“Call to drug test women at work.” Ooh, that pisses me off. Since when is my private life my employer’s business? (And it’s not really random if they’re singling out women, is it?)
“Call to drug test women at work.” Ooh, that pisses me off. Since when is my private life my employer’s business? (And it’s not really random if they’re singling out women, is it?)
John Robinson
June 18, 2001 — 12:36 pm
I’m astonished that they’ve been dumb enough to single out women in this report, since that automatically turns this into a discrimination issue and diverts the debate away from their main point.
Not that their main point isn’t laughable, mind you. If, as they argue, substance abuse leads to poor performance then doesn’t this imply that either a) the organisation’s normal performance-monitoring system should notice a problem regardless of the reason, or b) even with their “drug problem” the employee is operating to an acceptable standard?
I can just about see the sense of testing in extremely safety-critical jobs like that of airline pilot, but this whole “we might get sued or lose money if someone makes a mistake” excuse is a step too far.
As you say, it’s the employee’s *private* life they’re wanting to get involved in, and that’s not on!
Kris
June 18, 2001 — 6:54 pm
Exactly. And what sort of extenuating circumstances would be allowed? For example, a lot of young people in London have shared housing. Should I be penalized at work because my housemate smokes pot in the kitchen? If I go out to a concert, will I get fired if they discover I got a contact buzz?
I totally agree that people in life-and-death positions need to be clean. But for the rest of us, employers should just trust our judgment until there’s a measurable drop in the quality or quantity of our work.