Did you know that employed drug abusers cost their employers about twice as much as medical and workers compensation claims as their drug-free coworkers.
2007-01-04 02:35:46 · 13 answers · asked by linda r 1 in Business & Finance ➔ Careers & Employment
Only if their work is affected, I have been a drug user for 3 years and have never had a day off or felt that my work has been affected.
2007-01-04 02:39:43 · answer #1 · answered by nat 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
That is false statistics gathered by the drug testing facilities and insurance companies to scare employers into demanding drug testing.
Kind of like the fear that the movie Reefer Madness instilled in people who knew little about the real effects of the drugs themselves.
The point is the companies flout those statistics but what they do not realize is that with pre-employment drug testing drug users do not get hired, so how can they cost their employers 2x as much in med and work comp???
The fallacies in the drug war are incredible.
You are being lied to!!!
The only reason that employees should be tested is if there is any noticeable decline in workers performance.
Do not trust Law enforcement or government to tell you the truth.
They will be the first to let you know that they do not have to.
2007-01-04 10:42:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Illegal Drug use is just that - illegal. Regardless of the statistics, drug users are at a greater risk to cause ingury to themselves, other employees, or customers. The liability for an employer is great. If an accident occurs due to drug use, the employer's liability would be catastrphic. Employers should not only have the right, but the obligation to protest their investment, their employees, and their customers.
2007-01-04 10:49:48 · answer #3 · answered by ThePerfectStranger 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Most definitly....I work winth people who smoke dope and go to bars at lunch..they are most unproductive most afternoons...random drug testing should be used anywhere where employees can out the company at risk if anything happened..ie drivers of all sorts, nurses..etc..
2007-01-04 10:46:23 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Smoothie, aka Mr. SmartAss 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think all employers should have their employees tested for drugs. Just imagine if you were working with something toxic and you were high. Well, you would be endangering others around you.
2007-01-04 10:39:13 · answer #5 · answered by michelegokey2002 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes! I think all employees should be tested--I work for a tow company in Missouri and only the drivers are drug tested, I think the dispatchers should also be tested---I don't think it's fair
2007-01-04 10:42:13 · answer #6 · answered by biznitchil 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, if an employer has that right to test his employees and should use it. I was a drug addict for years, I'm going on my fourth year sober.
2007-01-04 10:38:22 · answer #7 · answered by BelzeeBob! 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think there are several positions in which it should be manitory!
others not so much. Basically any thing dangerous or dealing with large amounts of (cash) funds should only be offered to clean and sober responsible people.
2007-01-04 10:41:08 · answer #8 · answered by ladyjno7 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it depends on the drug they are testing for. I'm a believer in legalizing marijuana so that drug should slide, unless it effects your work.
2007-01-04 10:47:00 · answer #9 · answered by reapershotty 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes they should be tested and so should the people on welfare and any kind of assistance because I pay taxes and have to take a drug test so they should have to take a test to get my taxes!
2007-01-04 10:40:25 · answer #10 · answered by jmelea 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋