Are drug tests (for a job) an invasion of privacy?

[tik 🪀✨]

I'm trying to get a job at a lamb abattoir and today had to undergo a whole physical, including hearing, eyesight, and physical ability tests. I also had to give a urine sample for drug testing, something I've had to do at nearly every job I've had. I've always considered it an invasion of privacy based on my stance concerning people using drugs recreationally and otherwise, but I'm not ballsy enough to refuse to do it based on principal (especially when I desperately need employment). This time, however, it was a witnessed sample. Drug testing alone is one thing, being required to pee in front a stranger is something else. Especially if you're like me - rather pee shy (write that down in your copybooks now.)

Anyway, do you think drug testing for employment is an invasion of privacy? I'm sympathetic towards employers not wanting someone wasted at work - but at work only. It's not their business what I'm doing in my spare time. Chances are if someone is unsuitable for work because they have a problem controlling their consumption to a debilitating degree, you'll be able to tell without the humiliation of undergoing a drug test. I also think there's a class based bias in this department. I've never heard of a higher paid white collar worker being subjected to drug tests - and I'm sure many of them do and have abused drugs.

[John Dibble]

Kind of, but it's not like you're forced to do it - you complying just means that you value getting the job more than the small invasion into your privacy. It's just a private agreement, not one that can land you in jail as far as I know.

I think the employer has two interests in checking on this. The first is that they don't want you wasted at work, and drugs may mean you would perform badly even when not high. If I knew someone was a crack head I wouldn't hire them simply because crack greatly affects your ability to function even when you aren't high. That said, I'd probably still hire someone doing pot because it isn't as debelitating when you are off your high. The second reason is probably that if you are doing illegal drugs there is a chance you will get busted and go to jail, meaning an employer will suddenly and unexpectedly be without an employee. Most employers probably don't want to take on that risk.

Still, if you do drugs and you want to not get caught in the interview process just don't do them for a month or so before doing interviews. Unless you start behaving strangely afterwards it's not likely they'll ask you to take a test again once they've hired you.

[tik 🪀✨]

I'm not too sure on the 'not forced to do it' part. A lot of L's and R's (and I'm not saying you have made this argument) argue that if you don't agree with your employer, you simply can quit your job/refuse to do the test and find something else. If given a choice I would choose not to have done what I did today, but I have to submit to the employer because I need a job quickly and have no viable alternative. I'm not arguing there's coercion involved in this 'private agreement,' just that what one does with their own person while away from work is no one's business but their own, and that requiring that as a test for employment is in a sense depriving someone of a livelihood.

On a side note, I'm not sure of the laws either (here or in the States) but I'm fairly certain if you're tested for drugs for a job (or even the military) they can't inform law enforcement. Some employers also have the same attitude towards marijuana use that you hold as well. I've had friends who have tested positive for pot and still received work. The employer simply made it clear to them that they would agree not to use it before or during their shift.

Thanks for the reply, though. I wanted to hear an L-avatar response because to me it represents a place where personal freedom and economic freedom butt heads. I bet myself five dollars which side would win and I was right.

[fezzyfestoon]

Not at all.  I don't care what drug it is, there are valid reasons to question the reliability of users that are potentially working for you.  And it's perfectly within a company's right to want to know that about its employees.  I do also believe it is a voluntary thing.  Employment is not mandatory.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Uh, no.  You can test the guy flying the plane taking me to Boston next month all you want......or the Cop with the Badge and Gun and hard-on to make an arrest too.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes. I'm glad my job doesn't do it. Of course you had to sign some thing agreeing to drug tests if they asked when you're hired, but they never actually do them.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Certainly. Whether they're justified or not is a different question.

[??????????]

Certainly. Whether they're justified or not is a different question.

In my line of work drug tests are absolutely the difference between life and death.

[Person Man]

Kind of, but it's not like you're forced to do it - you complying just means that you value getting the job more than the small invasion into your privacy. It's just a private agreement, not one that can land you in jail as far as I know.

I think the employer has two interests in checking on this. The first is that they don't want you wasted at work, and drugs may mean you would perform badly even when not high. If I knew someone was a crack head I wouldn't hire them simply because crack greatly affects your ability to function even when you aren't high. That said, I'd probably still hire someone doing pot because it isn't as debelitating when you are off your high. The second reason is probably that if you are doing illegal drugs there is a chance you will get busted and go to jail, meaning an employer will suddenly and unexpectedly be without an employee. Most employers probably don't want to take on that risk.

Still, if you do drugs and you want to not get caught in the interview process just don't do them for a month or so before doing interviews. Unless you start behaving strangely afterwards it's not likely they'll ask you to take a test again once they've hired you.

Makes sense...as long as it is kept confidential.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Certainly. Whether they're justified or not is a different question.

In my line of work drug tests are absolutely the difference between life and death.

Yeah; aren't you in the haulage industry these days?

[John Dibble]

Kind of, but it's not like you're forced to do it - you complying just means that you value getting the job more than the small invasion into your privacy. It's just a private agreement, not one that can land you in jail as far as I know.

I think the employer has two interests in checking on this. The first is that they don't want you wasted at work, and drugs may mean you would perform badly even when not high. If I knew someone was a crack head I wouldn't hire them simply because crack greatly affects your ability to function even when you aren't high. That said, I'd probably still hire someone doing pot because it isn't as debelitating when you are off your high. The second reason is probably that if you are doing illegal drugs there is a chance you will get busted and go to jail, meaning an employer will suddenly and unexpectedly be without an employee. Most employers probably don't want to take on that risk.

Still, if you do drugs and you want to not get caught in the interview process just don't do them for a month or so before doing interviews. Unless you start behaving strangely afterwards it's not likely they'll ask you to take a test again once they've hired you.

Makes sense...as long as it is kept confidential.

As far as I know it is. Doctor-patient privilege is a pretty well established doctrine in law.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Any business owner has the right to know whether their employees are using drugs that could cost them money or time down the line. It's not an invasion because no one is forcing you to work for that particular firm. You're free to use all the drugs you want and have no job.

[??????????]

Certainly. Whether they're justified or not is a different question.

In my line of work drug tests are absolutely the difference between life and death.

Yeah; aren't you in the haulage industry these days?

Yep, I drive what you'd call a lorry.

[Earth]

I view drug tests as a massive invasion of privacy. I've lost a job opportunity in the past by stating that I will not take one.

[k-onmmunist]

No, if you don't like them, don't apply for the job.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No - it's your choice to apply for the job.

[nclib]

Yes, usually (with the exception of jobs where the consequences are grave (e.g. pilot, operators of certain types of machinery, etc.). For all else, if one doesn't show any undesirable behavior that is believed to have been caused by drugs, the employer shouldn't violate your privacy. Firstly, it shouldn't matter if the employee is using illegal drugs unrelated to the job; secondly, given that many potential employees don't/wouldn't do illegal drugs regardless of testing, such people shouldn't have to be burdened by that.

[Earth]

No, if you don't like them, don't apply for the job.

This sounds like the same reasoning not to hire blacks, gays, and whoever else not deemed "appropriate" by management.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I've never understood the point of them. Why do you care if your employee smokes pot when he gets off work? As long as he isn't coming to work high, it's not an issue. Just like alcohol. If you frequently come to work drunk, you'll be fired, but no job cares if you get absolutely plastered every night as long as it doesn't affect your work. I happen to know for a fact that some rather high up people at my job are big on pot too (and I don't mean that they have a joint at a party every couple months or so, I mean BIG.) yet they never come to work high, so so what?

[John Dibble]

I've never understood the point of them. Why do you care if your employee smokes pot when he gets off work? As long as he isn't coming to work high, it's not an issue. Just like alcohol. If you frequently come to work drunk, you'll be fired, but no job cares if you get absolutely plastered every night as long as it doesn't affect your work. I happen to know for a fact that some rather high up people at my job are big on pot too (and I don't mean that they have a joint at a party every couple months or so, I mean BIG.) yet they never come to work high, so so what?

Well, as has been mentioned earlier in the thread some employers who test will hire you even if you test positive for pot. In those cases, I think the employers are probably testing for harder drugs that will actually affect your performance even when you aren't high.

As for employers who do care about pot, I would imagine they are misinformed about pot like most of America is (hence why it is still illegal, even though alcohol probably causes more problems) and so their view of people who smoke pot is very negative. Interestingly, I'm told that the former CEO of the company I work for had some sort of anti-hippie bias, so that's why he'd refuse to hire a pot smoker. Yes, I know that's some bulls**t logic, but the guy was sacked by the board of directors because he made a bunch of obviously stupid financial decisions. Here's a piece of advice - if you ever find yourself as the CEO of a mid-sized company just coming out of the start-up phase, don't purchase expensive Starbucks coffee machines when your CFO threatens to quit if you do.

[tik 🪀✨]

I do also believe it is a voluntary thing.  Employment is not mandatory.

It's not an invasion because no one is forcing you to work for that particular firm. You're free to use all the drugs you want and have no job.

No, if you don't like them, don't apply for the job.

No - it's your choice to apply for the job.

This line of thought is absolutely disingenuous. Do you honestly think most unemployed people have the luxury of refusing work out of spite for a company's drug policies? Down here drug testing for menial labour jobs isn't as prolific as in the States where in many places it's an across the board expectation for employment. The necessity of income trumps this fantasy of a 'choice.'

[Mint]

Of course it is. But as others have pointed out, it can be a necessary one. However testing for something like Marijuana is pointless. Study after study has shown it has little to no actual negative impact on performance. You're more likely to have problems with alcoholic workers than anything else.

[dead0man]

If companies are losing out on a lot of good employees because these good employees are failing drug tests then the company will suffer.  If companies are saving a lot of money by keeping potential problem employees out then they will benefit.

To answer the question, yes it's an invasion of privacy, but they should have every right in the world to test potential employees, it's their money and they aren't forcing anybody do anything.


(I personally think it's stupid/wrong/ignorant 99% of the time, but just because I think something is stupid/wrong/ignorant doesn't mean it should be illegal.  I wish more people thought that way.)

[Lunar]

In a sane world. companies wouldn't require that other people watch you pee into a cup, but if they did, they would just lose competitive advantage against sane companies

 but we don't live in a sane world

[??????????]

I view drug tests as a massive invasion of privacy. I've lost a job opportunity in the past by stating that I will not take one.

 
Just leech off the govt., no test required.