New hires for the City must pass a drug test. City employees required to have their CDL licenses who drive such vehicles at least weekly are subject to random drug tests. Perhaps everyone associated with the City including top managers, and elected offficials should be subject to drug testing as well----maybe all public officials should be! What does everyone else think?

Not sure on whether elected officials should be, but I don't see the problem with city employees being subject to drug testing. It's not like its a rare thing anymore.

I think you missed my point, or the reason I brought this up.

I'll agree all public officials should be tested.

But whats going to happen when some one on the council fails, special election or should we just let Bob pick a replacement.

Safety sensitive positions should be subject to random drug testing. Now as to who qualifies as "safety sensitive? Certainly anyone who drives on the job, but others? Its a judgment call.

Not sure about whether it's all that useful or necessary for everyone else. A screen on initial hiring seems to have become the norm no matter where you work, but I'm not sure it matters much. So many legit prescription drugs that so many people take can impair judgment and peformance in some people whereas others are unaffacted, that I'm not so sure we should be focussing just on the illegal drugs, nor that testing blood, urine or saliva tells us what we need to know.

Better than drug testing is fitness for duty testing of reaction times and mental alertness and such, but for those who aren't in safety sensitive positions, given the multitude of other factors involved including just plain lack of sleep, I don't know how we would figure out who gets to work or who needs to be sent home, or who pays when somebody has been up all night with a newborn baby and cannot perfrm at work as a result.

Does this mean you think someone on the City Council would fail?

Recent events make me wonder.

Why shouldn't they all be tested? If their is nothing to hide then their shouldn't be a problem. I am all for drug testing, no matter what kind of job you hold. But when in office and a public official what's the problem with random testing? Truck drivers, bus drivers, doc workers, forklift operators...ect??? Don't hurt to know does it?
I don't think it's all about a safety issue. I think it's about who's doing what with Illegal substance.

Then you wouldn't mind random checks of your home computer for porn either, eh?

It's about the 4th amendment to the United States Constitution. At what point does the employer and others' desire to know override your right to be left alone.

I don't disagree with the point you're making and actually agree that there needs to be a line between an employer's right-to-know versus your own privacy. However, your comparison is flawed since having porn on your home computer isn't illegal whereas consuming illegal drugs is illegal.

But, if you're consuming illegal drugs in the evening on your own time, how is that any of your employers business?

Because it inhibits your ability to do your job.

In the evening on your own time, if you allow enough time before you go to work I would think the effects would be worn off.

Unless you want to say that the brain cells you're killing by doing drugs is the problem.

I'm inclined to agree with BMIC on this one.

If the rationale for drug-screening is this: illegal drug use = inability to do job, then employers should also regularly check for sleep deprivation, alcohol use, legal (but mind-altering) prescription drugs, etc.

I know a lot more people who go to work drunk instead of stoned--or have themselves a nice 5-martini lunch--and the sheer number of prescription drug seekers at the Wash Co ER is staggering.

If the rationale for drug screening is this: illegal drug use = illegal activity (and therefore could negatively impact the employer's reputation), then employers should also regularly check to make sure employees haven't been arrested for drunk driving, soliciting prostitutes, public sex, etc.

Most people I know break the law in some way--such as speeding, jay walking, pilfering a piece of candy from the supermarket bulk bin. Minor crimes, certainly, but if "illegal" is your argument for drug screens, then I have to think that the philosophy should be that a law is a law is a law.

I can see both sides to the argument in this case. But I do tend to lean towards the Libertarian side when it comes to privacy issues in general. Maybe it's just paranoia left over from all of the years that the Clinton family was in office. I just don't trust Big Brother not to overstep his bounds.

I'd rather you deal with me as I am, not worry about whether I may have been doing something you don't like on my own time in my own home the night before. Or at least not if you're just my employer, and for law enforcement officers, you need to show probable cause. This isn't a police state and I don't ever want it to become one. Let people wth integrity live their lives unmolested.

Maybe you need drug tested.

I'd welcome it. But it would be a total waste of money in my case. I'm so clean it's almost embarrasing.

Which brings me to another point. Rather than wasting money testng everyone, maybe targeted drug testing makes more sense. You see someone whose performance is obviously off, and if they don't have proof of a reason for it, you have them tested. Nobody seems to do that, for fear of being accused of discirmination, so random testing, which almost never finds anything, is the norm. But profiling works in the real world, however many people dislike it.

Another good approach which is more likely to be useful is post-accident drug testing, for all workplace accidents.

There are so many other things that can affect someone's performance though. Family problems, low morale at work, health problems, etc. So someone passes a drug test and then what? You have to discuss personal issues with your employer?

Ever do LSD, Ud??? That crap will keep you up & seeing strange stuff for HOURS!!! (or so I'm told...)

Not only that, but the next day you have very little energy at all.

Exactly. It's a very slippery slope.

Yeah but how many employers test for LSD? None. So really, you can do LSD and your employer would never be the wiser. However, drugs that your employer DOES test for (alcohol, marijuana), and that you can do in the privacy of your own home, can certainly wear off by the next morning.

I do agree with Udmas, as long as it's not affecting your work performance, what you do in the privacy of your own home is none of your employer's business.

But isn't it true that you can drink like a fish (no pun intended, phish), say, over the weekend, but come Monday morning when your blood alcohol content is zilch, it wouldn't show up, even if you're hung over? But, you could smoke pot one time (or even be around people smoking pot and get second-hand smoke) and two weeks later if you're randomly tested it would still show up? I've also heard that cocaine doesn't stay in your system for very long, and that a poppy seed muffin can make you test positive for opiates. I've HEARD. I've never heard anything about LSD though...

I agree, it's a slippery slope. At some point I expect that someone's gonna test for excess caffeine or low blood sugar, since either of those could affect job performance as well. And lack of sleep could have more of an affect than anything, really... who hasn't had to fix the mistakes of some zombie coworker at some point?

I've always heard that the only way you can test for LSD would be through a hair sample - apparently through a hair sample it can show any drug you have ever taken any time in your life...

Now this is just ridiculous.

Employers ponder tough tactics to halt smoking

Good post, good points.



That's exactly what it is. And they better not do it. You have nothing to worry about, I'm sure you look like an upstanding white man. Some people have long goatees or long hair and are assumed to be or accused of being drug users, which is not acceptable at all.

"Weyers' method, while effective, wouldn't fly in California because the state has laws that prohibit employers from making hiring or firing decisions based on employee participation in a legal activity."

I wonder what other states have that law. Not Michigan obviously.

Excellent point, I can not count the number of times employees have come to work distracted or having to take calls due to family issues, closing on a house, worrying about a child away at school or in the military, even a pending break up. The list goes on. Employers usually are tolerant when it is a significant issue and a proven employee. For the others, the tell them to knock it off.

Most companies are supportive and provide personal days to tie up loose ends or understand one will have an isolated day of distraction. That is the usual case for a proven employee. With anything, substances or emotional or physical issues, it comes down to job performance and if it affects the bottom line................Many times companies will band together and share sick leave for a longtime/hard working employee suddenly affected by cancer or some such tragedy. They pull together and help the employee and family through missed days for chemo and hopefully recovery.

A lot of issues affecting job performance are handled on an individual basis. Some situations are isolated and rare, and a lot is based on one's job history and past performance. Employers want to keep good employees. It is good for business................Descretion, along w/ a 1:1 approach is sometimes a good way to keep productive employees vs calling everyone out for a random drug test. It becomes a morale issue. It also becomes expensive.

Again, if I was talking air traffic controllers, it would be different, that is public safety for millions of people. Drivers, even those driving for daycares or senior centers have to pass a drug test. It makes sense for some for certain jobs.

and then there is a group of people that waste the day away typing on the forum or playing fantasy sports......

Great post, you are so right, makes the point even better and with humor.

If they adversely affect your job performance, you sure do. Or they could just fire you.

An employer who asks questions about your personal life if it affect your job. Would get a harty none of your business from me. He would have to show me his PHD as a Doctor first. Maby he is the nut job at work not you.
Glad I`m retired. I couldn`t work for a boss these days the way the work force is run.

BMIC
They would be welcome to check my system if they wanted too. We have nothing to hide here. I find that kind of stuff disgusting and I know they wouldn't find anything like porn on our system.