You're in charge of HR for a YUGE company. You have complete authority to test OR NOT for weed AND/OR alcohol. What do you choose?

[DrPepper12]

Some things to consider about this company:

It is an international conglomerate.

It is both a service AND manufacturing company.

Some positions are easy to fill; others are damn near impossible.

Both your employees AND your consumers span a wide spectrum of acceptance tolerance or ban on weed or alcohol.

The testing regimen for both weed and alcohol are the same cost and inconvenience.

These tests would reveal not just usage but HOW MUCH the employee consumes.

The shareholders have stated conclusively that there is no half pregnant. It's the four choices above and that's it.

Test the degenerate weekend warriors for weed AND alcohol

Don't test either. Chillax!

Test for the devils lettuce.

Test for liquid courage.

[msc545]

Really, nothing should be tested for at all since the company is not in the business of policing substance use. That being said, it probably makes sense if somebody's operating heavy machinery, including vehicles, to test for alcohol if there is some reason to suspect the person is inebriated. If we found somebody that was over a certain limit, say 0.08, I guess we would probably just get them an Uber or cab and send them home and maybe not pay them for the balance of the day. I know better than to punish people for using alcohol or weed. In regard to weed, I think if somebody is functioning well, there's no reason to really think about this too much or do anything about it including testing. That just doesn't make any sense. Also, I want to note that there is no good test whatsoever that can identify whether or not somebody is stoned on weed. Even the cops don't have a test, and we all know that if they had a good test they would be using it. Again, I reiterate, the company is not in the business of policing for weed or alcohol or any other substances. It is only when a person's behavior might become dangerous to themself or others that something would need to be done, but that might consist only of simply making sure they got home safely and leaving it at that. I suppose if we had a valued employee (and parenthetically all employees would be valued) that had an obvious drug or alcohol problem, we might provide them with counseling services and strongly suggest to them that they avail themselves of that while continuing to employ them and give them a chance to recover from their problem. I strongly believe in recovery from substance abuse because I have seen many people do that successfully, and the results are very gratifying for everybody involved. It is absolutely immoral to abandon or reject other human beings, just because they are having a problem with substances. These problems can be solved.

[jkreuger95]

I used to run I. T. for a large aerospace manufacturer. They did initial testing when hired and never again. I was told that you could drug test your workers or have a running machine shop. Not both

[DrPepper12]

Whoever told you that was wise.

[Anonymous]

Id make it company policy that doing drugs, drinking alcohol or being drugged at work is a stackable offence and that the company can test at any time but id largely turn a blind eye.

Take my grandfather. Before he retired he was a high up civil servant and civil engineer and used to look after a hundred road workers. He was at lunch one day with his wife and he saw road works lorry and van pulled in and he went to the bar and there were the 6 men from on of the crew firing back beers at 1pm on a Friday. When they saw him they were as white as a sheet. He didn't shout or scream at them but he walked over and asked for the keys and told them to go home early. Come Monday rather than sack them all, he let them off with a verbal warning. After that theyd done anything for him as anyone else would have sacked them.

[DrPepper12]

Wise man.

[purplepoppy]

I don't care if people get high or drunk on their own time just as long as they're fit to work come Monday. Turn up visably under the influence and there's the door.

[OneViewpoint]

It really depends on the job and the potential for injuries to the employee and others.

• Production line with heavy machinery.
• Forklift driver
• Aircraft pilot
• Truck driver
• Ship captains and crew
• Heavy equipment operator
• Work at heights, silos, radio towers, construction, electric high voltage towers
• Chemical handling and storage, benzene, butadiene, chlorine.
• Medical professionals
• Law enforcement / security where guns are involved

Liability lawsuits are a bitch. Liability insurance is expensive if lawsuits get to be a regular occurrence.

For back office workers and the receptionist, as long as they aren't intoxicated on the job, I don't care what they do on their own time.

[FunkyMonkee]

What is the main product that YUGE makes?
Probably not test for either unless one repeatedly shows up drunk. Smoke weed on the job, if you want, as long as it's not gonna hinder your production abilities or make you a risk factor on the job. I'd MUCH RATHER smell that than cigarettes!! If I HAD to test for one, it'd be booze!!

[loveslongnails]

The only thing I care about as an employer is that you do the job I hired you to do in the time and space needed to do it, and that your outside habits don't denigrate my company. I WILL fire you that.

[DrPepper12]

Smart 🤓

[DryGermanGuy]

Nothing. That's not happening here unless you caused an accident and/or are being suspected to be a danger to yourself or others at work.

[DonaldDarko]

If they're not intoxicated on the job why would I test? Of course random drug tests will be performed for actual controlled substances. We can not have junkies running around on the job ruining our company. We'll go out of business.

[Likes2drive]

I think you would definitely want to test for alcohol because if it’s still in their system while they are at work, then you got major problems

[exitseven]

who need s bunch of potheads.