BTW: My wife was the ONLY person in my life that did not back me up on that decision. Big F'n surprise.

Salmo,
I tried to prosecute for embezzling, the county refused even look at the evidence. All she did was collect the mail, sign the checks that came in into her own name and walked out the door at the end of the week with $10,000 of my money. I sued and won a judgement. Big deal. Now I was out more. Luckly she got her life together and had to pay me back when she went to buy a house later on.
Sometimes its not that easy to fire someone. If they are union it can take forever to prove they are not doing their work or shouldn't be driving a vehicle. Without drug tests to back you up, it could be near impossible.

Anytime an employee gets into a truck, the employer can be held liable. To say an employer can't take action to protect himself when he is liable is unfair. I also wonder what the liability to a employer is if he suspects an employee and does nothing and the employee hurts himself on the job. In reality, there are few jobs out there where an employee cannot put his employer at risk through drug use. An engineer uses the wrong calculations and noone catches them until after a project is started or something goes wrong. A fast food worker thinks it funny to toss something into the deep fryer that then explodes. A teacher or caretaker leaves some pills around and a kid steals them and overdoses. A doctor or nurse makes a mistake. Part of owning a business involves taking on risks, but it also requires a person to take means to minimize them. Suspecting drug use may not be enough to legally allow an employer to take action (and shouldn't be), proving can be.

I am not suggesting that anyone who uses drugs is a bad employee or a risk, only that some drug use in some people can have that effect. It should be up to the employer to decide what risks he is willing to take and the employee what he or she should put up with. In the case of government workers and large corporations, the unions have a big part in what is allowed. In smaller industries, the employees have a choice of leaving or starting their own companies.

In employment, I do not feel this is an intrusion into private affairs. It s harder in terms of other government services and such. Most people would agree that a drug test for marijunna would be unreasonable to get a drivers license, but what about evidence of a heavy heroin or crack cocaine addiction. What about for foster care, adoption or running a daycare. I think most people would like to know if the person taking care of their kids is a crack addict or Meth addict. And don't think it is that easy to tell. It often isn't until the very end. The whole question is a murky one. I for one am against any testing other than for employment purposes, but can easily see arguments going the other way.

I will never agree that an employer has the right to delve into your personal life and we, as a whole, are weak for allowing it. Now they check your credit too. Why should bad credit bar someone from being hired as, say, a truck driver? Because he "may" get desperate?

I say test all CEO's and politicians on a daily basis. Notice they whom are responsible for yet another erosion of our rights are exempt?

Myself, I've worked for many major corps and never been subjected to a drug test.

"I am not suggesting that anyone who uses drugs is a bad employee or a risk"

That's exactly what you are saying via drug testing.

For approx 20 years Alaska Airlines tests for and refuses to hire anyone who has smoked in the last six months. Even if you wouldn't smoke at work. A perfectly legal, so far, product. It used to be a blood test but last I heard it was via hair sample. Where does this stuff end? Sugar intake? Body fat percentage? Cholesteral count?

How about a stupidity test. How many people could pass that exam?

Well Steelhdr,
would you allow a crackhead to babysit your kid. If there was a simple test to tell if your kids teacher was a child molester, would you want him to take it. The reason employers are doing these tests is because they feel it reduces their risk. In the free work place, you have the right to work somewhere else. That's what Sol said he did and his potential employer probably lost out because he chose to walk away.
Doesn't the right to make your own decisions pass on to employers? It is wierd how liberals only want rights for themselves but not others. I think we all agree that school districts shouldn't have tp hire people with child rape charges, but what about hiring a truck driver that has an alcohol or heavy marijaunna use addiction? The credit checks are pushing it, but probably have to do with employee theft. I would guess that a company would have to come up with a legitimate reason or risk being sued.
A corporation is nothing more than a person or group of people choosing a manner of setting up a company. Stockholders choose who they think best will represent them and the representives make decisions that they feel are best for the stockholders. In the end, deciding to have tests are nothing more than individuals making decisions that they feel best protect their interests. If they make bad decisions regarding the tests they will suffer the consequences. But since it is their money at risk, they should be able to make that decision.

If you fog the mirror you are hired unless you inhaled, pretty lame if you ask me.

If you fail a piss test you can't be that bright to begin with.

I've passed a surprise & unexpected one the morning after taking knife hits, and if it's the kind where a guy with a badge stares at your dick in the basement of the Federal Courthouse while you pee you'd better be well prepped ahead of time and have done your homework for an airtight story.

Tests taken=4
Tests passed=4

"I would guess that a company would have to come up with a legitimate reason or risk being sued. "

That's just it. They do not have to justify these actions more than the "insurance reasons""health reasons" ..whatever. It's pretty easy to think up some sort of liability on just about anything. If you are employed and you get fat should the company have the right to tell you lose weight or be fired? You drive up insurance costs. Have the potential of higher absenteeism dealing with health issues. May not perform as well...whatever. How about sky diving?

A Corp is a public entity owned by the shareholders. Therefore the shareholders are the employer. Therefore Execs should be no different from any other employee and, in fact, have much more power to do harm.
If an employer has lax checks and balances to the point where a single employee can do great damage then, once again, I'd blame the employer and not take it out on all of the employees.
Do you really drug test your babysitter?
There used to be a seperation from work, which is time you are paid for and have a mutual agreement of, and personal time, which is your own time that your employer does not compensate you for. What you do on your own time should not legally be any business of the employer. We've really allowed a slippery slope to be put upon us.

And why are government employees tested but not the "politicians" we elect? Both are our employees.

If police officers aren't tested, then it ISN'T about public safety.

Sooo, what I'm hearing is that if you want to get high during work hours, start your own business as a fishing guide?

Speaking of police officers, I got pulled over last night. He asked me, "if I knew why he pulled me over." I said, "because you're a cop and I'm braking the law." He laughed hard and gave me a major brake on the fine.

And yes, I was baked.

I don't believe it for a second.

Well, maybe I do.

SOl, my favorite was a freind who was pulled over in Fircrest for doing nothing. He was pissed off and snapped back, why,don't you. Supposedly the guy stood there for a moment and then just walked off.

Humor is key. He clocked me doing 90 in a 50 and said he "could" have written me for neglegent driving.

90 in a 50? Driving high had my friends driving slowwwww. Humor is key and a given.

Fixed it for you Aunty!

I "upped" the performance setting on my superchip on Sunday. Getting pulled over was only a matter of time.