4 ms·

I'm one of tech leads for a company that doesn't really deal with anything that sensitive but routinely drug tests, I'm convinced it's just a way to get rid of

by thr0waway19233 7y ago

I'm one of tech leads for a company that doesn't really deal with anything that sensitive but routinely drug tests, I'm convinced it's just a way to get rid of employees they don't want. I have failed the drug tests 5 out of 5 times with substances significantly more frowned upon than cannabis and have yet to receive anything more than a chuckle when being handed the results while at the same time I've seen multiple others fired on their first offence. Go figure.

zulln 7y ago
Have you been offered any help based on the results? Not saying that you are in need of it, but if you fail drug tests for work it seems reasonable enough to suspect abuse/addiction.
- thr0waway19233 7y ago
  No, I believe they don't want to be seen to be acknowledging the clear difference in treatment. And there is little doubt I am an addict, I'm just able to keep it under control to where it doesn't affect my work or relationships.
  - cryptnotic 7y ago
    That’s amazing. What’s your secret to keeping it under control?
    - thr0waway19233 7y ago
      By being very strict with myself, I set rules on the times and doses that I'm allowed to take and never break them.
marvin 7y ago
Huh. That’s a disturbing example of selective enforcement, seemingly by design. Another good reason to legalize some drugs, IMHO.
bko 7y ago
Assuming there is some correlation between illegal substance use/abuse, the test could be used to identify people with underlying issues that affect their work. No one really cares about your personal life, just use that as a proxy for your ability and risk mitigation. If it doesn't affect your work and you are a strong performer, the test results are not enforced. I think this is a reasonable response.
dsgriffin 7y ago
Not from the U.S (assuming you are) and don't know how it's employed exactly, but don't most states there already have at-will employment where they can get rid of people for no/very little reason anyway?
- AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
  They can get rid of people for any reason, not for no reason. In real life things are even more complex: in case of a bitter divorce an employer will have some trouble trying to convince a judge that they fired a programmer because he didn't like classical music. And then programmer's attorney will present his version of events with some racial twist added...
  - 420codebro 7y ago
    You are incorrect. In the US, at-will employment situations can be terminated for no reason at all. Source: I've terminated people, and a few times I never stated a reason (long story). Sometimes it is easier to just say "goodbye" without opening yourself up to claims of racism / sexism / etc. Most folks will masquerade this by saying the person just didn't fit the bill.
- P_I_Staker 7y ago
  Yes and no. In theory, they don't need a reason. In practice, they're concerned about lawsuits, politics, and unemployment insurance. First of all, if you sue (and you can for a number of reasons), that means litigation, even if frivolous. Secondly, most orgs don't like giving person(s) the power to fire for no reason (politics / abuse potential). Finally, unemployment insurance is a big cost; if you get "fired for cause" their rates don't go up (this systems a joke, but that's a story for another day) So, contrary to what you might think, and people will claim on the internet, it can practically be quite hard to fire someone. You just can't sue because you got fired fired for no reason, just for other stuff (eg. discrimination)
WhyKill 7y ago
This is 100% the reason why drug testing in the workplace exists. There is no other reason other than safety for heavy equipment users. If you don't work in a dangerous place drug testing is punitive.

zulln 7y ago

Have you been offered any help based on the results? Not saying that you are in need of it, but if you fail drug tests for work it seems reasonable enough to suspect abuse/addiction.

thr0waway19233 7y ago
No, I believe they don't want to be seen to be acknowledging the clear difference in treatment. And there is little doubt I am an addict, I'm just able to keep it under control to where it doesn't affect my work or relationships.
- cryptnotic 7y ago
  That’s amazing. What’s your secret to keeping it under control?
  - thr0waway19233 7y ago
    By being very strict with myself, I set rules on the times and doses that I'm allowed to take and never break them.

marvin 7y ago

Huh. That’s a disturbing example of selective enforcement, seemingly by design. Another good reason to legalize some drugs, IMHO.

bko 7y ago

Assuming there is some correlation between illegal substance use/abuse, the test could be used to identify people with underlying issues that affect their work. No one really cares about your personal life, just use that as a proxy for your ability and risk mitigation. If it doesn't affect your work and you are a strong performer, the test results are not enforced. I think this is a reasonable response.

dsgriffin 7y ago

Not from the U.S (assuming you are) and don't know how it's employed exactly, but don't most states there already have at-will employment where they can get rid of people for no/very little reason anyway?

AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
They can get rid of people for any reason, not for no reason. In real life things are even more complex: in case of a bitter divorce an employer will have some trouble trying to convince a judge that they fired a programmer because he didn't like classical music. And then programmer's attorney will present his version of events with some racial twist added...
- 420codebro 7y ago
  You are incorrect. In the US, at-will employment situations can be terminated for no reason at all. Source: I've terminated people, and a few times I never stated a reason (long story). Sometimes it is easier to just say "goodbye" without opening yourself up to claims of racism / sexism / etc. Most folks will masquerade this by saying the person just didn't fit the bill.
P_I_Staker 7y ago
Yes and no. In theory, they don't need a reason. In practice, they're concerned about lawsuits, politics, and unemployment insurance. First of all, if you sue (and you can for a number of reasons), that means litigation, even if frivolous. Secondly, most orgs don't like giving person(s) the power to fire for no reason (politics / abuse potential). Finally, unemployment insurance is a big cost; if you get "fired for cause" their rates don't go up (this systems a joke, but that's a story for another day) So, contrary to what you might think, and people will claim on the internet, it can practically be quite hard to fire someone. You just can't sue because you got fired fired for no reason, just for other stuff (eg. discrimination)

WhyKill 7y ago

This is 100% the reason why drug testing in the workplace exists. There is no other reason other than safety for heavy equipment users. If you don't work in a dangerous place drug testing is punitive.