Wikimedia Commons pic by TurboTorque
I went to a job interview recently which went fantastically. The work was right up my alley, faces lit up when I described what I do, and one interviewer even exclaimed “he’s just the guy we need!”
Then I got handed off to the corporate HR staff, which sent me a 16-page job application to fill out. That wasn’t so bad, but on the porch today was a overnighted package with forms in it for a drug test.
Now, I have no problem passing a drug test because I don’t use drugs, but that’s not the point. What I do have a problem with is this particular invasion of privacy. Philosophically I have an issue with an employer poking its nose into its employees’ off time. Unless you operate heavy machinery, make life or death decisions as part of your job, or serve in the military, I strongly believe what you put into your body is your own business and no one else’s. As a manager, as long as my employee arrives sober and does her job, I don’t care what adventures she had after hours. It’s none of my business. Sadly, too many employers want to own their employees 24/7.
Drug testing was commonplace when I served in the Navy. Like the rest of the crew on my ship, I was subjected to frequent, unannounced drug tests. I filled up enough plastic bottles to last a lifetime. I thought the whole experience was pointless and incredibly humiliating. Yet thanks largely to Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12564, one of our most basic bodily functions became a factor in employment. Smaller government and all that, you know.
The Navy made me never want to piss in a jar again. Ever. When I got out, I vowed to never work anyplace that put its employees through something so degrading. So far I’ve been successful in keeping that vow. But now I have to revisit that vow if I want to accept this work. Is it worth breaking my vow and violating my principles to earn a paycheck?
Does the company CEO piss in a jar, too? If so, then I may be cool with it. If not, I may have to make a decision as to which vow is more important: the one I made against drug testing or the one I made to my wife and family.
(Fortunately, a new opportunity came my way today which might help me avoid the issue altogether. All things being equal, I will choose the opportunity that keeps my principles intact. We’ll see.)
Speaking here as the guy who is adamantly opposed to drug testing, but is responsible for managing the drug screening program at my company…
It’s a simple issue. Most worker’s comp insurance providers require pre-employment, random, and post-accident drug screens. Without worker’s comp insurance, the company folds up and everyone goes home.
My point is that there’s no reason to blame the employer. Once they reach a certain number of employees, the requirement kicks in and there’s no way around it. Believe me, I’ve tried.
Should insurance companies require it? Of course not, but I’m sure someone can show a spreasheet or actuarial table that demonstrates a miniscule percentage of savings derived from the requirement, and when it comes to your privacy versus the bottom line, you already know who wins.
Yeah, it sucks but you’re absolutely right, Ken. It’s all about the bottom line.
If it’s who we talked about, corporate HQ is also big into HIPPA, which is a whole other level of mess.
Congrats, though!
fwiw, I’ve worked two places in a row that required it not for themselves but because of their customers’ requirements that all vendors/contractors/etc be “above reproach” in such regards
When I worked for Hertz years back, it made sense (driving and all that) … but since? Not so much :/