afb@pucc-i (Michael Lewis) (03/04/86)
A friend of mine with a penchant for substance abuse expressed some
uncertainty to me concerning the prevalence of urine testing and the like in
industry. He'll be entering the job market soon, and wonders about what he can
expect in this area.
We would appreciate any input whatsoever on this subject, particularly
your past experiences.
Or have I made a blunder by even bringing this up? Are there people out
there who will not respond because of the possibility that their boss may be
reading? This too would be informative.
Can one be labelled as an abuser simply by broaching the topic? One
reason my friend didn't post this himself was fear that somewhere, someday it
would backfire on him. Is this a legitimate concern of his? Or was he a
little paranoid?
We would just like to get some sense of the attitude in industry on this
from the people who deal with it on the job. Thanx.dsg1@ur-tut.UUCP (Dave Goldberg ) (03/05/86)
I don't know much about what private corporations are doing about drug
testing, except that almost every one that I have interviewed with has
said that they will not tolerate employees who use illegal substances.
I do know that all the federal jobs for which I have interviewed makes use
of urinalysis during the physical, and has a lie detector test. I believe
that these are used for purposes of security clearance rather than a worry
that an employee will come to work under the influence. In fact, I had to
sign a form that I would never touch illegal drugs from the day I signed the
form on my NSA application. They were willing to forget about the past
provided I promised not to do it in the future. However, I was never a
heavy user of drugs...I don't know how other people would look to them.
(that was not intended to be a holier than thou type statement, they accepted
a friend of mine last year who had a felony on his record from many years
back, but never had trouble with the law since. He didn't take the job,
but he was shocked that they even considered him.)
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Goldberg
UUCP: ..!{allegra,seismo,decvax}!rochester!ur-tut!dsg1
BITNET: DSG1@UORVM
USMail: PO. Box 30803 River Station, Rochester NY 14267
----------------------------------------------------------bandy@lll-lcc.UUcp (Andrew Scott Beals) (03/05/86)
There are many companies now using one or the other. See this
month's (March) Discover magazine for a nice article on "lie
detectors". They have a short section of tips on how to beat them.
I also remember reading recently (in the same Discover? Or maybe in
the Washington Post Weekly) an article on drug testing and the
inaccuracies of the tests. It mentioned that if you had been in a
room where many people were smoking marijuana that you had a Very
Good chance the next day for testing positive on a drug test.
What business does your employer have telling you what to do and
what not to do in your off-hours? I can see a big case for firing
someone if they show up drunk or stoned for work, but after hours?
Remember that in most states, oral sex is still a crime - if you
show up to work with a certain smell on your beard the next morning,
does your employer have the right to fire you if they did an
analysis of what was on your beard? Same thing kiddies..
Write your congressman!
--
I'm PROUD to be a CARBON-BASED lifeform!
andy beals
bandy@lll-crg.arpa {ihnp4,seismo,ll-xn,qantel,sun}!lll-crg!bandy
LLNL, P.O. Box 808, L-419, Livermore CA 94550 (415) 423-1948luner@uwai.UUCP (David L. Luner) (03/06/86)
In article <172@lll-lcc.UUcp>, bandy@lll-lcc.UUcp (Andrew Scott Beals) writes: > ... article on "lie detectors". They have a short section of tips > on how to beat them. I spent a very comfortable 1 hour in a chair one day answering numerous questions about my past actions, habits and loyalties. This was not for a cashiers job at Gimbels. My $0.02 is that the interview was professional, justified and effective. Companies (e.g. The Company) may had a clearly legitimate reseon for their inquiries. If you personally don't think the inquiry is relevant, don't take the job. For those who find themselves in a similar position, I suggest the following: 1. If you have been engaged in serious illegal activities in the past and don't want to talk about them, don't even bother taking the interview. 2. If you have exhibited poor judgement in the past, but don't plan on doing so in the future, don't worry about it. 3. For (highly) classified positions, you better plan on sticking to Jim Beam in the future. > What business does your employer have telling you what to do and > what not to do in your off-hours? Participation in illegal activities is grounds for "justified" dismissal. The exact definition of "illegal" would (I hope) ultimately be determined by the court. I suspect that CONVICTION for a felony is sufficient. David Luner
good@pixar (Craig Craig, Bo-Baig, Banana-Fana Fo-Faig, Me-My-Mo-Maig, Craig.) (03/07/86)
In article <172@lll-lcc.UUcp>, bandy@lll-lcc.UUcp (Andrew Scott Beals) writes: > > What business does your employer have telling you what to do and > what not to do in your off-hours? I can see a big case for firing > someone if they show up drunk or stoned for work, but after hours? Let's say I'm an employer. I want smart people to work for me. I want honest people to work for me. I want responsible people to work for me. I don't want people who are in a self-destruct mode. That means I don't want people with drug habits. The time of day they do the drugs is quite irrelevant. I'm not telling you not to do drugs, I'm just telling you that if you do you can't work for me. I see nothing unfair about that. --Craig ...ucbvax!pixar!good
robertv@tekla.UUCP (Robert Vetter) (03/10/86)
> > What business does your employer have telling you what to do and > > what not to do in your off-hours? I can see a big case for firing > > someone if they show up drunk or stoned for work, but after hours? > > Let's say I'm an employer. I want smart people to work for me. I > want honest people to work for me. I want responsible people to work for me. > I don't want people who are in a self-destruct mode. That means I don't want > people with drug habits. The time of day they do the drugs is quite irrelevant. > > I'm not telling you not to do drugs, I'm just telling you that if you > do you can't work for me. I see nothing unfair about that. > You assume that all drug use is habitual, and that all habitual users are self-destuctive. I'm not sure just what "smart" and "honest" have to do with drug use or non-use. The problem is that giving someone a job should not allow the employer to dictate lifestyle. The ONLY criteria for hiring/firing should be the competence of the perspective employee to perform the tasks given. If competence is affected by personal habits, THEN the employer has the right to take action. To hire and fire based on lifestyles which do NOT affect competence would cause alot of problems for several good potential employees (and probably yourself). Do you refuse to hire those who do not share your religious convictions ? What about divorced people, or non-married people who live together. What about Democrats (or if you're a Democrat, Republicans). I hope you don't limit your own options too much by your refusal to hire people based on lifestyle. I'm glad that I have an employer that does not refuse to hire nicotine and sugar addicts, and heavy caffeine and alcohol users.
rcd@nbires.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (03/11/86)
> Let's say I'm an employer. I want smart people to work for me. I > want honest people to work for me. I want responsible people to work for me. > I don't want people who are in a self-destruct mode. That means I don't want > people with drug habits. The time of day they do the drugs is quite irrelevant. Do you care about the difference between use and abuse? Do you care whether the employee's habits off the job affect on-job performance? Do you care about the difference between drugs which can and cannot be detected by urinalysis? Well, no, I didn't think you did...so you, the not- so-clever employer, will get what you deserve: nobody who ever smokes pot, as you wish, but all the alcoholics and cokeheads that you can afford to pay. WAKE UP, folks. Employment is not bondage and servitude; it is a contractual agreement between employee and employer to provide services in exchange for money. YES, use of drugs WILL make a difference in job performance. The two drugs which are most commonly abused in the United States, and which cause 99+% of all of the on-the-job problems, are alcohol and tobacco. Any corporate "drug program" which ignores these two is a farce. Where (if anywhere) do you draw a line? Here's an example: I'm about 20 lb. or so overweight, and I'm sure it affects my peformance in some ways. So does that mean that my employer can demand that I go on a diet? (Please keep in mind that legality of my behavior is NOT the real issue. I am not employed by a law-enforcement agency; it is not the task of my employer to enforce the law. The legal issues of drug use of an employee are not the concern of my employer any more than, say, running stopsigns or cheating on income tax--if it doesn't affect job performance, it doesn't matter.) > I'm not telling you not to do drugs, I'm just telling you that if you > do you can't work for me. I see nothing unfair about that. The famous Golden Rule--if you got the gold, you make the rules. Sure, everybody has constitutional rights...only you may have to give them up if you want a job. This is an obvious way to force you to give up your rights, since it is very difficult to survive in today's world without a job. (Think about that practically, not idealistically.) To be honest, though, I agree that my employer has the right to expect that I will not use drugs on the job (I beg an exception for caffeine!), nor will I arrive at or return to work under the influence of drugs. I've seen important files succumb to the hands of a tipsy super- user! If my employer wishes to regulate my conduct off the job, I may consider the suggestion, but I will probably expect that my salary should be increased by the ratio 168/40 (the number of hours in a week to the erstwhile number of work hours in a week) since that is the increase in the amount of time for which expectations are being placed upon me. Whether I actually go off getting stoned on my off hours (I don't) is irrelevant--I'm not considering what I might do so much as whether I might grant someone else the privilege of knowing what I do. If an employer has the right to regulate an employer's off-hours conduct (even if it does not materially affect job performance), then it only seems fair that employees should be able to demand a complete accounting of the employer's business practices, short and long term business plans, salary structure (by employee), etc., etc., so that the employee can verify that the corporation for which he works is not allowing itself to be impaired by unsound business habits. It never ceases to amaze me how much crap some people are willing to put up with to make a buck. I am ever more amazed at how some inept employers grasp at straws like the urinalysis kick to try to find excuses for their own inability to run a sound business, or to identify employees who cannot perform their jobs and just FIRE THEM. (Rant! Rave! If you want to know why the US is falling behind Japan, don't look at Japan for the answer-- look at the litigious, finger-pointing nature of our own business world.) I am, at least for the time being, working for a sane and relatively enlightened employer. However much I might grumble from time to time, I DO give my employer my best efforts unhindered by drugs. My employer, in turn, trusts me, pays me well, does not expect me to submit to the polygraph, and makes no claim on my excreta! -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...A friend of the devil is a friend of mine.
palistra@unc.UUCP (James C. Palistrant) (03/12/86)
In article <2547@pixar.pixar> good@pixar (Craig Craig, Bo-Baig, Banana-Fana Fo-Faig, Me-My-Mo-Maig, Craig.) writes: >In article <172@lll-lcc.UUcp>, bandy@lll-lcc.UUcp (Andrew Scott Beals) writes: >> >> What business does your employer have telling you what to do and >> what not to do in your off-hours? I can see a big case for firing >> someone if they show up drunk or stoned for work, but after hours? > > Let's say I'm an employer. I want smart people to work for me. I >want honest people to work for me. I want responsible people to work for me. >I don't want people who are in a self-destruct mode. That means I don't want >people with drug habits. The time of day they do the drugs is quite irrelevant > I'm not telling you not to do drugs, I'm just telling you that if you >do you can't work for me. I see nothing unfair about that. > > --Craig > ...ucbvax!pixar!good Hmm. I certainly hope Craig doesn't smoke (tobacco, that is). Or chew it. Or drink any form of alcohol. Or drink coffee in the morning (or any time of day; the time of day is irrelevant). He better not do ANY kind of drugs, be they legal and common or illegal and uncommon, or else he is saying that as an employer he would not want someone like him to work for him. He seems to be saying that if he were an employer, he would want only smart, responsible, honest people that are not in self-destruct mode to work for him, and then implies that people with drug habits to not meet this criteria. I have the following points I wish to make: 1.) Assuming he most likely means "illegal drugs" when he mentions drugs, I think he is making an unfair and untrue generalization when he implies that people that do drugs are not smart, responsible and honest (as opposed to "law-abiding") and are self-destructive. Although this is true in some cases, some people can and do imbibe in illegal drugs in a responsible manner and in a way that does not impact their mental capacity or performance on the job. 2.) If certain drugs are made legal, does that mean that people that use those drugs are suddenly made smarter, more responsible, more honest and in general less self-destructive ? Or if a certain drug (say, tobacco) is made illegal, would he fire all the smokers that worked for him ? A basic problem with taking a law and making moral judgements with it is that the legality of an act and its morality cannot be linked, since legality can be judged in a court of law and morality cannot (at least in my opinion). 3.) He seems to be making a moral judgement rather than a professional one throughout his posting. If instead he were to base his argument on how the improper use of drugs (of whatever kind) can lead to poor job performance, decreased mental capacity, etc. etc. I might be more inclined to support him. I feel that what I do on my time is my own business. If my job performance suffers because of it, then I expect to pay the consequences. I would not want any employer of mine testing me for drug usage, not because I use drugs (I do not, at least the illegal kind :-) ), but because I am a professional, act like a professional and expect to be treated as a professional. -- Jim Palistrant The opinions expressed above are my own. palistra@unc But I like to share. Computer Science Department University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina (919)-890-5297
good@pixar (Craig Good: U.S. Olympic Pizza Eating Team) (03/16/86)
In article <1099@unc.unc.UUCP>, palistra@unc.UUCP (James C. Palistrant) writes: > In article <2547@pixar.pixar> good@pixar (Craig Craig, Bo-Baig, Banana-Fana Fo-Faig, Me-My-Mo-Maig, Craig.) writes: > > I'm not telling you not to do drugs, I'm just telling you that if you > >do you can't work for me. I see nothing unfair about that. > > Hmm. I certainly hope Craig doesn't smoke (tobacco, that is). Or chew > it. Or drink any form of alcohol. Or drink coffee in the morning (or any > time of day; the time of day is irrelevant). He better not do ANY kind of > drugs, be they legal and common or illegal and uncommon, or else he is saying > that as an employer he would not want someone like him to work for him. I was going to let this die, but since you brought it up... I don't do any kind of drugs. Well -- let me qualify that. I have used medicinal drugs such as aspirin and Afrin, and I got allergy shots for a couple of years as a teenager. I hope it's obvious that we are talking about abuse, ie: recreational use, of drugs. To specifically answer your questions, I do not drink alchohol, coffee, tea, caffeinated soft drinks, or drano. I do not chew tobacco nor do I place rolls of rotten, burning vegetable matter in my mouth. I am forced to inhale the by-products only when smokers mistakenly think it is somehow their "right" to light up in the same atmosphere with other human beings. > and then implies that people with drug habits to not meet this criteria. A lot depends on the job. If I were hiring a receptionist I would also flunk people who don't take baths. > I have the following points I wish to make: > > 1.) Assuming he most likely means "illegal drugs" when he mentions drugs, I > think he is making an unfair and untrue generalization when he implies > that people that do drugs are not smart, responsible and honest Wrong assumption. I certainly would include the abuse of alchohol and other "legal" drugs. Hey, what can I say? I'd make one picky employer. You can go work for someone else if you want, nobody is going to hold a gun to your head and tell you to get a job with me. > some people can and do imbibe in illegal drugs in a responsible > manner. That's your opinion. Mine is that it is not possible to take drugs recreationally and still claim to be a responsible member of society. > A basic problem with taking a law and making moral judgements with it is that > the legality of an act and its morality cannot be linked, since legality > can be judged in a court of law and morality cannot (at least in my > opinion). I've heard the old "you can't legislate morality" argument before. I'll counter with a question: What can you legislate that *isn't* a moral question? ( Shouldn't this be moving to another news group?) > 3.) He seems to be making a moral judgement rather than a professional one > throughout his posting. If I based part of my life on my morals and part of my life on another standard such as "professionalism" I would be a hypocrite, wouldn't I?. > I feel that what I do on my time is my own business. If my job performance > suffers because of it, then I expect to pay the consequences. I would not > want any employer of mine testing me for drug usage, not because I use drugs > (I do not, at least the illegal kind :-) ), but because I am a professional, > act like a professional and expect to be treated as a professional. > I would expect professional behaviour as well. Telling me in an interview that you don't do drugs and then testing positive would not be very professional on your part, would it? I'm not necessarily advocating testing. If managers would wake up and do their jobs they wouldn't need drug testing anyway. They'd know what they need to know. Well, enough of this. I'll be quiet for a while unless someone *else* would like some details on my private life. :-) --Craig ...ucbvax!pixar!good Don't do drugs! Go to a movie instead!
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (03/17/86)
There seems to be a lot of talk these days suggesting that employers should test their employees for drug use. The most common justification is that employees who use drugs have their performance impaired, and an employer has a right to get rid of someone who isn't as alert as might be. Either the people who claim this are telling the truth or not. If they are -- which means employers can sack people who aren't up to par -- I can see no argument against sacking people who don't get enough sleep, or are upset about problems with friends or family, or who don't eat right, or smoke, or don't drive carefully. This thought scares the living daylights out of me. On the other hand, they could be lying. If so, their real motive must be something even less palatable, else why not tell the truth? This thought also scares the living daylights out of me.
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (03/18/86)
In article <2547@pixar.pixar> good@pixar (Craig Craig, Bo-Baig, Banana-Fana Fo-Faig, Me-My-Mo-Maig, Craig.) writes: >In article <172@lll-lcc.UUcp>, bandy@lll-lcc.UUcp (Andrew Scott Beals) writes: >> >> What business does your employer have telling you what to do and >> what not to do in your off-hours? I can see a big case for firing >> someone if they show up drunk or stoned for work, but after hours? > > Let's say I'm an employer. I want smart people to work for me. I >want honest people to work for me. I want responsible people to work for me. >I don't want people who are in a self-destruct mode. That means I don't want >people with drug habits. The time of day they do the drugs is quite irrelevant. > > I'm not telling you not to do drugs, I'm just telling you that if you >do you can't work for me. I see nothing unfair about that. > > --Craig > ...ucbvax!pixar!good Yeah, me too! I want honest people to work for me, so if you want a job at my company, you can expect that I will come to your house and look through everything you own to make sure you don't have any stolen goods. And if you have any office equipment (staplers, post-it notes, paper clips, etc) you'd better have receipts for it, because if there's one thing I cannot tolerate, it's people with a track record of stealing office supplies. Also, I want people who are not in self-destruct mode. This means people cannot drive on the freeway, must never have been sick (and if they have a terminal disease like MS or cancer - even if its in remission - forget it), play sports, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol etc. etc. etc. Are you serious? You really see nothing unfair about prejudice and ignorance being the deciding factors in hiring practices? Gimme a break. -- --MKR The first half of a project takes 90% of the time. The other half takes the other 90%.
jans@tekecs.UUCP (Jan Steinman) (03/20/86)
In article <2581@pixar.pixar> good@pixar (Craig Good) writes: >Hey, what can I say? I'd make one picky employer. You can go work for >someone else if you want, nobody is going to hold a gun to your head and tell >you to get a job with me... If managers would wake up and do their jobs they >wouldn't need drug testing anyway. They'd know what they need to know. Look's like the last laugh is going to be on Craig Goody-Two-Shoes after all. Guess who his new employer is? Steve Jobs, who brought the friday afternoon beer party to Silicon Valley and, in a national publication, allowed his "top professionals" to make thinly-veiled drug-related and scatological remarks, and were depicted sitting in their offices in gymn clothes, yes, the very same Steve Jobs is now the proud owner of Pixar, Inc. Wonder how long Craig will be able to put up with someone else's standards, for a change?
frodo@wcom.UUCP (Jim Scardelis) (03/20/86)
> >I've heard the old "you can't legislate morality" argument before. I'll > > You will hear it agin too. This country was founded by Calvinists and honed > to its finest edge by Jeffersonians. Calvinism is a dead religion. On the contrary, Calvinism is far from a dead religion, and legislating morality has nothing to do with Calvinism. In fact, my church, the Reformed Church in America, has a policy against legislating morality in many places, such as the abortion question, and is definitely Calvinist. I agree, you can't legislate morality, and the legislature has no business doing so. And employers have no right testing a person's anything for presence of drugs or alcohol. It IS an invasion of privacy, and these tests can also be very wrong. -- Jim Scardelis, SA {hjuxa,ihnp4}!wcom!frodo #include <favorite disclaimer>
good@pixar (I appreciate Bo Derek for her mind.) (03/22/86)
> Look's like the last laugh is going to be on Craig Goody-Two-Shoes after all. Hey! How did *you* know what my CB handle was in another life? > Guess who his new employer is? Steve Jobs, who brought the friday afternoon > beer party to Silicon Valley and, in a national publication, allowed his "top > professionals" to make thinly-veiled drug-related and scatological remarks, and I could tell you some stories... > were depicted sitting in their offices in gymn clothes, yes, the very same Is this the same Steve Jobs, vegetarian? :-) Sadly, the dress code has become a tad more conservative since he bought in to the company. Mostly the Marketing guys, though. The rest of us still dress like people. > Steve Jobs is now the proud owner of Pixar, Inc. Steve and I (and the other employees) are co-owners in Pixar (no Inc.). > Wonder how long Craig will be able to put up with someone else's standards, for > a change? Ok, ok. As much as I hate the idea, I can see that I'm going to have to get serious for just a minute. I can actually put up with other people's standards for a long, long time. Thirty years and counting, at the moment. Now that I've had my fun tapping you all on the knee, and observing all the knee jerks I expected, let's see what's what. I didn't say I support employee drug testing, I said I believed in good management. Let market forces answer the question. If companies who want to play with people's pee pee can't get enough employees they will change or go out of business. Zimple. I used to work in the security field and I learned there that if you want an honest employee you have to treat him like one. I'd like to think that (remember, we're being serious now) I, were I an employer, could create an atmosphere where people felt trusted and comfortable enough to where they wouldn't feel "driven to drink". (Ok, semi-serious). I tried to get mail back to the person who said I reminded her of a Nun (untrue: I'd look awful in a habit) but it bounced back. Obviously there have been people doing drugs and other nasty things who have made a contribution to society. They'd have done better without them, though. And as for amoral legislation, you've got me there. I completely forgot about traffic law! ;-) --Craig ...ucbvax!pixar!good ps Didn't you *ever* take the "other side" in an argument just to see what the other person thought? It's soooooo fun sometimes. Until somebody calls you a Nun, that is...
vch@rruxd.UUCP (Kerro Panille) (03/23/86)
All this discussion is great, but I haven't seen anyone ask a very simple
question:
Why the hell *should* my employer care what I do with myself after work?
They certianly don't own me. I agree that any employee that comes into
work impared by a drug (notice the 'impared.' Over-the-counter stuff doesn't
classify as imparing) SHOULD be disciplined. Take 'disciplined' however you
like (fired, yelled at, whatever.) But why should an employer be able to
descriminate against an employee that drinks/smokes pot/snorts coke/smokes
coke/whatever on his own time, and it does not interfere with his/her work?
If it starts to interfere with his/her work, then discipline is appropriate.
As far as I'm concerned, even if a person is an alcoholic, if they don't
drink at work, come to work drunk, or come to work so hung over that they
can't function, who the hell cares? It's their life. The same goes for
other drugs.
I guess that I belive that someone can have a drug problem that isn't
24 hours a day. I once knew a girl that had a terrible problem with
alcohol. She could live without drinking forever, if necessary. But
give her a drink, and she won't stop until she literally hits the
floor.
I *do* think that drug rehabilitation that is sponsored by the company
is a good idea. I'm not totally insensitive to the alcoholic/drug abuser.
But that stuff should not be mandatory, nor job-threatening.
General Disclaimer:
I'm not saying whether or not I'd fail the test. I'm just saying that it's
none of your business anyway.
--
Vince Hatem +----------------------------------------+
Bell Communications Research ! "..., isn't that right, Daniel?" !
Raritan River Software Systems Center ! "When you get that look on your face, !
444 Hoes Lane ! Marty, I go prune my roses." !
4D-340 ! -Frank Herbert !
Piscatway, NJ 08854 ! Chapterhouse: Dune !
(201) 699-4869 ! pg 459 !
{rrux?, pyux?, bellcore, topaz, +----------------------------------------+
ihnp4}!rruxo!vch