Drug Testing in Insurance Companies

[independent]

As Traci points out, some companies do drug testing of their employees.

My employer - a life insurance company - has just announced that it will do pre-hire drug testing of job candidates.

I assume this is legal, but I think it's a bad idea for many of the reasons mentioned in the "Drug testing in schools" topic.

Basically, employers shouldn't try to control their employees actions outside of work. If drugs, or anything else, impact job performance, then deal with the performance issue.

Any other thoughts?

[Dr T Non-Fan]

It's the company's money. Besides all the "NOYB" and "Prove that it's affecting my performance" excuses, why should a company increase its risks by adding a potential drug user?

[E. Blackadder]

It's a business decision. And as usual, the weak get preyed upon. Presumably a company wouldn't bother to spend the money to analyze your urine if they weren't convinced of some dollar savings down the road.

If you have the balls, when any company demands tests of you, demand them right back. You have the right to know you aren't prospectively working for a druggie. Ditto for referenes, credit checks, etc.

Of course you won't get the job, but that's not the point.

[Quasi]

For some reason pre-hire drug testing doesn't bother me at all. I figure that if you can't stop doing drugs for long enough to pass one drug test then maybe your recreational drug use will end up hurting your work. I had a friend who failed with a false positive and they let her retake the test...another plus for pre-hire testing.

[Cho Da]

I like Lee's advice:<blockquote>Ask them to hold the cup. It's a matter of trust.</blockquote>

[independent]

On 2002-03-28 00:24, Dr T Non-Fan wrote:
It's the company's money. Besides all the "NOYB" and "Prove that it's affecting my performance" excuses, why should a company increase its risks by adding a potential drug user?

What "risks" is the company taking that it won't have by hiring an alcohol user, or a tax evader, or a cheating spouse?

Yet, they don't hire detictives or CPA's to make sure they aren't taking on the "risks" of those behaviors.

In fact, my company happens to give away free drugs at some company functions. It just happens to be the CEO's drug of choice (alcohol) instead of the new grad's choice.

I think the CEO, or whoever thought this up, is wasting the company money.

[The Drunken Actuary]

On 2002-03-31 00:31, independent wrote:

What "risks" is the company taking that it won't have by hiring an alcohol user, or a tax evader, or a cheating spouse?

Those things will not directly affect work performance like being stoned will.

Yet, they don't hire detictives or CPA's to make sure they aren't taking on the "risks" of those behaviors.

In fact, my company happens to give away free drugs at some company functions. It just happens to be the CEO's drug of choice (alcohol) instead of the new grad's choice.

Alcohol is legal.

I think the CEO, or whoever thought this up, is wasting the company money.

Perhaps. Depends on the industry and the job.

[Wag, the Dog]

McCroskey (Airplane 1980):


"Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue!"

[Quasi]

I still don't see why we have to separate doing a poor job due to drugs from doing a poor job for any other reason...at least in a profession like ours. If an employee does a crappy job because he is stupid, lazy, or on drugs why not just act based on his performance? If an employee of mine does a good job and proves that he/she is trustworthy then I don't care what he/she does after hours.

I don't necessarily feel the same about a pilot or other job where one day at work on drugs could mean the lives of many others. If I show up at work stoned tomorrow I might make some strange projections but no one will die....they can fire me if I continue to do it because my work has suffered.

[E. Blackadder]

Many of my projections are strange even if I 'avent touched a drop!