That is the crucial question. They're looking for suckers to pay extra for health insurance to subsidize all the truly unhealthy -- usually by their own choice -- people out there.
corporations drug screening for nicotine.
- Thread starter hakchuma
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
If you have to sign something to get hired that is looked at as a contract of employment. Whether it is an employee handbook or a actual contract. By you signing it you agree to the terms of employment. Unless there is something unconstitutional then it would be up held in a court of law. The first thing you will get asked is "Is this your signature?".
bigpond: Of course it's not false. You signed a contract agreeing to abide by the rules in place. Or, is your signature worthless? Your name, or reputation, is all you really own in life and take with you when you leave it. You take a man's money, you should deliver on your end honest, hard toil. Anything else is theft plain and simple.
Pretty sure emloyers have to notify you before you higher on that it is a policy of their's to do random drug tests and what they test for.
I'd personally go with, "I use medicinal nicotine to help with my schizophrenia. Trust met you don't want to see me off my meds.".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDdeOncpD5E
Companies can do whatever they want in at will working states. They can also terminate an employee for any reason they feel fit in these states. The nicotine testing goes hand in hand with the concept of companies offering health benefits. The idea is the belief that people who are nicotine users via tobacco products they are at higher risk for health problems and big corporations don't want to supply benefits for these people.
The thing I find horrible about this is, they are screening you for a legal substance you imbibed at home not at work. Others think this is OK I read in this thread. But just because I work for someone does not mean they fricking own me like a slave. Once I get off their property they no longer have any jurisdiction on me. Now that I am out of the service, no one gets to tell me what I do 24 hrs a day. Once this line crossing has become the norm, well now lets start weighing each employee once a week. Fat people cost money. Then hey you need to do a DNA test to see if you have any bad markers. I find it disgusting and lament a world that allows this.
Shanelktown, also companies may not want their employees to smell like a wet stale ashtray, when working around customers. Where did we get this idea that people are entitled to a job? One of the many things that kids aren't taught in school, You do not have a right to employment! And when you do get a job, it's not your job, it belongs to the employer.
Just sticking to smoking and leaving other medical conditions out of the debate as they are irrelevant. Studies show that smokers, cigarettes predominately, go missing more often on sick leave, have less than stellar work habits, etc than nonsmokers. Again they are just studies but, studies that CEOs pay some attention to as they try to improve the bottom line. Business is all about the bottom line.
There's a universal rule in employment, You're selling your services to the person or entity that employs you, you better be selling them what they want to buy, otherwise they will buy it from someone that will. You don't have to like it but Shane's assessment is correct. The only real penalty for an employer ("at will" States) in a involuntary termination is that if it is found to be without reasonable cause they become responsible for your unemployment compensation claim which in turn affects the rate they pay. It's also true that they can change the rules of employment at any time as long as notification is given. Like it or not, you're selling they're buying. If you don't want to sell what they want to buy they don't have to buy it (within the limits set by law. Race, gender, age, etc.). Unfortunately "Smoker" is not a protected category.
Actually I do not see how you can contain it only to tobacco. Once we allow this, then taking your argument of the company owns you all the time, the weigh ins and DNA screening to protect the business bottom line are a logical conclusion. So if your fat they can fire you, if you take a legal medication they don't like they can fire you, if you DNA indicates you have a predilection for Cancer or some other Disease they can fire you. All of what I listed will be in force to make sure the business has a good profit margin. Benefits and health care are what I did for many years. I am not a loony, well yeah I am lol, but not as it pertains to this discussion.
One can debate morality all day long, fortunately it's totally irrelevant because we have case law.
There's very little in US law that is plain and simple, particularly contract law. Morality is a nebulous thing, but morality is not legality and vice versa in this context. In the op's example, he may have signed a contract agreeing to drug testing. Yet, he's surprised and dismayed to learn that tobacco is considered a drug. Presumably, he's been drug tested before and perhaps nicotine is a new test. This is just one obvious area that a contract lawyer would seize upon.
By the way, what I said earlier is not based on opinion it's based on case law.
Corporations are subject to the rule of law, they (boards) can't do whatever they want. . They can be, and are, frequently sued for forcing employees to sign contracts that are unfair. Not everyone will agree to the definition of unfair, but one can be assured when a worker feels a grievance a lawyer will be there to help spell it out.
Holy cow. Where to begin...I'm not sure where Nazi's or Communist figure in to this one, but I'm pretty confident that neither Cuba nor China have an interest in the op's drug test. Those were the socialists you meant right? :nana:
As far as the pot thing goes, if it was medicinal and you were on schedule for your next dose...an argument could be made. On the flipside, if you face planted while walking back to your car you could potentially sue me for damages. Any who...
You refer to private property rights of corporations, but these only come in to play if the worker (the OP) negatively impacts the corporate working environment...on premises.... How does nicotine consumption, (note, they aren't testing for smoking specifically) negatively impact the work space? Smoking a pack of cigs in the break room, yes...wearing a nicotine patch (which will test positive), that's a big no.
It's not a question of opinion, that's the law as it now exists. If and when government determines a practice to be unacceptably intrusive they then prohibit doing it but until they do a company can engage in it. Most companies know that going beyond accepted limits only brings new regulation so they shy away from it. There have been several cases lately on Pot issues in states where it has been legalized and the universal ruling has been that an employer can terminate employment for conduct that is legal in a state if it violates their employment policy. Here again there are practical restraints. It can cost a company as much as $50,000 to defend its position in court even if they win. No company wants that expense for what they see as a frivolous matter. Because smoking now requires the employee to physically leave the building, for many companies smoking has become a "lost productivity" issue. A problem they believe cost a substantial amount of money.
In certain cases they may not be able to fire you, nor wish to, for violations of rules you agreed to to when taking employment. However, they may curtail your advancement, offer training or assistance, or just write you off and ignore you. If you are a critical, highly valued employee, well skilled, dependable, etc. they may choose to overlook what they perceive to be your negatives.
Some of the "what ifs" you mention are federally protected and a company would need to find other reasons for termination. Usually not hard to do.
If you agree to certain restrictions on your private life, smoking, upon employment then you've agreed to it, live with it. Simple! The company doesn't own you, you can exercise your right and seek employment elsewhere should you find the rules too much to for you to handle. This is usually only an option in areas where employment is high and companies are strained to find employees. Or, you have skills which are highly sought after. If you are a truck driver, you'd better be a damned good one. Not disparaging the truck drive, just an example.
Bottom line, net profit, is determined by many factors, profit margin being only one of them. The employee is not the one who determines if a profit is acceptable or good, shareholders (owners) do. An employee is simply a hired hand. As gloucesterman so ably pointed you are offering your skills and time for a price. The employer determines the value of your services. A lot of us value our services higher than the market will support.
Some of the "what ifs" you mention are federally protected and a company would need to find other reasons for termination. Usually not hard to do.
If you agree to certain restrictions on your private life, smoking, upon employment then you've agreed to it, live with it. Simple! The company doesn't own you, you can exercise your right and seek employment elsewhere should you find the rules too much to for you to handle. This is usually only an option in areas where employment is high and companies are strained to find employees. Or, you have skills which are highly sought after. If you are a truck driver, you'd better be a damned good one. Not disparaging the truck drive, just an example.
Bottom line, net profit, is determined by many factors, profit margin being only one of them. The employee is not the one who determines if a profit is acceptable or good, shareholders (owners) do. An employee is simply a hired hand. As gloucesterman so ably pointed you are offering your skills and time for a price. The employer determines the value of your services. A lot of us value our services higher than the market will support.
Actually the market determines the value of your services and time. In tight labor markets (high employment) labor is more expensive because the employer has to pay more and/or offer better conditions to attract and retain employees. The reverse is true in weak markets. As an example, during the middle 80s computer programmers were in short supply due to the explosion in that industry. They could name their price and working conditions. Many changed jobs like the rest of us change socks. Five years later many were out of work. Thousands had gotten into the field and the market was flooded, software sales were falling and no one needed these services. The interesting side note was that those that had been the whores for the money were the first to be let go. But Warren is correct in saying "if you don't like the working conditions go elsewhere." If you can't because of a lack of skills or low market demand, then YOU made the choice to stay knowing the conditions.
I love a good dogmatic response, Warren your awesome! First non of what I listed if federally protected, unless a new law has been passed.
Now for some fun, the company will no longer hire or retain employees that own or use firearms. These people are more likely to be violent in the workplace. For the saftey of all employees this is implemented immediately. Employees who the company feels may own or use firearms will be randomly tested with the parifin test at the employees expense.
The company will no longer hire or retain any employees that have a spouse or significant other that has a history of mental health problems. This is because employees that fall into this category tend to miss more work and when at work tend to be distracted and not productive.
Kids with health issues, nope can't work here.
Now for some fun, the company will no longer hire or retain employees that own or use firearms. These people are more likely to be violent in the workplace. For the saftey of all employees this is implemented immediately. Employees who the company feels may own or use firearms will be randomly tested with the parifin test at the employees expense.
The company will no longer hire or retain any employees that have a spouse or significant other that has a history of mental health problems. This is because employees that fall into this category tend to miss more work and when at work tend to be distracted and not productive.
Kids with health issues, nope can't work here.
Unfortunately the "statistics" show that smokers are less productive at work, and in addition call in sick more often due to illness. This is one of the reasons why some companies include e-cigarettes and vaping devices in their on campus tobacco ban, in an effort to maximize productivity.
The real culprit however are the discounts the companies receive from the insurance companies. I have found that some companies who can't easily replace employees who they have an investment in, will only drug test the minimum number of employees, in order to qualify for the insurance company discounts.
What pours salt in the wound for me especially, is the fact that my insurance benefits are more worthless now than they have ever been. I am simply paying premiums through my employer to save some money in the long run from being deducted come tax time thanks to the Obamacare Act. With a $2000 yearly deductible, I essentially have no insurance coverage, unless I develop a serious illness, or have an accident not covered by workman's comp.
I wish the cigar and pipe tobacco companies had the resources to sue the cigarette companies for all the troubles they have caused the rest of us.
The real culprit however are the discounts the companies receive from the insurance companies. I have found that some companies who can't easily replace employees who they have an investment in, will only drug test the minimum number of employees, in order to qualify for the insurance company discounts.
What pours salt in the wound for me especially, is the fact that my insurance benefits are more worthless now than they have ever been. I am simply paying premiums through my employer to save some money in the long run from being deducted come tax time thanks to the Obamacare Act. With a $2000 yearly deductible, I essentially have no insurance coverage, unless I develop a serious illness, or have an accident not covered by workman's comp.
I wish the cigar and pipe tobacco companies had the resources to sue the cigarette companies for all the troubles they have caused the rest of us.
- Status