Quote:
Originally posted by Lasereth
Quote:
Originally posted by Sledge
Why should what a person does on her own time impact whether or not she can have a job?
|
Yeah, it does impact it when they're doing something illegal in their free time. Do you want someone that commits illegal activities in their free time to work for you? No. What does that tell them about business ethics?
|
So do you believe that a person having a drink on their own time impacts whether or not they can have a job? Maybe a second look at how silly the laws regarding marijuana is in order. Knowing someone "commits illegal activities" by smoking pot on their own time tells me absolutely nothing about their business ethics. Maybe knowing that they do so at work tells me something about their business ethics but not when it's on their own time.
Quote:
Originally posted by Lasereth
In conclusion, I'd also like to express my concern about a lot of people on TFP saying it's perfectly fine to get high and get drunk. No, it's not. Doing drugs is bad for you. Doing them at work is even worse. Drinking isn't against the law, but it doesn't change the fact that it makes people as stupid as drugs do. It's not "perfectly ok" to get high, and it's not perfectly fine to get drunk. It creates problems and leads to nothing good except for a momentary enjoyment. I don't care if people want to do drugs and drink, but don't act like it has all positive effects and that it's alright to do it at the job.
|
Thanks for your concern. Duely noted. Eating hambugers and fries for lunch is bad for you. Should we make that illegal too? Of course alcohol and drugs CAN be bad for you and create problems. It turns out though that a lot of the people out there that CHOOSE to use them responsibly are able to clearly think for themselves and make the decision to do so. I agree with you that doing drugs at work is not right. I could, however, make an argument against your statement that drugs lead to nothing good except for a momentary enjoyment.
This is all a little off topic I guess since the thread started as a drug testing rant. That's already been replied to well enough. lordjeebus said it best:
Quote:
Originally posted by lordjeebus
There's a difference between using drugs and working under the influence of those drugs. The problem with drug testing is that it does not discriminate between the two.
I think that if there is no problem in a worker's quality of work, there's no need for an employer investigate and find a "problem."
Similarly, if there is a problem in the worker's quality of work, the employer need not be concerned with whether or not drugs are involved -- they should simply demand that they get themselves together or find another job. Is there a difference between one who is incompetent because of drug use and one who is incompetent because of laziness?
Also -- most companies allow their workers to drink outside of work. But they wouldn't want their workers working drunk. As long as a worker can do their work well, I think that companies would better spend their resources elsewhere.
Aside from that, I think that drug tests are an invasion of privacy, and while it may be legal for a company to demand them, I consider it unethical.
And finally, I find drug testing odd because it is usually not comprehensive and can provide incentive for someone to shift from marijuana (usually tested for) to something harder that's not tested for. Example: When I attended a private high school, the administration announced that it would begin random drug testing for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, PCP, and methamphetamine. The result was that the 1/3 of the class that smoked marijuana moved to shrooms, ecstacy, and LSD.
|