Just got fired...

Jobs had these rules before you started them so you should've known going in what to expect. I dont know one single job that would openly let me have marijuana in the legal state I'm in. Even when it's legal, having a job and doing it is always a risk. I'm sure you did not go into it thinking you get to smoke all the pot you want without consequences. The only person you have to be pissed at is yourself. Take responsibility for your actions before it destroys another job.

It doesnt matter if you do it on the job or off the job, you do it and that's not something someone will just let you slide on. Regardless of how fair you think it is, that is life.

 

Dispensary perhaps... Lol

 

lol i stand corrected

 

Companies go after all potential employees with the potential to cause harm. It's not which one is better, thats the wrong way to look at it. a little fkd up or really fkd up....any fkd up is an uneccessary potential. Until a test is developed to show a person's current state it's going to stay this way. Alcohol is easy, you either have it in your system or you don't, either under the influence or not. There's no in between It doesn't hang around like thc

 

Agreed. It's never been the testing that's bothered me it has always been the type of test administered. That and random testing I think is bullshit. It's assuming all employees are guilty until proven innocent

 

People voluntarily take the jobs so it's their problem if they thought they could dodge random testing. Don't want tested don't take jobs that test. It's your choice. Random testing needs to be an option in certain situations, its not going away but hopefully someday there's a better test that can separate when people are high vs just having thc in their system.

 

I get that, but it's just the thought behind random testing that is complete bullshit. Reasonable suspicion to test someone, totally agree with. Testing randomly is the worst type of policy there is, assuming every employee uses illegal drugs and the only way to catch them is by randomly testing is ridiculous. Add in the cost. The company I for has 260,000 employees that's gotta hit a million plus in testing costs and I bet the percentage of people caught is low.
Unfortunately that day won't be until federal government legalizes cannabis or possibly rescheduled it. Testing in a legal state like I live in has pretty much stopped testing except for pre employment and work like you do. Which everyone just uses fake piss anymore anyway

 

Actually companies are not assuming everyone uses. If they only singled out certain individuals the company would be getting sued all the time. Therefore they require random drug tests for all employees to cover their ass so they're not singling out anyone.

If they test for pre-employment to make sure a person isn't using cannabis, then they'll test if someone gets hurt, denying them any coverage under the companies insurance policy. The hurt thc positive employee would will probably be fired and have to take care of the medical bills themselves since they broke the companies drug policy. They wouldn't test at pre-employment test if it wasn't a concern.

To a massive company with 260,000 employee, testing costs are just a drop in the bucket. The $ they save on their insurance premiums for testing employees would more then cover any miniscule (too the company as a whole) cost they acquire. The reduction of worksite injuries caused by drug users will also be another huge savings. Drug tests save large companies money, not loose them money.

See you're looking at it from a stoners perspective who doesn't want to be drug tested. That's the furthest thing from a companies representatives mind when writing up company policies. There's plenty of non drug users looking for work. Its all about making money and saving money to them. Large companies like that probably couldn't even get insurance coverage without some form of drug testing going on. Even if and when it becomes federally legal insurance companies are still going to want drug tests for employees to make sure they're clean on the job. If by then a better drug test isn't developed employees may still very well be under the same testing that goes on now. If the company has drug testing in their policy and an potential employee agrees to it upon hiring there's nothing that can be done. It's a private contract between employer/insurance and employee. The company I work for, for example will still be required by their insurance provider to have some sort of drug testing done no matter what happens with the legality of cannabis. Fortunately there's a few cool bosses like me

 

I get what your saying, only thing about the company that I work for is we ARE the insurance company. See the thing is I'm not looking at it from a "stoners" perspective, I don't consume. I'm looking at it from a violation of privacy. Plus how can anyone ever know if a test is truly random or if they just use it as a loop hole to single out those that they think will fail. and not get sued. I believe in a test everyone or test no one when it comes to the random bullshit. I don't believe that a company would be sued all the time if they only tested with reasonable suspicion. Plenty of companies provide insurance coverage and don't randomly drug test. I would think if federally legal they would be forced to create a better testing method. Alcohol is federally legal and you can test positive with a urine test up to 5-7 days after consuming but I wouldn't be fired for it or even tested for it. Far as I know they don't even test for it.

 

So what would that reasonable suspicion be? Long hair &white must be a hippy? Mexican, must have that Mexican bud? Blacks, got a blunt? How are they going to single out people without being sued. I give drug tests, the company I work for covers their own insurance too but they still function as a separate insurance company. Its required by law to act as a separate entity to keep things on the up and up and avoid scandals. If we don't have testing for everyone we will get our ass' sued off. Testing also keeps companies premiums and payouts down and as of know studies show drug users are more likely to injure themselves or others on the jobsite rather you think so or not. Studies show it's true. If you believe people won't sue you must not get out much, suing is just a way of life these days. Don't ever assume people won't sue, give any sort of opportunity in todays world and it's on. If a pattern of only testing say only blacks or only people who dress a certain way for example is noticed then that opens up opportunity to be sued. There's another reason drug tests will be required. 1st you have to have the pre employment test to show your employee is clean and a good worker to hire, random to prove employees stay clean, if they pop positive after an accident the company has proof they hired some one clean and did not know they hired a drug addict. This can be used to deny insurance coverage and put an end to a law suit. You can pretend people won't sue, but give them the opportunity and law suits will happen. Happens everyday for less of a reason. It's not a violation of privacy once an employee willing takes a job that requires drug tests. The way it's looked at if you don't want to be drug tested to voluntarily agree to take a job that drug tests. Once you agree to take that job, privacy is out the window. An insurance company can't be forced to use a better drug test when as better drug test does not exist. Insurance companies are not scientists out developing new drug tests. They use what's available to them and right now it's currently the tests we already have

I love how everyone tries to compare alcohol. There is no comparison. Alcohol is both federally and state legal plus there's tests to show an employees current state of intoxication through a simple bac test unlike marijuana. It's easy to tell if a drinker is currently under the influence through testing, unlike the current tests available for pot.

Awhile back a semi driver ran a stop sign in front of me. The company he worked for was able to show they tested him upon hiring, randomly after hiring, and at the time of the accident which lessened the amount of potential pay out because they had their ass covered. He was clean but let's just say he wasn't and had never been tested. My lawyer would of jumped all over that showing the irresponsibility of the company for hiring a drug addict to drive truck and opening up the company to potentially paying out lots more.

 

So what would that reasonable suspicion be? Long hair &white must be a hippy? Mexican, must have that Mexican bud? Blacks, got a blunt? How are they going to single out people without being sued. I give drug tests, the company I work for covers their own insurance too but they still function as a separate insurance company. Its required by law to act as a separate entity to keep things on the up and up and avoid scandals. Companies who insure themselves must maintain a certain amount of money in an account and still cover insurance premiums. Just because a company insures themselves doesn't get them out of paying money. If we don't have testing for everyone we will get our ass' sued off. Testing also keeps companies premiums and payouts down and as of know studies show drug users are more likely to injure themselves or others on the jobsite rather you think so or not. Studies show it's true. If you believe people won't sue you must not get out much, suing is just a way of life these days. Don't ever assume people won't sue, give any sort of opportunity in todays world and it's on. If a pattern of only testing say only blacks or only people who dress a certain way for example is noticed then that opens up opportunity to be sued. There's another reason drug tests will be required. 1st you have to have the pre employment test to show your employee is clean and a good worker to hire, random to prove employees stay clean, if they pop positive after an accident the company has proof they hired some one clean and did not know they hired a drug addict. This can be used to deny insurance coverage and put an end to a law suit. You can pretend people won't sue, but give them the opportunity and law suits will happen. Happens everyday for less of a reason. It's not a violation of privacy once an employee willing takes a job that requires drug tests. The way it's looked at if you don't want to be drug tested to voluntarily agree to take a job that drug tests. Once you agree to take that job, privacy is out the window. An insurance company can't be forced to use a better drug test when as better drug test does not exist. Insurance companies are not scientists out developing new drug tests. They use what's available to them and right now it's currently the tests we already have

I love how everyone tries to compare alcohol. There is no comparison. Alcohol is both federally and state legal plus there's tests to show an employees current state of intoxication through a simple bac test unlike marijuana. It's easy to tell if a drinker is currently under the influence through testing, unlike the current tests available for pot.

Awhile back a semi driver ran a stop sign in front of me. The company he worked for was able to show they tested him upon hiring, randomly after hiring, and at the time of the accident which lessened the amount of potential pay out because they had their ass covered. He was clean but let's just say he wasn't and had never been tested. My lawyer would of jumped all over that showing the irresponsibility of the company for hiring a drug addict to drive truck and opening up the company to potentially paying out lots more.

 

That's more stereotyping and racial profiling that your talking about. The reasonable suspicion policy that my company has is based on a realistic world. Sudden lack of job performance with no obvious cause (losing a family member or valid reason that would cause undue stress or lack of focus) showing up to work late with no reason. Calling in sick when appeared fine the day before. Complaints filed by team members with concerns for maybe incoherent speech or odors (smelling like weed) sudden lack of hygiene. That information would then be compiled by supervisor and brought to HC and they would then make the determination to drug test the employee or ask management to keep an eye on the employee. If HC thought the employee was using drugs they would still probably have to interview them to find out if something else was wrong. Far as the comparison to alcohol yes if it was made federally legal I think the govt would be forced to either remove the drug from testing all together like alcohol is. I'm not tested for alcohol during a random or pre-employment. If a company still wanted to test for cannabis and it was federally legal they would be forced to produce a test that showed the employee was under the influence at the time of the test.

 

That's how our random testing pretty much is too minus the interview. Interviews are pointless. Of course they'll make an excuse if they're dirty to get out of the test. I've found clean people dont mind being tested. Its just us stoners and drug users that complain. If I think someone is messed up I can have them tested. I thought you were trying to suggest profiling

 

Turn the drunks into osha or your state safety board if the company won't do anything. They are putting you in danger. Couple fines from osha and I bet the company starts caring

 

That really sucks. There's better jobs out there for you. I thought of blogging for money.

 

That really sucks. There's better jobs out there for you. I thought of blogging for money.