind you on it) will let you weed out people who are "acting funny" or "have attendence issues" or "was heard talking about getting high"
Major Robert Dump
01-05-2006, 11:07
dbl post
Ja'chyra
01-05-2006, 11:15
As afr as I'm concerned my employer has a no alcohol or drug policy and that is all that is required, they have no right to perform compulsory drug testing on me, and I would tell them where to go if they tried.
If someone turns up for work who is obviously the worse for wear then it is well within the employers rights to send them home, but not to force them to pee in a cup, which even the police can't do without good reason I believe.
actualy companies have more rights than the gov, they do not have to give you a job, i do not believe drug of choice is covered under the equal opportunity employment rules...
No they don't have to give you a job, but they have no right to pry into your private life either, what would be next? Genetic tests, home checks, info on marital status?
They pay you to do a job, they aren't doing you any favours just like you aren't doing them any, if they think that you are incapable then they should replace you.
Major Robert Dump
01-05-2006, 11:18
Sorry hiut submit
3. Allows in some cases complete immunity to workers comp if one fails a test, not just immunity to company level dangerous workplace and negligence suits. The problem here is that a drug test doesnt prove how long its been since the person has taken the substance, unless we are talking about immediate intoxication. In other words, if Jim smoked a joint 3 weeks ago and hasnt gotten high since, and he loses his foot because SOMEONE ELSE runs it over with a power jack, he gets tested, fails and insurance lets him blow in the wind. this is wrong, just wrong. Hey man, show up drunk and get itno an accident, well screw you you deserved it. But getting disqualified from coverage because you did something that in no way impaired your judgement well its just wrong.
4. Hair tests: this is the big one. Most places DONT do this, but basically any hair you had when the drug was ingested (even if it were 6 months ago) will test positive. So unless you wax your arms and head and eyebrows and let it all grow in again before the test you are screwed, buster. Again, hair tests for pilots and high risk jobs go right ahead. But to work at a car dealership or as a plumber or at a video store? HAHAHAHAHA
So now let me quailfy this. I like limited testing. I worked at a place that did pre-employent AND accident AND witch hunt testing. I was management. And I smoke marijuana. Cheated on each test (took one for emply and one for promotion). Did all I could to spoil a witch hunt whenever I saw one, but really had very little way to impact accident tests. Was also good at weeding out people coming to work impaired, which is a no-no any way you cut it. And NO, I never came to work impaired. Never entered my mind for a second, I have no sympathy for people with hangovers or stupid stoner mistakes.
Kralizec
01-05-2006, 14:52
It seems that in Redleg's scenario workers can get stoned or drunk and still work provided they don't show it, and that the bosses condone this (since they don't do preemtive tests). Like an unspoken agreement that if workers appear sober and don't cause any accidents, fine, but that the employer will wash his hands in innocence if something does go wrong.
I'd say it's definitely unethical for an employer to use drug tests not as a means to actually prevent dangerous situations, but proclaim their innocence when accidents do occur.
Employers should have no right to decide what you can and cannot use (the government can, however) unless it can impair your productivity or safety at work.
Therefore it seems logical to me that for an employer to be justified to fire a worker he'd have to prove that the drug use was sufficiently short ago and intense to have an effect on the working day, as only then you can assume there was a potential danger. And furthermore, if an accident does happen, there's still the question wether an average person with a clear mind would have been able to avoid the accident. If a stoner can prove that the accident would have happened anyhow, there isn't any ground for the employer to refuse paying for the damages, at least in Dutch law :juggle2:
master of the puppets
01-05-2006, 17:27
i like the witch hunt idea, random testing, but what this company is doinfg is purely civering its as. ther is no preventative measure, and even if they test possitive i would say that marijauna and alchohol is acceptable (but grudgingly) as long as it does not effect you at the moment of work, give them one of those 10 minute reflex and aptitute tests i have heard about, (not sure where, drived ed teacher maybe) it is a simple thing on reflexes ,rapid questions, motor skills...uh oh, the bell, lunch is over i g2g i'll finish dis l8ter
master of the puppets
01-05-2006, 17:55
srry about that so...
a employer expects his employee to work, if drugs of any kind hinder that relationship then it is not surprising that harsh action should be taken, i would lay off someone who lacked the ability to work effectivly. if they hurt themselves you were too late, you should have known of there problem loong before and have taken action (if it is a problem).
i would write more but i lost my train of thought.
Soulforged
01-06-2006, 05:29
Call me blind if you'll but I don't see the ethical issue here. You break their policies you fall out. Now if you bring me some Common Law that dictates that such a clause is unethical or illegal then please do. As far as I'm concerned it's ethical (inside the rather tiny boundaries of ethical capitalism), only when the fired employee is compensated, the bird can always find another tree.
Call me blind if you'll but I don't see the ethical issue here. You break their policies you fall out. Now if you bring me some Common Law that dictates that such a clause is unethical or illegal then please do. As far as I'm concerned it's ethical (inside the rather tiny boundaries of ethical capitalism), only when the fired employee is compensated, the bird can always find another tree.
Common law does not necessary apply to ethical issues.
Soulforged
01-06-2006, 08:24
Common law does not necessary apply to ethical issues.
That's ok, however it will be an enforcer to your argument and an enlighment to me. But then again the moral subject comes to play far before than the law does, so I'll remain nontheless in my possition and state that I don't see any ethical problem with this. Now as for the policy, perhaps it's unethical, tough it will help me much to know your views just to be informed as in where do you see the amorality, but then again the problem is minimal to me. There's two important points to notice: 1- The employee should know of the policy at the letter before even signing any contract. 2- If fired he should receive compensation, both for the accident and for the termination. Now if that's followed I think that the company is being as ethical as it can be.
Ja'chyra
01-06-2006, 09:01
I'll comment on point 2.
If an employee causes an accident, whether it causes harm or not, because he was working under the influence, or effects may be a better term, then he should be sacked immediately. He should not be compensated in any way, merely escorted off the premises and told not to return.
Why would anyone think he was due compensation?
Kralizec
01-06-2006, 12:58
Because if a forklift driver drops a 1.5 ton crate on his head due to the drivers carelessness, you can hardly say that it was the victims fault, wether he took drugs or not. Being under influence under worktime is a reason for dismissal, but if the accident would have happened anyhow he could still get compensation.
That's ok, however it will be an enforcer to your argument and an enlighment to me. But then again the moral subject comes to play far before than the law does, so I'll remain nontheless in my possition and state that I don't see any ethical problem with this. Now as for the policy, perhaps it's unethical, tough it will help me much to know your views just to be informed as in where do you see the amorality, but then again the problem is minimal to me. There's two important points to notice: 1- The employee should know of the policy at the letter before even signing any contract. 2- If fired he should receive compensation, both for the accident and for the termination. Now if that's followed I think that the company is being as ethical as it can be.
The ethical issue comes from the fact as was stated by several is that the drug testing after an accident is often used as method to not pay the employee's medical bills because of the use of drugs. If the company can not prove that the associate came to work under the influence of drugs or achocal it has the obligation under the law to pay the medical bill. The company can still terminate the employment of the individual who tested postive.
This was the exact ethical issue I had a problem with and as stated by another patron, and that was exactly what was attempted by the Worker's Comp group that asked me a question the second I showed to work.
If fired for cause an employee is not entitled to any compensation other then the time for which they have worked. The drug test is used not only as method to terminate an employee who breaks their working agreeement with the company, but as a way to avoid some of its responsiblities to an employee who is hurt on the job. The onus is on the company to prove that the individual came to work under the influence, if I could not state that the employee demonstrated signs of being under the influence, then the company could not deny payment for medicial bills. Now why would a responsible person allow an employee under their supervision work with equipment if he knew that the employee was under the influence of drugs or achocal?
Ja'chyra
01-06-2006, 15:06
Because if a forklift driver drops a 1.5 ton crate on his head due to the drivers carelessness, you can hardly say that it was the victims fault, wether he took drugs or not. Being under influence under worktime is a reason for dismissal, but if the accident would have happened anyhow he could still get compensation.
I'm not quite sure what you mean, language problem probably.
But, if you mean that the forklift driver drops the load on his own head it should be worked out why the accident happened (not quite sure how he would manage to drop it on his own head tbh). If it turned out that the accident was due to fautly equipment or measures outside of his control then compensation would be in order, but if the accident was down to user error (as most are) then he shouldn't receive any. I do believe that if there was more than one factor involved that they would work out how much (in %) each factor was to blame and compensation would be issued accordingly.
For example, if the driver was driving a perfectly serviceable vehicle and the accident was totally down to driver error because he is intoxicated then most of the blame would be his with the company sharing a little of the blame for allowing him to work in that condition. If no-one else was involved the driver probably wouldn't receive any compensation, but if others were involved then they would because the company should ensuring their safe working environment.
It would be argued the the company should also have ensured the drivers safety by not allowing him to work, but that is where I believe the mollycoddling starts, if you turn up to work drunk then accidents because of this are down to you , unless the company knows you are in that state and allows you to work.
Kralizec
01-06-2006, 16:37
Nonono,
Suppose I'm walking around my workplace, stoned as a brick. Yet I'm walking straight, mantaining a safe distance from any machinery and generally not violating any safety procedures.
Then, a forklift driver either due to his own fault or due to mechanical failure drops a crate on top of my head. Ouch....the employer takes a drug test on me and concludes that I was under the influence of pot during worktime.
However in this case, being stoned had nothing to do with the accident. Had I been in a perfectly clear state of mind, I still would have gotten the crate on my head.
The employer still would be able to fire me because I was stoned, as I *could* have created dangerous situations while I was stoned on work.
The accident that occured in reality though, didn't have anything to do with me being stoned. The accident was either due to the behavious of the forklift driver, or due to the mechanical unsoundness of the forklift- both of wich fall under the responsibility of the employer. Now under my law, I still could get compensation because the accident didn't involve any fault of my own and I'm able to prove so.
Ja'chyra
01-06-2006, 19:33
Yes you would get compensation for the accident and yes you would be sacked and not receive compensation for losing your job.
Now that we have a base to work from. Lets move the discussion in this direction. We all seem to agree that testing by employers for drugs is acceptable. How it is applied by different companies is somewhat unethical in my opinion when it is used only after an accident occurs - but that is my ethical opinion on the matter.
Now lets discuss the ethics of drug testing on the job - when the use of drugs is not prohibited by the government. Given that some jobs have no danger to the employee or others - but some careers and many jobs do have risk to life and limb. Is it ethical for a company to have a drug screening program - when drugs are regulated by the state in a non-criminal aspect?
Would what happen to this employee of mine be ethical then?
PS: Please don't try to trap people from their comments from previous threads. Ethics is what I want to discuss. Not morals.
Soulforged
01-07-2006, 02:46
The ethical issue comes from the fact as was stated by several is that the drug testing after an accident is often used as method to not pay the employee's medical bills because of the use of drugs. If the company can not prove that the associate came to work under the influence of drugs or achocal it has the obligation under the law to pay the medical bill. The company can still terminate the employment of the individual who tested postive.Thanks for pointing that out, I always have problems seeing other people's ethical issues. But if I'm not mistaken the drug test cannot prove that the subject was under the influence during the time of work in wich he caused an accident. It would be unethical of course if this is the alleged purpose of the company.
Now why would a responsible person allow an employee under their supervision work with equipment if he knew that the employee was under the influence of drugs or achocal?Well I think that the point is that they don't. But if they knew it will be even more unethical, it will include to take the strenght of work of the subject and the firing him when he causes an accident even if it could be prevented.
Is it ethical for a company to have a drug screening program - when drugs are regulated by the state in a non-criminal aspect?My first response: there I sure don't see any issue because it's private problem conserning the contract. Now if I may add the legislation in many countries is turning the laboral law into a public matter, even the sindical (gremial) agreements between the employers and the employees, so it might be, just for social consensus, a problem that concerns both ethics and the law. But I'll remain with the second opinion, because I personally think that there's a root problem with capitalism mechanism, the place of work concerns both and both are entitled to tell how should it be run, so it's unethical at least in my opinion.
Would what happen to this employee of mine be ethical then?What is this supposed to mean Red?:inquisitive: :laugh4:
What is this supposed to mean Red?:inquisitive: :laugh4:
Was not paying attention when I typed the sentence.
It should of stated
What happened to this employee of mine, whould it be ethical? (If the state allowed for regulated drug use but not criminialization.)
Soulforged
01-07-2006, 03:06
What happened to this employee of mine, whould it be ethical? (If the state allowed for regulated drug use but not criminialization.)It doesn't change anything to me. But there's an issue here, if drugs are not criminalized then the policy of the company could only be to the protection of other employees during hours of work. But the central issue is the same, now that you corrected my views, this is unethical nontheless.
It doesn't change anything to me. But there's an issue here, if drugs are not criminalized then the policy of the company could only be to the protection of other employees during hours of work. But the central issue is the same, now that you corrected my views, this is unethical nontheless.
Your nation has just legalized Marijuna and you like to smoke pot, but you only smoke on the Weekend Nights - Friday and Saturday. You go into work on Tuesday and you have an accident.
Your required to take a drug test because of the accident. The test can not tell when you last smoked but only that you have smoked in the last 30 days for an urine and up to and beyond 6 monthes if its a hair.
There is now a conflict between what the state allows and what the company allows. The company is responsible for everything that happens in the building in which you work - to include if you are in an accident, either as the victim of the accident or the cause.
Can the company dismiss you and still be within the ethics of taking care of its employee's?
I have an ethical problem with drug testing people who are not in critical/dangerous positions. Why should a person applying to be a secretary need to prove that she/he doesn't smoke some pot on the weekends? Where is the gain for the corporation or the society, much less the individual?
Let me state for the record that I don't do drugs of any sort, so I have no personal axe to grind. Now that my wife is pregnant with Larval Lemur #2, I don't even drink or smoke. A company could sample my pee for the next decade, and all they would discover is that I have a weakness for sugar cereals.
I have two objections to widespread drug testing, one ethical and one practical. The ethical issue is one of privacy. I know it's quite fashionable to say that there is no such thing, and that the "unreasonable search" clause in the U.S. Constitution doesn't mean much of anything, etc., but if the founders were alive today, I think they would be horrified by the level of private snooping available to corporations and individuals. People need privacy, and if you think they don't, please make sure you leave your stall door open in the bathroom, just to reassure everyone that you're not doing anything sneaky. Asking citizens who have shown no evidence of wrongdoing to give over samples of their bodily fluids as a matter of course for employment, well, it strikes this lemur as fundamentally wrong.
The practical objection is that the drug tests' sensitivity is in inverse proportion to the seriousness of the drug. THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, stays in your body in detectable traces for a minimum of one week. Often much longer. But cocaine and meth are gone and undetectable within days. So all a meth addict has to do is stay clean for about 48 hours, and he's got the job. But the pothead is at risk much longer. I don't know about heroin -- Red, as an administrator of such tests, perhaps you can fill me in.
I have supervised potheads. They're fine workers. Two of the best employees I ever had (names withheld to protect the guilty) were guys who spent their weekends in a fully-baked condition. I wouldn't have wanted them operating heavy machinery, but for programming and networking, they were aces. And if they had been given a competent drug test, they would have been fired.
The truth of the matter is that an employee who's messed up will demonstrate his/her condition in many, many ways. You don't need a drug-test to recognize a screwed-up person. And you don't need a drug test to fire them.
I'm starting a new techie job next week. And yes, I'm going to have to pee in a cup for them, even though my job will involve no piloting, no heavy machinery, no guns and no physical danger of any sort. I'm as clean as a Nevada Mormon, so it's no practical problem for me. But I'm pretty sure it's an unethical request by my employer.
The practical objection is that the drug tests' sensitivity is in inverse proportion to the seriousness of the drug. THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, stays in your body in detectable traces for a minimum of one week. Often much longer. But cocaine and meth are gone and undetectable within days. So all a meth addict has to do is stay clean for about 48 hours, and he's got the job. But the pothead is at risk much longer. I don't know about heroin -- Red, as an administrator of such tests, perhaps you can fill me in.
THC stays in the system for about 30 days for a urine test. (this I know from talking with lab personal when I was in the army, several other drugs remain in the system in testable levels for a matter of days . Meth and Cocaine if my memory serves me correctly last for about 7 days.)
Herion I don't remember either.
I have supervised potheads. They're fine workers. Two of the best employees I ever had (names withheld to protect the guilty) were guys who spent their weekends in a fully-baked condition. I wouldn't have wanted them operating heavy machinery, but for programming and networking, they were aces. And if they had been given a competent drug test, they would have been fired.
My problem is I supervisor people who work with machines that have no problem cutting your finger or your arm off. So I don't really have the same ability here.
The truth of the matter is that an employee who's messed up will demonstrate his/her condition in many, many ways. You don't need a drug-test to recognize a screwed-up person. And you don't need a drug test to fire them.
You have to show cause in most states to terminate an employee work contract. Unfortunely just knowing that they are screwed-up doesn't work anymore - one must have shown that they either flunked a drug test, or that the employeer has attempted to rehab the associate to an useful employee with the three step counseling method. Verbal, Written, and Final Warnings.
I'm starting a new techie job next week. And yes, I'm going to have to pee in a cup for them, even though my job will involve no piloting, no heavy machinery, no guns and no physical danger of any sort. I'm as clean as a Nevada Mormon, so it's no practical problem for me. But I'm pretty sure it's an unethical request by my employer.
Exactly the reason I brought the subject up. The ethics of the issue concerns me slightly.
You have to show cause in most states to terminate an employee work contract. Unfortunely just knowing that they are screwed-up doesn't work anymore - one must have shown that they either flunked a drug test, or that the employeer has attempted to rehab the associate to an useful employee with the three step counseling method. Verbal, Written, and Final Warnings.
Weird. I've never worked in a state or for a place that wasn't "at will." You want somebody gone? They're gone. Somebody wants you gone? Bye-bye.
Don't most states have at-will employment? Or is it just Illinois, New York and Wisconsin (the last three states where Iv'e worked)?
Papewaio
01-09-2006, 06:20
3 written warnings or something criminal and then they can walk you in Australia.
Mind you it is very easy to get someone 3 written warnings if you want to get rid of them... and sometimes they shape up pretty good after the first or second one.
I have an ethical problem with drug testing people who are not in critical/dangerous positions. Why should a person applying to be a secretary need to prove that she/he doesn't smoke some pot on the weekends? Where is the gain for the corporation or the society, much less the individual?
I agree, I think it's overkill and an invasion of privacy. Obviously if you want to work in a position were it is deemed bodily harm could be inflicted on yourself and others you should be prepared for drug tests.
Can the company dismiss you and still be within the ethics of taking care of its employee's?
Can the company determine beyond all doubt that it was the influence of drugs that caused the accident or simply a natural accident?
I don't think they can is most situations. If they want to take care of their employee they should take his/her word that it was not a drug-related accident.
Oh, here is where I state for the record that I don't use or endorse drug use. I do endorse ethical treatment of workers, freedom, and privacy.
Major Robert Dump
01-09-2006, 07:45
As long as "drugs"** are illegal, drug testing will be allowed in the US, and after one or two court decisions in favor of the company to set precedent, the testing will become a lot more common. I recall a company last year who terminated employess who smoked cigarettes on the grounds that tobacco was forbidden and the employees knew, so when they admitted to smoking they were canned. From an insurance cost/health problems interfering with work perspective it makes sense, but from a personal liberty perspective it does not. It all boils down to money money money
**until people distinguish between marijuana and things like narcotics this will be an issue too
3 written warnings or something criminal and then they can walk you in Australia.
Mind you it is very easy to get someone 3 written warnings if you want to get rid of them... and sometimes they shape up pretty good after the first or second one.
Yes indeed its very easy to do - and it protects the employeer from many stupid lawsuits.
Weird. I've never worked in a state or for a place that wasn't "at will." You want somebody gone? They're gone. Somebody wants you gone? Bye-bye.
Don't most states have at-will employment? Or is it just Illinois, New York and Wisconsin (the last three states where Iv'e worked)?
That is considered the "at will," also. Most states do have a "for cause" reasoning in termination of individuals from employeement. The "at will" does exist in many states, but the "at will" also leaves the employeer subject to unlawful termination suits if they are not careful in their standards to terminate people's employeement. In otherswords you can not let one individual get away with an act or behavior that you terminate others for.
Most companies I know use the "for cause" concept and that requires a specific act that violates the companies rules that is written as a reason for termination, a Criminal act, or an act that counselling has been down in the three step method.
Kralizec
01-10-2006, 09:01
Can the company determine beyond all doubt that it was the influence of drugs that caused the accident or simply a natural accident?
I don't think they can is most situations. If they want to take care of their employee they should take his/her word that it was not a drug-related accident.
I disagree. The fact that you're under drug influence yet still chose to work with dangerous machinery makes you a liabillity*
Like I said before, if you were under influence under worktime the employer has a reason to fire you over it, but if you were in an accident and can prove that it wasn't your fault (you probably would have the burden of proof here, considering the fact that you had used drugs) you could still get compensation for the accident itself, but not for your dismissal.
The only ethical issue in this thread that I can see is that the employer has the right to do drug tests, wich they could use to increase safety by random testing. Yet they only (Ab)use it afterwards to shield them from lawsuits.
*of course, there is a problem if tests can only determin if you had any drugs the last 30 days or longer.
I disagree. The fact that you're under drug influence yet still chose to work with dangerous machinery makes you a liabillity*
Like I said before, if you were under influence under worktime the employer has a reason to fire you over it
Yes, but in this case I'm talking about someone who does some drugs on the weekend but NEVER (for the sake of arguement) comes into work when he/she is still under the influence. So, yes, they have done some drugs but are not ever under the influence while at work.
Or is that infact how you understand it and I would be correct to say that your saying: "The fact that you're using drugs AT ANY TIME yet still chose to work with dangerous machinery makes you a liabillity*"?
I am also applying this situation to a non-dangerous job. For instance the accident was yours but it was not actually cuased by drug influence but rather an honest mistake but since they are able to trace drugs on you it is then blamed on drug use.
Random testing is OK if telling "are you under influence?"
This goes for Alcohol blood or breath analysis.:2thumbsup:
Testing for Cannabis shows "Have you used substance for may be several weeks?" which should not be employers concern what I did on my vacation. :no:
Kralizec
01-10-2006, 10:43
I recall a company last year who terminated employess who smoked cigarettes on the grounds that tobacco was forbidden and the employees knew, so when they admitted to smoking they were canned.
Fired over smoking tabacco? Now that's just stupid :wall:
Devastatin Dave
01-10-2006, 20:45
Fired over smoking tabacco? Now that's just stupid :wall:
But at the same point, companies that offer medical bennifits and have to pay high medical insurance costs would seem, in my opinion to have the right to hire only non smokers and let go of those that will not quit. the only problem with this is the slippery slope effect. For example, would companies have the right to not hire overweight or fire overwieght individuals due to the increased detrimental medical conditions overweight people suffer?
Back to the ethics of drug testing, i do believe in a free market and in government employment it is the right of the employer to hire and fire people depending on their drug activites. The "well i only smoke a joint on occasion" people are still number 1 breaking the law and # 2 are more likely to be harmful to company production. Unfortunately alcohol gets the blind eye in these drug policies since alcohol related accidents probably cause more harm in our society than any other outside influence done by fellow members of our society.
Unfortunately alcohol gets the blind eye in these drug policies since alcohol related accidents probably cause more harm in our society than any other outside influence done by fellow members of our society.
Yes. Good point.
rory_20_uk
01-14-2006, 17:54
My take is:
Taking these drugs is illegal.
The rules were there (I assume perhaps wrongly) when people joined the organisation)
Accidents affect far more than the idiot that lost a finger
Health and safety is not there to provide enough protection for people who are on drugs - the company should not be liable for accidents caused by those engaged in illegal activities.
I think that random tests should be done even if accidents have not occurred.
One could argue that there are aptitude tests that employes need to pass and those that fail to be above a certain level are let go. That would certanly be more useful if drugs were legalised in one's own home.
And let's not forget that people with medical conditions are ALREADY banned from jobs - insulin dependant diabetics can not drive emergency veichles for example.
~:smoking:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.