Shouldn't random, company drug testing include absolutely everyone?

Yes – and even mayors of large Canadian cities should be included too!

Wait – what type of company is this? Is this a public school transportation company that is involved in hiring bus drivers to get kids to school or are we talking about some company that makes alarm clocks?

I’d probably be unable to work for any company that required that I get a drug test (unless it was some thing where I was driving kids around or something). Not because I would fail the test – rather, when I told them to f*ck off, I’d likely lose my job.

Edit: To answer your question – sure, if they are going to violate some people in the company, they might as well violate them all.

Companies may say that everyone is eligible for random testing but then not test everyone. They have that right. As long as everyone knows they may be subjected to it at any time, it’s legit.

If they want my urine, they can have all they want of it.

I’m fine with some positions being exempt. Also, random to me means the employee should be aware they can be asked at any time to take a drug test. That’s all it means to me. I wouldn’t worry about who and who isn’t being tested.

I worked for a company a while back that the boss got on a kick about random drug testing ,I was all for it as long as it included management as well ,he soon dropped the idea.

Yes, each and everyone must be tested. I think drug testing must also be conducted in schools too.

I like these sorts of questions. Not that I find the question itself particularly interesting (sorry @SQUEEKY2) But, rather, the responses really reveal the more authoritarian personality types from the anti-authoritarian types.

I have huge issues with people in power imposing their dictates on the less powerful, and this sort of company policy is a classic example.

Of course, this sort of policy is not to remove drug use and drug users from the workplace, because it invariably only applies to the lowest echelons of a company hierarchy. It is a form of social control, and to remind some people of how much less powerful they are. The management, the executives, etc, they’re not going to be subjected to the humiliation of providing a urine sample on demand.

The subtext is clear—those in power and authority are moral and trustworthy. Whilst the subordinates cannot be trusted and need the paternalistic eye of their masters to monitor their behaviour and keep them in check.

I would consider this sort of policy equally repugnant, objectionable, cynical and immoral in a school also. For it to even come close to being justified, it would require the explicit consent of everyone, and those who wish to impose it would have to be the very first to abide by their proposed rule—they would have to be the very first to be tested.

Random means random. If you work for the company, you are potentially going to be asked,

I used to work for local government.

The Utilities department did a department-wide random drug test.

They had to fire 90% of the stormwater maintenance crew that day and a majority of the office staff, and go through the lengthy process of hiring 50+ new employees to run the department.

They don’t do that anymore.

LOL.

@Kropotkin Totally agree those who make the rule should be the first in line,and myself I never have trusted the higher ups ,because I know how many people they had to crush and screwto get there.

@SQUEEKY2 Don’t trust them, meaning you think they will falsify a test and say someone is positive when they are negative? I never understand why people paint all higher ups as dishonest and screwing others. Do you really think all people in high positions have no integrity?

@JLeslie No not all, just the majority of them there are of course exceptions that got there due to hard work and commitment ,but they are few and far between.

I think Marijuana should be exempt. Other hardcore drugs no.
It would be pretty obvious if someone was stoned on the job IMO, and don’t get me wrong, I do not agree with being under the influence of ANYTHING, ( including the 3 martini lunch ) during working hours, but….recreational, evening/weekend use of weed is so freaking mainstream these days and to discriminate against occasional use is insane and an invasion of privacy IMO.

The work force, especially the corporate world, is full of boozers, booze tipping client lunches, boozing it up on the golf course, my ex husband and his big wig colleagues were shitfaced on alcohol by about 2 pm many days, schmoozing and boozing it up with clients on the golf course, etc. yet we discriminate against the person, like myself, that prefers to enjoy a little marijuana over alcohol.

I refuse to take a job of any kind that drug tests for this reason. I am a middle aged, model citizen, extremely bright, and at almost 54 I will not stand to be treated like a freaking child. My marijuana use is minimal but by god, if I want to indulge stay the hell out of my business, I’m a big girl and when I am in the comfort of my own home, what I do is none of your business!

I like @Kropotkin‘s response. My take is similar, but a bit different: I don’t mind the fact that I had to pass a drug screen to re-hire with my current employer in 2002, and I did agree to the possibility of random drug screens post-employment (which hasn’t happened in the last 11 years, nor to anyone in the company that I know of). The company put it out as a condition of employment and I accepted that condition. They’re free to make certain restrictions and demands upon me (hell, they demand 40 hours a week of my presence, and my time is far more valuable to me than my urine!); I’m free to accept or reject their demands, and we can part company at any time. I have no problem with that.

I also understand that, times being what they are and corporate liability what it is, this is going to be a more or less universal condition of employment whenever we get away from mom-and-pop operations. I accept that too.

What I do not accept, and will not accept, is the same demand from anyone in government as a condition of “just living in my home”. Again, if it were simply a condition of employment, and I could refuse and seek other employment, that’s one thing. If the demand is attached to a penalty of jail time, fines, or expulsion from the land of which I am a citizen, then it’s time to resist – perhaps with force.

If you don’t understand the term, “Rank has it’s privileges”, you are going to have a rough time in life, especially in America where income = rank.

It shouldn’t be any of their business what employees do in their free time.

@jerv Your right, glad I’m a Canadian, and hence my distrust for higher ups, so it’s ok if the higher ups are doing drugs just not the slaves?

I believe part of the logic of the drug testing is that employees have a higher rate of absenteeism and health care costs are higher when there’s substance abuse involved.

I KNOW that not all drug use = abuse but it’s easier to enforce something black and white than it is to enforce a gray area.

I think it is partly for liability. If they cause an accident the company can be sued.

Alcohol is more dangerous yet completely legal to consume in your free time.

@cheebdragon Bowing, clapping! Seriously, the enormous amount of so called “functional” alcoholics is staggering yet a little weed is the pariah. Insanity knows no bounds. Booze is far worse than marijuana in every capacity unless you’re high from morning til night for years on end. Nobody calls in sick after a couple of hits in their hot tub after work. lol

ABSOLUTELY! And test for alcohol as well!