While I haven’t changed employers for a while, I’m under the impression that drug testing is also fairly common in the US, as are credit checks by potential employers. Both are “fairly invasive checks” as far as I’m concerned.

But in a libertarian society, marijuana would be legal, so they wouldn’t bother testing

Huh? What does the law have to do with anything? In the libertarian dreamworld, companies would test everything from pot smoking to 150 years of non-Jewish lineage.

I remember that. When I was in the military, where there is known to be an occasional whiz quiz, I took a trip to Europe and spent some time in Amsterdam. I would have wanted coffee, but every cafe had that familiar smell in it, and I couldn’t find a cafe where I could have gotten just a coffee without the hashish smoke in the air.

I don’t think it matters where you use it. If the company has a policy of drug testing and you get caught they probably force you to go to rehabilitation, do regular drug testing or quit. Your choice, even if it was not illegal in Amsterdam.

Franklin hits the nail on the head. The question is not one of legality but of the company selecting employees according to certain lifestyle choices. In the US a number of companies have said smokers will be fired and have tested them (after a period) and fired them. Smoking, of course, is not illegal.

I agree with the general point that infrequent marijuana usage probably doesn’t affect how effective you are as an employee.

After 5 years in Holland I can confirm that nobody there is tested for Drugs during a job application. Maybe in some very high risk jobs that is necessary. The Dutch also don’t have a big percentage of drug abusers compared to the rest of Europe. Okay, the conservative government is always trying to shut down the coffee shops. But Dutch people wouldn’t really like that. A good smoke is just so much cheaper than a beer in Holland, which costs about the same as in Finland or even more in Amsterdam. Since Dutch people are stingy as hell, and coffee shops bring in heaps of tourists who leave heaps of cash behind to get stoned and go “window shopping” afterwards, nobody can have a serious interest to do anything that cuts out such a good source of income. Although Dutch people don’t go much to church, they are still very Calvinistic in their attitudes. That means, work hard, spend little, and individually resist temptations. Hence, drugs are good because they create good money from all those foreigners who come in to smoke. Otherwise Dutch people work hard and professionally, which means drugs and a job don’t go together anyways. Finally, Dutch frugality ensures that money is never spent excessively on anything, including indulging in drugs consumption. So maybe Dutch people smoke occasionally and that will do. (Of course you also find addicts in NL like anywhere else, but not many.) That sounds very different to Finns who know no limits when they want to get high on something. To my surprise I get really annoyed here when I see drunk idiots who still roll around in mornings. On the continent people usually have the decency to go home and sleep after getting drunk, stoned, or whatever. That is quite normal to keep up some self respect and to not annoy others who go to work the next day. I don’t understand why this doesn’t seem to be the case in Finland too. Drunks really don’t have any self respect and respect for others. So I can well understand why people get drug tested for a job application if they don’t seem to know when it is enough. But how come the government doesn’t want to check for alcohol abuse but for drugs abuse?

“But how come the government doesn’t want to check for alcohol abuse but for drugs abuse?”

It’s not the government that does the testing, It just allows by law (since 2005) for companies to do testings. The article is about increased testing in companies. The government has been very strict about drug testing laws in Finland. Companies that do testing must have a well planned prevention and rehabilitation program at hand. This is very well described in Finnish Law.
Finnish law site: http://www.finlex.fi/

And a small addition about Finnish drug test law:
1) you are allowed to refuse drug testing.
2) If tested the test result is give to the employee, not the employer.
The employer can request the paper from the employee, the employee can refuse to give it (or fake it before giving it

you quite safe phil

bafana—

that’s the longest single paragraph I’ve ever read in my life

Nevertheless, I’ve lived in Holland and agree with everything you wrote. There aren’t many addicts from the local population, and people handle it just fine.

Finns get drunk and roll around without limits because of the restrictiveness concerning alcohol and whatever else is prohibited. The laws in Finland create a binge culture that’s not healthy. But the government can use it to justify collecting revenue. It’s been that way for a long time.

Phil: “The libertarian answer is, “It’s okay for the companies to test, it’s completely voluntary.””

That might have been acceptable in the 1900′s, during the robber baron days. But to use that type of nonsensical rationale today only serves to discredit Libertarianism. Any electable Libertarian—not to mention decent person—believes that there should be laws to preserve the dignity of individuals and protect them from humiliation. Hence, clearly there should be laws that prohibit employer drug testing.

Without such laws, as Franklin said, employers will stop at nothing.

@7&8: That might be so in theory/legally, but the practice is quite different. A friend of mine got burned for THC in a drugs test (did he fuck get to see the results before the employer), and was ‘offered the option’ to go home and not come back. No well planned rehab program at hand for him. Not that he would have needed one.

I did not know that you can test in Finland. I will test employees for drugs, if I can ever find a company for sale in Finland worth purchasing. Although in most cases, the companies I have seen had only 2 employees, the owners so they won’t be sticking around once the purchase is complete.

Testing keeps everybody honest.

Phil’s rockin’ the ganj….

Testing keeps everybody honest.

heh

“Testing keeps everybody honest.”

No, those tests are easy to outsmart. Plus, you can’t really test for cocaine and alcohol abuse, because those substances don’t stay in the system long enough (edit: but maybe we can still test Fred for alcohol usage when he returns to the office after playing golf ). Pot too, because most people simply abstain for a few weeks before applying for a job.

At most, tests are humiliation. I’ve consistently refused taking them. Never will.

“At most, tests are humiliation. I’ve consistently refused taking them. Never will.”

Look, we are all victims of the lowest common denominator. We all need to take our shoes off at the airport because there are terrorists about. We are restricted in our rights to own guns because criminals will shoot us with them. We have to pay for insurance to cover us in case we are hit by an uninsured vehicle, even though insurance is required for all cars. Noboy can eat or drink in the DC Metro System because some people are slobs. You have to submit your fingerprints to work at a bank because some people are convicted thieves.

Every day is a little humiliation. This is the price we all pay for that lower level of society that people demand we tolerate. I have taken more drug tests than I care to count because the rest of you want to be sure that ships are operated by people who are not taking drugs.

As for being easy to outsmart. Every time I saw a mass testing, somebody gets caught. Plus, do you really want to spend your worklife with somebody else’s urine strapped to your leg?

Look, Finland makes it so hard to fire somebody. You need to take any opportunity they let you weed out people that are unsuitable. For me it makes no difference if you can be a functioning drug addict. I just don’t want you in my workplace. Anyway, they can be a potential liability in the future it they have a meltdown and all of a sudden I need to fund their treatment as mentioned above:

“The government has been very strict about drug testing laws in Finland. Companies that do testing must have a well planned prevention and rehabilitation program at hand.”

What happened to that nice free healthcare? Why does the business have to pay for rehabilitation? Better not to expose yourself to that sort of liability.

My goal is to fill any available job opening with the most qualified person. All things being equal, you pic the person not doing drugs over the drug user, if nothing more than as an indicator of character.

Even though pot is tolerated in the Netherlands, I bet airplane pilots landing there can’t go smoke up between flights.

Fred, if they’d test airline pilots before each flight, then that would be fine with me. I wouldn’t complain. But for non-life-threatening jobs, I don’t favor it.

What I find interesting is you don’t seem to recognize that a person who might have been drunk ever day last month—even last night—will pass any such test with no problem. Even though he’s an alcoholic….and he’ll probably continue that way. Same with the cocaine user.

But the person who smoked pot, once, 20-days-ago gets denied a job. Even though he might only use it occasionally.

Are you going to tell me that the alcoholic (or habitual cocaine user) will be a better employee? Habitual alcohol usage is far more common than pot usage—even more common than occasional pot usage. But alcohol usage won’t appear on any test unless you follow him home every night with a testing kit.

Why can’t you just base your decision on job performance?

Who cares about being tested for drugs? My Finnish employer gave me an AIDS test without even informing me of it. I only caught on when I spotted the vial when the woman was drawing my blood. I recognised it since I used to work in research with human tissues and so had to be regularly tested. I couldn’t believe that they were so overly apologetic about the drug test but didn’t think anything of the AIDS test. I was absolutely floored.

Oh, and Kristian, you can pick up a heavy alcohol abuser in blood tests by looking for liver function and, well, dysfunction. I’m pretty sure some places are doing that now. That and the so-called ‘psych test’ that is also seemingly common in Finnish interviews.

Sure hfb, you can test for liver function. By that time the guy will be at such an advanced stage of alcoholism, that you’ll smell the urine in his pants during the interview.

But you’ll never catch the guy who gets smashed with his buddies every night and goes to sleep 3-hours before the workday begins. I guess that’s ok with Fred though. As long as the guy didn’t smoke pot 3-weeks-ago.

Testing keeps everybody honest.

Anyone can pass a drug test. You can buy clean urine. Even if there’s a nurse starring at your genitals while you piss, there’s teas or something you can drink before hand that temporarily cleans it, or I’ve even heard of men forcing clean urine up their penis.

I think the only reason they do these drug tests nowadays is because it’s so difficult to fire employees. You need to have “proof”, like failing a drug test, before you can fire someone, being a bad worker isn’t proof enough.

Just because you smoke pot or even shoot heroin doesn’t make you a bad worker or thief. And just because you don’t do any drugs doesn’t automatically make you a good worker or honest person. Judge people on their merits, not what they put into their bodies in their free time.

In the libertarian dreamworld, companies would test everything from pot smoking to 150 years of non-Jewish lineage.

What crazy company would test for non-Jewish whatever? No one would ever work there, no one would ever do business with that company. I actually companies would test for that, so I know better which companies to boycott for life.

Phil…clearly you’ve never met a heroin addict. Of course, you really don’t need to test them to know and they do make really crappy employees/colleagues.

Still, I’d love to know how many Finnish employers are doing AIDS tests for potential employees along with the drug tests, especially when they’re nowhere near anything health related.

What crazy company would test for non-Jewish whatever?

Oh Phil, you naïve little kid. One obvious answer is companies that have business in the Middle East where Jews are not liked very much. Do you think that Nokia would rather send Mr. Järvinen or Mr. Nemes as a sales rep to Saudi Arabia?

Going back 150 years was just a quip, an invocation of Godwin’s law if you will, but on a general level this kind of discrimination is very plausible. And libertarians want to allow it.

I actually companies would test for that, so I know better which companies to boycott for life.

Oh really. Did you boycott IG Farben and all associated companies? Look ‘em up…

Kristian:
Any electable Libertarian—not to mention decent person—believes that there should be laws to preserve the dignity of individuals and protect them from humiliation.

An electable Libertarian – now there’s a contradiction of terms.

It seems that what you represent has little to do with modern libertarianism and is actually a form of social liberalism. You haven’t read much Murray Rothbard, have you? Self-respecting libertarians want none of this evil statist intervention such as laws against slavery.

Franklin: “It seems that what you represent has little to do with modern libertarianism and is actually a form of social liberalism.”

No, that’s not true….not entirely. However, one can describe modern Libertarianism as a mix of liberal economics and social liberalism. In any case, here’s a clearer picture from a Libertarian perspective in the US. Sorry it’s a boring in the beginning, but it’s informative nonetheless…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6056430233482819142&q=libertarian

In my opinion, instead of Phil writing things like

“But in a libertarian society, marijuana would be legal, so they wouldn’t bother testing -”,

which obviously isn’t plausible (even though the condition seems to exist in Holland), he could represent the Libertarian point better on this issue by explaining how Libertarianism diverges from (pure) Liberalism. That is, in this case, the rights of the individual are held above the rights of the company and its shareholders.

Hence, Libertarianism is a form of moderated Liberalism. I’ll assume Phil was in a hurry when he posted that statement above

“Why can’t you just base your decision on job performance?”

Yeah, Like you can actually fire people for poor performance in Finland.

Smoking pot is just one issue. You need to obtain it first. Last time I checked you can’t do that at the local kiosk or ‘drug store’. As for drug tests being easy to beat, that does not wash as people get caught all the time.

Ever mass test I was part of, they caught people. This thread also reminded me that before we did the piss test, they had us blow into breathalysers as it was against company policy to be drinking 8 hours prior to watch, which meant, no drinking at all.

And Kristian, I don’t put up with alcoholics at work either. The difference being that it is not illegal to drink alcohol. Let someone else work with them.

Look they were all for liberalizing pot in Canada until they started to liberalize it. Then shockingly, it became a problem.

This would be a quibble over de jure and de facto distinctions, but if you smoked pot in Amsterdam, you definitely broke the law.

Fred Fry: “Yeah, Like you can actually fire people for poor performance in Finland.”

Then what you suggest is, instead of changing the law to make it easier to fire people based on job performance, you favor an artificial law based on marijuana as a proxy.

Fred Fry: “Look they were all for liberalizing pot in Canada until they started to liberalize it. Then shockingly, it became a problem.”

That’s what a minority of Americans like yourself say—ones who see someone using an unfamiliar substance and call it a “problem.” Of course, to people like yourself, it’s not a problem to fill prisons to capacity…and then build more.

I’m glad that way of thinking is being replaced. Just wish it would happen faster. In the US, I think it’s a generational phenomenon that started with Nixon and his “Drug War.” Remember Elvis?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oksmrzkoiB4

But what finally killed him was his addiction to prescription drugs. But I guess he wasn’t “strung out” so it was ok.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9moqxvcEbg

Phil…clearly you’ve never met a heroin addict. Of course, you really don’t need to test them to know and they do make really crappy employees/colleagues.

Actually I knew one quite well, she grew up with me, went to the same university as me, then somehow got into heroin (I think because of an addict boyfriend). She’s now clean and got married and doing very well last I heard.

Granted I didn’t see her much during her heroin years, but I knew she had a steady job. The heroin wasn’t the biggest problem, it’s the time and money spent getting the drug. Going to sketchy neighborhoods, dealing with sketchy people, blowing all your hard earned income on the stuff instead of buying healthy food etc…

And here’s a funny thing – She went into a rehab for heroin addicts, met a dude, and both started doing heroin again. And it makes sense, it’s like putting a bunch of sex addicts in a room together each week.

Oh really. Did you boycott IG Farben and all associated companies? Look ‘em up…

You see, these companies just do it anyways, regardless of any laws.

And libertarians want to allow it.

Libertarians allow abortion, doesn’t mean they all support it. Libertarians allow marijuana, doesn’t mean they all support it. Etc…

Self-respecting libertarians want none of this evil statist intervention such as laws against slavery.

Someone obviously doesn’t understand libertarianism.

I’ll assume Phil was in a hurry when he posted that statement above

No I stand by that statement – in a libertarian society, marijuana would be legal. And I seriously doubt any company would bother testing for it. Well, with the gazillions of companies out there, I’m sure they’d be a handful. How many test for alcohol nowadays? I guess there’s some out there. They’d be the same morons who’d test for pot. But in a healthy economy, there’s plenty of competition out there, disgruntled workers can just easily leave and work elsewhere.

I think there should be a law against asshole bosses. Seriously, I’d much rather take a piss test than have an asshole for a boss, I’d reckon many people would agree with me on that. So let’s join together to oust asshole bosses.

Phil – Well…I was good friends with one and he happened to be a colleague. One night, about 3am, he showed up at my doorstep pale as a ghost and dressed like Boy George. Smart kid with a dumb habit, not to mention shit to work with as he was incredibly erratic and unreliable. I found out the hard way that he was a user when I had him housesit my dog and came back early from the trip to find the apartment a wreck and the dog not tended to for a few days. Every pet owner’s nightmare.

Watch the movie “Permanent Midnight” starring Ben Stiller for a accurate portrayal of a heroin addict. Stiller was great in it, too.

#31 Can we assume the dog is a (possibly recovering) heroin addict now?

Yeah, Like you can actually fire people for poor performance in Finland.

This is a persistent myth on propaganda blogs such as this one. Since when can’t you fire people based on poor peformance in Finland?

Look they were all for liberalizing pot in Canada until they started to liberalize it. Then shockingly, it became a problem.

What exactly was the problem? US citizens buying Canadian weed, IIRC…

You see, these companies just do it anyways, regardless of any laws.

This is challenging to present in simple enough terms, but I’ll try:

Before 1945, IG Farben used slave labour at Auschwitz and manufactured Zyklon-B used in murdering people because the law allowed it and it was profitable to them.

When the law changed and the company was broken up, AFGA, BASF et al. no longer used slave labour or manufactured Zyklon-B.

Do you need pictures or should I bend some railroad track for you?

Someone obviously doesn’t understand libertarianism.

Someone obviously doesn’t, indeed.

The heroin wasn’t the biggest problem, it’s the time and money spent getting the drug.

You might want to read William Burroughs’ portrayal of the time he spent in Tangier on a steady allowance and virtually unlimited access to pharmaceutical grade junk (not heroin but oxycodone, though).

Since the entire deposition is too long for libertarians more accustomed to bumper stickers, I’ll just quote the relevant part:

“I found this vaccine at the end of the junk line. I lived in one room in the Native Quarter of Tangier. I had not taken a bath in a year nor changed my clothes or removed them except to stick a needle every hour in the fibrous grey wooden flesh of terminal addiction. I never cleaned or dusted the room. Empty ampule boxes and garbage piled up to the ceiling. Light and water long since turned off for non-payment. I did absolutely nothing. I could look at the end of my shoe for eight hours. I was only roused to action when the hourglass of junk ran out. If a friend came to visit–and they rarely did since who or what was left to visit–I sat there not caring that he had entered my field of vision–a grey screen always blanker and fainter–and not caring when he walked out of it. If he had died on the spot I would have sat there looking at my shoe waiting to go through his pockets. Wouldn’t you? Because I never had enough junk–no one ever does. Thirty grains of morphine a day and it still was not enough. And long waits in front of the drugstore. Delay is a rule in the junk business. The Man is never on time. This is no accident. There are no accidents in the junk world. The addict is taught again and again exactly what will happen if he does not score for his junk ration. Get up that money or else. And suddenly my habit began to jump and jump. Forty, sixty grains a day. And it still was not enough. And I could not pay.”

Somehow I feel that just selling smack at the 7-11 will not erase the problem.

“Since when can’t you fire people based on poor peformance in Finland?”

Heh, indeed. I have seen people guided out practically in classical niska-perse grip. This was a research group leader, whose research interests didn’t quite overlap with the given strategy. Then there was this ex-SUPO-agent-cum-Nokia-security-boss. He saw industrial espionage a bit everywhere and even had the police to do the niska-perse -gripping for few times.

In HKL, one DUI incidence, no matter how deep within your freetime, was enough to get you fired. This includes driving a moped drunk in the middle of the summer vacation and in the very privacy of your own livingroom. Another quick way out was having more than 150mk surplus or deficit in your realized ticket sales budget or hitting a bus with your foot nowhere near the railbrake pedal.

Kristian:
No, that’s not true….not entirely. However, one can describe modern Libertarianism as a mix of liberal economics and social liberalism.

Clearly you don’t have a clue what social liberalism is. I recommend starting with the Wikipedia article.

Sorry it’s a boring in the beginning, but it’s informative nonetheless…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6056430233482819142&q=libertarian

Oh gawd, the host’s droning suggested strongly that he’d fail a drug test.

This includes driving a moped drunk in the middle of the summer vacation and in the very privacy of your own livingroom.

Ha. I read that first with “moped” being an adjective instead of a noun and couldn’t quite decipher it. Perhaps I need to piss in a cup.

Franklin: “Clearly you don’t have a clue what social liberalism is.”

Then perhaps you don’t either?

Notice that you referred to my objection to drug testing as a form of Social Liberalism. Actually, it’s a form of Civil Libertarianism. You would have gotten that by listening to the “droning” doctor you criticized.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6056430233482819142&q=libertarian

However, I do have a Social Liberalism strain in that I support universal healthcare and basic welfare for all. Phil also supports universal healthcare, if I’m not mistaken. And I guess he also supports basic welfare.

Actually, it’s a form of Civil Libertarianism.

Libertarians have this habit of attaching a libertarian stigma to everything nice, warm and fuzzy. However, according to the central tenets of the ideology companies can ask you to amputate your legs for a job interview. As long as it’s “voluntary”. Period.

However, I do have a Social Liberalism strain in that I support universal healthcare and basic welfare for all. Phil also supports universal healthcare, if I’m not mistaken. And I guess he also supports basic welfare.

Then neither of you are libertarians. Period.

Hi,

I’m an Englishman living in Finland. The company I work for has sold off the department I work in to another company. The new company does drug testing (the old one did not). Can the new company force me to take a drug test? What will happen when I refuse? I mean, it’s not like I’m a new employee seeking a job, I’ve already got a job and it will be the same job after the sell off. Only the name of my employer will change. Not speaking Finnish very well makes gathering information rather difficult. Any comments will be most welcome.

Frank, is it NSN/TE by any chance?

You are free to decline the drug test. They may draw some conclusions but AFAIK can’t fire you on that basis. Naturally, this is not the best career move.

It’s too bad I’ve never had to take a drug test. I’d love to give them a cocktail of false positives.

The new company who have taken over my old workplace are ABB Service. I am working in the maintanence department of a large steelworks who have sold off the maintanence department to ABB Service, who will now be selling maintanence services back to the steelworks. I will be doing exactly the same job as before. Some of the limited amount of information I have found on the internet says an employer in Finland can insist on a drug test: “if the job requires considerable dexterity or independent thinking. The work must also be such that intoxication or drug dependency would cause a serious threat to life or health, or would carry the risk of other serious harm.” http://tinyurl.com/38rnaj this could be interpreted to encompass just about anything. I have never signed anything giving anyone permission to conduct a drug test on me. I assume that when my employment is transferred to ABB I will be required to sign a contract giving them the right to conduct a drug test. When I refuse to do this, they could decline to accept me as an employee, even though their contract with the steelworks says they will take over all of the present employees as ‘established employees’. I think this leaves me in some strange legal limbo. If ABB Service refuse to take me I assume I will still be empoloyed by the steelworks and it will be up to them to fire me. But then, on what grounds? I am in a very confusing situation.

I’m not a lawyer, but since you are an established employee in the new company, they can not ‘refuse to accept you’. They need to fire you.

The full text of the applicable law in English:

http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2004/en20040759.pdf

That’s useful information, thanks.

The irony of the whole affair is that I would easily pass a drug test, for me it is a matter of principle.

If I do decide to take the test then ABB Service will have earned my eternal hatred and I will find a way to exact revenge upon them before leaving. I hope others forced to undergo this degrading and humiliating procedure do the same, wherever they work.

This is one of the most braindead issues constantly raised by all kinds of human rights etc. liberty advocates. What about employer rights? Why can’t I have just the kind of workforce I want with any criteria I want? Isn’t that whole thing about choosing workers based on education and experience really bad too? I mean that means not everyone gets an equal opportunity to work there.

If drug-testing would really be a problem then the people working at the company would quit. Besides isn’t the whole point to have less goverment intrusion, not more?
Surely in the all powerful freemarket economy the company enforcing horrendous opressive testing for illegal drugs would just diminish?.

Principle? I happen to have a principle I can’t work more than 2 hours a day, oh yeah and principally speaking I’d like to work stone-drunk all the time too, where’s my human rights lawyer?

This whole post and issue is just stupid and redundant, but that’s not really a surprise considering the origin.

Of course employers have the right to demand whatever they want of those they plan to employ. As long they do not demand their employees don’t belong to certain races or religions or sexual orientations, they can demand very much what they like. They can demand that their employees stand on one leg every morning at five past nine and whistle Yankee Doodle while wearing a pink wig if they want to. I don’t mind. It’s their company, they can do whatever they want with it, as long as they let prospective employees know what they are getting into beforehand. Then at least people will know which employers to avoid.

What I object to is an employer suddenly turning up one morning out of the blue and ordering me to drop my pants and piss in a cup while the company nurse watches my willie real close to see if my precious pee that the boss covets as his own really is my pee and I’m not cheating on him. I never agreed to any such degrading absurdity before I was employed. And my pee is mine. What right does the boss have to suddenly demand that it is his? How much of what is mine will he claim ownership of? Will he demand the right to to come to my house and go through my garbage to see if there is anything he wants in there?

If he made such demands a condition of employment and he found some dumbfucks who agreed to it, maybe he would have a case. For him to turn up one day and start making such demands without prior agreement or permission is unreasonable and would be a gross violation of trust.

Any bond of loyalty would immediatly be broken and the employer would become a violator, not a co-contractee to whom I owe allegiance.

If my employers do insist on this unagreed violation of personal integrity as well as theft under threat, I will leave my present place of employment as soon as circumstances permit. I’ll get all the revenge I can by letting them know what I think of them (not that I suppose they will care, but it will make me feel better) and, as I have a way with words, I’ll write scathing articles ridiculing them and their piss tests which I will post on webzines and blogs far and wide. In fact it will be worth going through their test just to gather material. It could be fun.

And let me know if you find an employer who will take you for working two hours a day stone drunk. If I were an employer I certainly wouldn’t.

Frank Clough

A drug free environment is required to assure workplace safety and productivity.

Drug abuse in the workplace presents multiple challenges for employers, employees and associated constituencies such as insurers, suppliers, clients and shareholders. According to U.S. national data, over 12 million workers are drug abusers. This means that taking a proactive approach to the establishment of a drug-free workplace is a sound business decision, one that can help companies remain competitive in a global marketplace. Furthermore, a drug-free workplace program is arguably a legal corporate responsibility in the United States. Specifically, American employers have a legal obligation to provide a safe workplace under the OSHA Act.

Can’t speak for Finland, but above issues likely are similar.

A drug free environment is required to assure workplace safety and productivity.

It could be argued in the case of drug addiction. However, only occasional cannabis smokers get caught in random drug screens whereas serious users of all drugs know how to beat the urine tests. If anything, the toy tests create a false sense of security. I’m not against conducting a serious (expensive) drug screen on a case-by-case basis when the employer has actual reason to suspect drug abuse. This would mean GC/MS, which, among other things, doesn’t make junkies out of people who enjoy poppyseed bagels.

This means that taking a proactive approach to the establishment of a drug-free workplace is a sound business decision

At least to the companies manufacturing the tests.

I would favour a more holistic approach to workplace safety, one that would take into account other risk factors besides illegal drug use.

Hello Freeridin;

Thank you for your comments.

Another pevasive problem that is contributing to the pervasive problem of substance abuse is the the relative level of ignorance about the topic.

1. With oral fluid-based or blood testing, the time period of detection for marijuana is maximum of 18-24 hours, and usually, up to about 8 hours. This would virtually limit detection to people who are smoking on the job.
Few would argue that smoking on the job, especially if you work with equipment and / or drive to/from work should not be allowed. Granted the impairment period for marijuana is one to two hours, but concentration can be linked to impairment.
(By the way, the reason most “Positives” are marijuana, is because most drug testing is urine-based, NOT because most “problem drug abusers” elect to use marijuana. Components of marijuana are stored in the body and release far more slowly into urine than into blood or oral fuid.)
Lastly, the “problem drugs” in the workplace today are non-medical use / abuse of prescription drugs, and of course meth, cocaine, and heroin.

2. Well researched and developed immunoassay tests are critical tools both in the safety world and clinical world (look at HIV tests, etc.) That said, and immunoassay test…whether on-site or lab-based should be followed by either GC/MS or LC/MS.

3. I agree. Any safety program should be holisitic. Education / awareness training around all relevant procedures. That said, any safety program MUST include random drug testing via observed specimen collection. Most accidents are behavioral-based, not due to equipment failures, etc. More than 50% are related to substance abuse. Nonetheless, many employers take the “let’s fire drug abusers approach. This is also counterproductive. EAP and counselling are also key components.

Our watch replica price is cheaper than other website, and the watch replica is the good watch. you can choose any watch replica to placed order, Once we receive your payment, we will handle the watch replica shipment.