Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Rodney · 03-15-2006, 02:46 PM

Mmmm, a little historical perspective.

Back in the '70s, there was no drug testing of any kind in general industry; I can't speak for jobs involving security clearances. Employers approached it as a competency issue: if you did the job competently, you were fine. If you did the job incompetently, for any reason, you were out. And that was it.

If you were failing on the job and it was known you had a drug or alcohol problem, a good employer (big corporations, anyway) would call you in, bring up the problem, and ask you to address it. If you refused, you continued to work until your job performance became unacceptable. If you agreed to address the problem, a program of treatment was suggested; usually HR would hook you up with something. I worked for an insurance company that would actually pay for 30 days of drying out and counseling, no questions asked. And usually, the problem was alcohol, or mainly alcohol.

When the "war on drugs" ramped up in the late '70s and early '80s, more and more companies started requiring drug testing -- for no good reason. It was just the fashion, spurred on by politics and propaganda. Drugs were bad. We didn't want to employ people who used them, even off the job. There was no sudden explosion of drug-related issues on the job. Then as now, most of the corporate drones I know with "drug problems" are boozers. On the other hand, I know a guy who every night sits down to television with a nice joint and has worked in IT for a huge national bank for 20 years, completely competently.

I just got a job at a university, and nobody required a blood test. But if I wanted to work as a sales clerk at the Salvation Army store, I would have to have a blood test. What is the difference here -- except some employer's idea that he or she has the freedom to evaluate an employee's _entire_ life and lifestyle, not just the part from 8 to 5. That is unacceptable.

03-15-2006, 02:46 PM	#73 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	Mmmm, a little historical perspective. Back in the '70s, there was no drug testing of any kind in general industry; I can't speak for jobs involving security clearances. Employers approached it as a competency issue: if you did the job competently, you were fine. If you did the job incompetently, for any reason, you were out. And that was it. If you were failing on the job and it was known you had a drug or alcohol problem, a good employer (big corporations, anyway) would call you in, bring up the problem, and ask you to address it. If you refused, you continued to work until your job performance became unacceptable. If you agreed to address the problem, a program of treatment was suggested; usually HR would hook you up with something. I worked for an insurance company that would actually pay for 30 days of drying out and counseling, no questions asked. And usually, the problem was alcohol, or mainly alcohol. When the "war on drugs" ramped up in the late '70s and early '80s, more and more companies started requiring drug testing -- for no good reason. It was just the fashion, spurred on by politics and propaganda. Drugs were bad. We didn't want to employ people who used them, even off the job. There was no sudden explosion of drug-related issues on the job. Then as now, most of the corporate drones I know with "drug problems" are boozers. On the other hand, I know a guy who every night sits down to television with a nice joint and has worked in IT for a huge national bank for 20 years, completely competently. I just got a job at a university, and nobody required a blood test. But if I wanted to work as a sales clerk at the Salvation Army store, I would have to have a blood test. What is the difference here -- except some employer's idea that he or she has the freedom to evaluate an employee's _entire_ life and lifestyle, not just the part from 8 to 5. That is unacceptable.