Why drug testing is bad, mmkay...

So I was going through my backlogs and found this article from my previous site "DoTheyDrugTest.net". The site has since gone down, but I wanted to salvage this passage because it is a very important issue, especially for those of us looking for jobs. Soon enough, local governments are going to try to drug test even those collecting welfare, a measure which would seem fair, if it wasn't for testing being unethical in the first place. This was written to appeal to both employers and employees, so don't mind the conservative tone. The following is my report:

Imagine this... you're a college senior who spent the last 16 years of life studying hard, getting good grades, and trying to be successful in your upcoming career. Like the vast majority of college students, you make time to enjoy the social aspects of college. You have the qualifications to get a job at your #1 company and get through several rounds of interviews. But in the end, you get rejected... Why? Because at a party a few weeks before, you smoked a joint with some friends.

This happens every day in our business world where companies have the right to test employees for drug use whenever they want.Often it is a condition of employment, but at times could be random, for no reason, and at a moment's notice.

We are not and in no way condoning on the job drug use. Your company is paying you for your time, and deserves your full unadulterated attention. But when the work day is done, your time should be yours and yours alone... Your company does not own you and should not be making decisions for you.

This creates an ethical grey area in workplace relations. The purpose of the site is to allow companies and employees alike the ability to announce whether an applicant should expect to be tested. We serve both as a caution to employees and as a way for companies to prevent unwanted applications from users who do not fit their culture. Until legislation prevents unwarranted testing, the best people can do is stay informed.

 

Some of the reasons why employment drug testing is unethical, and why this site exists:

• Just as your company has the legal right to drug test you, you have a right to know if they are going to invade your privacy. The 4^th Amendment of the Constitution protects against random and unprovoked search and seizure. However, this right does not extend into the workplace.
  
  
• Drug tests do not test for intoxication, rather past usage at an arbitrary time.  
  
  
• Should recreational users be kept out of jobs, only to have more time, unproductive time, on their hands to do more drugs?  
  
  
• These rules were set in place during an era of propaganda, before we had enough true information make judgments about how drugs affect one's health behavior when not under the influence.  
  
  
• Making responsible users second-class citizens. While companies push for open, diverse cultures, they isolate a major one. One that could potentially open additional markets. Usage is tolerated and accepted in some areas despite its illegality.  
  
  
• Laws are changing to make certain drugs legal. Drug tests, especially random tests, prevent prominent people from speaking up for reformation, thus keeping them taboo and illegal.
  
  
• Some drugs tested for are legal in certain areas. A vacation in Amsterdam where one does as the locals do could potentially cost you your job.
  
  
• These tests do not discriminate between recreational users and medicinal users. And yes, people CAN be denied hire, or even fired for taking medication under doctor's orders.
  
  
• Your medical history is not the business of your company. We have strict HIPPA laws that prevent any communication about one's medical history outside of the doctor-patient bond. Employment drug screening defies this law.  
  
  
• Drug tests can reveal other medical conditions (i.e. pregnancy) and legal medications for common disorders (i.e. depression), things that could secretly prevent an otherwise perfect candidate from getting hired
  
  
• Random tests can be a mask for terminating someone for alternate reasons. Don't like a co-worker (for example, say, the black one) who you know partakes once in a while outside of work? Make an accusation and watch them get fired for drugs instead!
  
  
• Marijuana, the most commonly used and least dangerous of intoxicants legal or illegal stays in your system the longest. Harsher drugs are out of one's system within 2-3 days. So these tests typically just uncover pot users, which should rationally be of no concern to a company. Alcohol is significantly worse for one's health than most drugs, and can cause obvious after effects at work even 24 hours after consumption. Yet almost no companies have a policy saying an employee can't drink on their free time.
  
  
• False positives can ruin a person. Food one eats, medicine one takes, and elemental exposure can all cause a clean sample to test positive.
  
  
• Signs of intoxication are obvious and effect performance. If one is not performing to standards, they shouldn't keep their job. But if performance is not affected, why test?

 

This stated, here are the benefits this site can bring to your business:

• Let people know you test, as a warning. Users will not apply for your jobs, saving the time and expense of interviewing and testing someone who will just fail your drug test
• It will encourage people who know they want to work for you to NOT partake
• If you don't test, be proud of it. Announce that you respect your employee's right to privacy when they are on their own time. You are opening yourself up to many qualified candidates another company casts aside for a non-work-related reason.
• Let your company give a reason for their testing. It wouldn't be fair to list reasons why drug testing is bad without giving the company a reason to voice their side. While we feel most testing is unwarranted, there may be instances where there are legitimate reasons why a company tests employees. Now you can explain why.

 

Once again, we do not condone the illegal use of drugs while on the job, but if you choose to partake, you have a right to stay safe. Enjoy the site, and best of luck on your job hunt!

jbx

Idea for Google+

Hello Freedom Fans!

So a few weeks ago I reported on the difficulties a blogger such as myself has trying to express his opinions openly when job screeners may be lurking about. Or better yet, asking to see your Social Media profiles. And it is my sad duty to report that, despite getting a team of experts, nothing has been done to fix the problem that hiring decisions can be (and likely will be) made on what I have tweeted. Eh, with the economy tanking, England rioting, Verizon striking, GOPers ganging up in Iowa, and San Francisco trying to become a scene from "V for Vendetta", there have been crazier things to worry about.

Guy Fawkes wants to follow you. Accept? [Y/N]:

But I think I've come up with a solution. And Google, heads up, this one is for you. Consider it a freebie.

I like what Google+ has done with its security settings, in that they made it extremely easy for you to monitor exactly who sees your posts. So say something 'risky' and you are able to let only your trusted friends see it. Your boss can still follow you, but its easy to keep him from seeing that rant about how much you hate your job. So it is possible to have both an open and a private life on Big G.

However, if there's one thing missing from their security, it's the ability to go completely anonymous. At least without creating an all-new screen name. But still, in this case:

1. a) it won't be synced with your existing Google App portfolio,
2. b) your friends need to follow you on both accounts,
3. c) you'll have to post on both your personal and anonymous account things you plan to share with both audiences,
4. d) recruiters won't know you have a massive follower list on your anonymous account

What I suggest is to add an 'anonymous' circle along with our other permission groups. We can set up a side account for our anon identity. A handle (nickname) for the name, and maybe the ability to write a separate bio. When posting, you can choose 'anonymous' as one of the circles, and anyone you have following you in this circle will see it. But they will only see that it's from your handle. So this way you can tweet whatever you want, and no one will know its you.

This method also allows you to advertise yourself and your profile without giving out your real info. I want random people to be able to find my posts, as they do on Twitter. But in the G+ environment, I don't want to have to give out my personal info. Nor do I want it searchable on Google under my real name. So search for my real name, find my 'open-to-all' profile. Search for the blog name or handle, find my anonymous page.

One central broadcasting location, two different channels for viewing. One G-rated and one R. Only you don't know they're related.

As a clean social media presence becomes a near requirement of employment, we need more ways to protect ourselves. But to censor ourselves is both immoral and un-American. Google has a great track record for giving users product features they both want and need. So ball is in your court, Google... can you do this for us?

jbx

Profit Sharing is Caring! and The Trickle-Up Effect

If you've been paying attention to the news lately, it's no doubt that we're in a serious mess. Our lowered credit rating makes us a laughing stock on the international market, and people are only going to further tighten their wallets. Unemployment is still high, estimated to be in the high teens assuming you count the unreported millions who do not or can not collect government benefits. Gas is upwards of $4 a gallon, and companies are consistently laying people off while collecting record profits. So what are we as a nation to do?

The more I consider the economy, the more I realize we are powerless to end the shareholder-minded profit maximization ideals that companies subscribe to. At least without some revolution that would involve some sort of devastating teardown of our country. But this mentality isn't necessarily a horrible thing for the economy. Ideally we want big, rich companies… they are indeed what keeps an economy strong.

We just need to invoke some sort of profit sharing mandate.

That’s right, enforced profit sharing. As in a set percentage of what a company makes need be distributed fairly through the workforce that allowed the company to make said profit. While some economists theorize we need to place caps on salaries or the size of companies, this allows and encourages businesses to grow. There’s no fear of increased regulations or per-worker costs that make hiring unattractive to big companies. The only cost is a function of the gains that everyone works for. Since this is an after-profit bonus, companies can still boast to their shareholders that they increased profits for the year, which hopefully won’t devastate a logically minded stock market. And this cost all goes into building a stronger work environment.

Most companies these days tend not to reward employees for additional effort. Maybe it’ll lead to a promotion down the line, but there’s no direct compensation for immediate effort that leads to an immediate gain in profits. Does the grill chef at McDonalds get more money if the store is packed that night? Probably not. Does the cashier at WalMart make extra money if the line is out the door her whole shift? Doubt it. The customer service rep during a company recall? You get the point. Add in the ability for companies to make salaried workers round-the-clock employees for no extra pay, and you see the mess we’re in. To quote the immortal words of Peter Gibbons, “It’s a problem of motivation. Now if I work my ass off and Initech ships a few extra units, I don't see another dime, so where's the motivation?”


Fire bad, Profit Sharing good. Staplers better!

Profit sharing is a direct investment in your workers. Well compensated workers tend to be happier workers, right? Show them their added effort, that extra money the company made from their labor, is worth something. If Initech had profit sharing, Peter would have seen a few dimes from working his ass off. And trying to lay off people won’t be a ‘fix’ for this issue, since a mandatory percentage is enforced whether the company has a thousand employees or a million. So workers taking on the burden of a downsized department would actually see an increase in the money they make.

We’ve been reading reports about runaway executive compensation for years. Million dollar bonuses for people on the upper levels in return for corporate success. Why do we stop there? Is it fair that only certain people get rewarded? I mean, in football, even the practice squad gets a ring if their team wins the Superbowl. Obviously these companies have the money to distribute to their staff, executive or not. Now this is their chance to reward the rest of the staff for that same hard work.

Now I have to predict that there are some wingers out there who are going to squawk their favorite buzzword… Communism. How dare I try to mention the idea that we tell a company what to do with their money in this country?!? And I’d like to point out that the communist argument just doesn’t hold up. This system still encourages companies to grow. Free markets and all. No tax increases. All the money stays in the company family. One of famed Republican Ronald Reagan’s legacies is the “trickle-down effect” in which we’d develop a system in which those that make the most money pass it through our economy by hiring and buying things from those economically below them… so on and so on down to where the higher populated lower classes have opportunities that leaves them financially stable (ie not struggling to put food on the table) and able to themselves contribute to the economy, creating a cycle that keeps our economy going. And ideally this is a good, reasonable plan.

Except it has never been enforced. Nowadays, the upper class is notorious for hoarding their money, leaving it in banks and big corporate investments. They cut down on the number of people they hire, lest their profits and stock price take a hit. And those who are not as financially stable are forced to follow suit. And none of this is necessarily for amoral reasons, but for security, as the future holds no certainty. We as struggling citizens are forced to cut back on extraneous expenses, ie going out to dinner, or buying that new car, or even going to school to better ourselves.

And this just compounds the problems we are seeing. Now the once-profitable restauranteur can’t afford a new car, and now the car dealer can’t afford to send his kids to a good school, and the kid can’t get a job because he didn’t go to a good school. Didn’t we say the trickle-down effect was a good thing?

What will help jumpstart our economy is a “trickle-up effect”. It’s proven that lower classes spend a higher percent of their income. So if the lower classes had a few extra bucks to spend, they could potentially buy that dinner once a week, and the restaurant owner seeing a rise in business can buy that new car. And the car dealer can send his kids to a good school. We need to encourage domestic spending, and keeping money out of the hands of the masses isn’t the way to do it.

No handouts, no rewarding people for not working, no deterrent to hiring. Just making sure credit is given where credit is due. It may be the only good ‘credit’ we see for a while in this country. And things just might come out ok in the end…

jbx

Episode 2 - The Adventures of Self-Employed Man

click on the pic for high definition!