(Untitled)

[teremala]

Okay, objective opinion time. What do the statements, "Okay, so maybe I'd been a little harsh. I'd make it up to [him] later." suggest to you?

(Clearly I've been typing for far too long.)

More seriously, the thing with the drug test is still bothering me. Not immensely or anything, but it keeps coming to mind and making some internal sensor go

Comments

[teremala]

Yes, that's the other side of it, and I can see your point. But at the same time - if the drug use doesn't actually affect performance, what does it matter to the employer from a dollars-and-cents point of view? I have difficultly standing firmly behind this point because you're right in that it's not a civil liberties thing when it's a private employer doing the testing, but it still seems excessive for, say, a retail position. If the person is competent and does their job properly, does it really matter? I can understand drug testing for positions that require direct responsibility over people's lives - driving, medical positions, and so on - but making copies for people? Selling them stuff off a shelf? If it's a problem later, fire them then - but it seems like the people doing the interviews ought to be able to screen out problems like that on their own without chemical analysis, anyway.

As an aside, Wikipedia states, "In this second case [of the person who is not addicted], some employers consider this more of an intelligence test than anything else, since this second individual is presumably capable of quitting, yet doesn't do so before applying for the job." They're saying that these tests are catching those two groups - addicts and people who aren't addicted but don't stop using the drugs soon enough to pass. So even if you, as an employer, pre-screened applicants with drug test results, you're still liable to get drug users who just knew enough to stop taking their drug of choice before entering into a situation that might require a test. In that case, you're no better off than if you'd skipped the test and just weeded out the obvious addicts and the hopelessly uninformed on your own, because the same people who knew enough to "cheat" are likely to know enough to be competent employees and keep any drug use firmly separate of your business.

[thecityofdis]

Well, if you're looking at it from a purley dollars-and-cents point of view, you're quite correct: it's illogical. But a business (to me) is not purely about the profit. There is a culture, an ambience, and an ethic unique to each work place. Drug use infringes upons theirs; as it would mine.

And it's not fool proof. Nothing ever is. But it certainly thins out the herd, and I think people "smart" enough to know just when to quit may be a rare breed. And they will get caught and fired eventually, it's just a matter of prolonging the process.