Originally Posted by
Whacker
This is true, and I agree a balance needs to be struck. I'd like to perhaps separate this into two issues, first is dealing with drug use outside of work, and two is dealing with drug use while at work.
For the first, again my thoughts are what someone wants to do at home is their own business. This means no surprise drug tests outside of work, though perhaps some exceptions can be made for lines of industry that require high security, like energy suppliers, airline pilots, etc... /shrug. If someone is doing enough outside of work that it's starting to affect their on-the-job performance but they are NOT using or under the influence while at work, then in my view that should be handled like any other performance-based issue; track their performance, document the deficiencies, give them the chance to resolve, and if it's not acceptable terminate employment. Just like any other performance problem.
The second issue would be drug use AT work, on-site (note: this gets gray when talking about work-from-home employees, like myself :sweatdrop:, for now we'll just assume on-site employees). If you walk into work smelling like an Amsterdam coffee shop, or exhibiting characteristics of being "under the influence" of some substance, ie: stoned out of your mind or drunk off your ass, then I think the employer has the right to document the situation, escort the employee out of the office, esp. if they present a danger to themselves or others, and require an immediate drug test (within a certain timeframe) as a condition of employment. If it comes back positive, then one's employment would be terminated. If not, then the employer needs to start being more careful, perhaps the individual was just ill, who knows? Obviously there's some issues with this process that'd have to be resolved, and some privacy rights to be considered, but all in all I don't think that's too bad of a solution.
Your thoughts?
