I heard a new phrase... Employee Vendor = benefit, and policy changes for work from home status...

[ronandannette]

I agree. It's not the changes that are necessarily problematic, it's that they didn't give everyone all of the information before they made their decision. That was a poor way to manage this.

I disagree. These are executive decisions and even right this very moment, upper management everywhere is working on long and short term strategic plans for their businesses. Looping into the process at an employee level is rarely a thing and decisions are rarely negotiable, nor should they be.

 

[BrianL]

I disagree. These are executive decisions and even right this very moment, upper management everywhere is working on long and short term strategic plans for their businesses. Looping into the process at an employee level is rarely a thing and decisions are rarely negotiable, nor should they be.

I agree that the executives can make decisions autonomously, but in this case they asked everyone to choose if they wanted to be in the office or remote beforehand, then applied different policies based that. If they were going to let people choose, they should have provided exactly what the choice would entail. Granted, they didn't have to let them choose at all, but I'd be pretty upset if I had made a choice only to have some unknown consequences tossed on that afterward.

 

[tzolkin]

OP here,
Maybe I should clarify... drug testing has/had always been a part of the employment agreement... This was not something new... since things were returning to normal, just the office people were being drug tested... to which they complained, so this was extended to the work from home employee's.. which is fair...

That makes more sense. When you said many employees were upset, I thought this was a new policy. I still don't really understand the purpose or necessity of frequent drug testing especially with the added cost of paying both an HR rep and a nurse to go to employees' homes to conduct the tests randomly.

 

[kdonnel]

That makes more sense. When you said many employees were upset, I thought this was a new policy. I still don't really understand the purpose or necessity of frequent drug testing especially with the added cost of paying both an HR rep and a nurse to go to employees' homes to conduct the tests randomly.

The theory is that regular users of illicit drugs are less productive, require more sick days, and have a higher turnover rate and the costs of the random testing program are less that what is recouped based on the theory.

I wonder if any independent studies have actually shown the results of a random testing program?

 

[tzolkin]

The theory is that regular users of illicit drugs are less productive, require more sick days, and have a higher turnover rate and the costs of the random testing program are less that what is recouped based on the theory.

I wonder if any independent studies have actually shown the results of a random testing program?

To my knowledge there are no studies that definitively prove any of these benefits for drug testing. The only conclusive study that I have seen to show a clear benefit of drug testing is in the transportation industry there is a decrease in accidents.

Employers can do pre-employment drug screening to deter/weed out heavy drug users from being hired and they can do "for cause" testing if they notice a problem with a particular employee. But having regular testing where they are sending two employees into people's homes just to conduct random testing seems unnecessary and a waste of money and resources.

I could see why a company may conduct random drug tests for factory workers or employees who operate machinery as that could potentially decrease injuries, but for productive employees who are working from home it seems like it's more about image or principle than actually serving a practical purpose.

 

[Snowflakey]

My boss sent an email last week going on about our companies commitment to a "greener environment" and went on stating they support remote working. Even allowing people to work hours other than 9-5. I'm an early bird so I'm working 5am until 3 or so each day - yes, I get overtime! I love it.....

 

[sam_gordon]

Employers can do pre-employment drug screening to deter/weed out heavy drug users from being hired and they can do "for cause" testing if they notice a problem with a particular employee. But having regular testing where they are sending two employees into people's homes just to conduct random testing seems unnecessary and a waste of money and resources.

I could see why a company may conduct random drug tests for factory workers or employees who operate machinery as that could potentially decrease injuries, but for productive employees who are working from home it seems like it's more about image or principle than actually serving a practical purpose.

I think the follow up from the OP said employees in the office are subject to random drug tests and having employees going to the homes for the tests is a way to keep things "equal".

 

[NotUrsula]

I think the follow up from the OP said employees in the office are subject to random drug tests and having employees going to the homes for the tests is a way to keep things "equal".

I think we get that, but the question is *why* are they subject to random drug testing? The expense of regular drug testing only makes sense if it is a workplace safety concern, so it makes sense in transportation, in certain medical settings, and in mechanized manufacturing/packing, but outside of those circumstances it doesn't make much fiscal sense.

None of those jobs can realistically be done working from home, so it's probably not related. If performance is the justification, then just fire those who don't meet standards.

 

[tzolkin]

I think the follow up from the OP said employees in the office are subject to random drug tests and having employees going to the homes for the tests is a way to keep things "equal".

I understand that. I just don't see the benefit of doing frequent random drug testing regardless of whether the employees are in an office or at home. I'm assuming they all have "office-type" jobs (and therefore not performing any dangerous tasks) since the OP said they were all working from home at some point.

I personally don't care if my office staff occasionally smoke/consume marijuana as long as they are productive and focused when at work. Just like I don't care if they drink alcohol when they are not at work. I don't see a reason to fire a fantastic employee because they failed a drug test, so I'm not going to do random testing and put myself in a position where I may need to.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

My company is trying to encourage people to return to the offices in a hybrid approach (3 in the office, 2 at home, or vice versa). I specifically am in the weird condition where my building is undergoing renovations that won't be done until 2023. They have temporary seating areas in place, but none of us want to come into the office, it's dumb. I'll wait until the renovation is over.

We haven't heard about any changes to benefits yet based on whether you are remote. 40% of our employee base was remote to begin with, so I'm not sure they are going to go down that road.

 

[sam_gordon]

I understand that. I just don't see the benefit of doing frequent random drug testing regardless of whether the employees are in an office or at home. I'm assuming they all have "office-type" jobs (and therefore not performing any dangerous tasks) since the OP said they were all working from home at some point.

I personally don't care if my office staff occasionally smoke/consume marijuana as long as they are productive and focused when at work. Just like I don't care if they drink alcohol when they are not at work. I don't see a reason to fire a fantastic employee because they failed a drug test, so I'm not going to do random testing and put myself in a position where I may need to.

My opinion is I don't think companies are worried about marijuana and appropriate levels of alcohol. It's the other drugs that are more of a concern. Would you be ok with your employees using cocaine? heroin? I mean, as long as they're productive and focused at work?

 

[tzolkin]

My opinion is I don't think companies are worried about marijuana and appropriate levels of alcohol. It's the other drugs that are more of a concern. Would you be ok with your employees using cocaine? heroin? I mean, as long as they're productive and focused at work?

If you have a policy of conducting random testing on a regular basis, marijuana users will either choose to not work for you or you will be forced to fire them when they fail a drug test. You say that most companies are not worried about marijuana, but since that is the most common that will be the majority of what comes up on random drug screens. It seems unnecessary to get rid of employees over something that you are not concerned about.

As for the second part, of course I don't want my employees abusing "hard" drugs. That said, there are lots of things that I do not want my employees to be doing outside of work (domestic violence, drunk driving, etc) but unless that behavior affects their work or they are arrested for it I have no way of knowing what they are doing in their own home and therefore no reason to fire them over it. If their drug use or other illegal activities become a noticeable problem, then that would be enough reason to fire them regardless of whether I conduct random drug screens or not.

 

[kdonnel]

My opinion is I don't think companies are worried about marijuana and appropriate levels of alcohol. It's the other drugs that are more of a concern. Would you be ok with your employees using cocaine? heroin? I mean, as long as they're productive and focused at work?

Carl Hart a Columbia neuroscience and psychology professor thinks you should be ok with any and all drug use. He makes a compelling argument in this podcast.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-arent-all-drugs-legal-replay/

 

[sam_gordon]

If you have a policy of conducting random testing on a regular basis, marijuana users will either choose to not work for you or you will be forced to fire them when they fail a drug test. You say that most companies are not worried about marijuana, but since that is the most common that will be the majority of what comes up on random drug screens. It seems unnecessary to get rid of employees over something that you are not concerned about.

Well, that's *me*. If a company wants to fire someone for marijuana usage, that's up to them.

As for the second part, of course I don't want my employees abusing "hard" drugs. That said, there are lots of things that I do not want my employees to be doing outside of work (domestic violence, drunk driving, etc) but unless that behavior affects their work or they are arrested for it I have no way of knowing what they are doing in their own home and therefore no reason to fire them over it. If their drug use or other illegal activities become a noticeable problem, then that would be enough reason to fire them regardless of whether I conduct random drug screens or not.

So, if you find out they use cocaine, as long as it hasn't affected their job, you keep them on? Not sure I would agree with that. At least try to get them some help.

 

[lowlight]

Well, that's *me*. If a company wants to fire someone for marijuana usage, that's up to them.

So, if you find out they use cocaine, as long as it hasn't affected their job, you keep them on? Not sure I would agree with that. At least try to get them some help.

The average middle class worker isn't snorting lines in the bathroom. That stuff is expensive. Randomly drug test Congress and Wall Street and you'll probably get rid of 80 percent of the management.

 

[SC Minnie]

Years ago, one of the companies I worked for started random drug testing with corporate office personnel then pushed it out to our manufacturing facilities. They started with corporate to side step issues with the unions. About half of the manufacturing locations were union so they started with corporate so it would not be seen as singling out union workers.

 

[LovesTimone]

I think the follow up from the OP said employees in the office are subject to random drug tests and having employees going to the homes for the tests is a way to keep things "equal".

OP here...

My opinion for what's its worth... is first its a privately owned company, so they make the rules... you are told up front that it is a drug free work space, so you know going in that drugs are not allowed.... so whatever your stance on them is not up for debate with the company... It's a drug free work space, and if you enjoy this type of thing, and lifestyle its best that you look for somewhere else to work, and not apply... this way your not wasting the company's time and resources, and your not wasting your time either...

Employer's have all kinds of reasons for having a drug free work space... insurance cost, workman's comp., safety of all employees, image of their company, alot goes into this. Some have personal reasons for it... It's their company, their rules...

I have worked in both environments...and 100% working in a drug free work space is for me... I worked in a client service industry, where we had direct contact with clients, and customers... when someone comes back from lunch so high that they can't form a sentence, much less focus on what is happening around them, or do their job and guess what, someone else had to do it, and they still got paid...

True story... I walked into the restroom after lunch one day, and found a young woman lying on the floor, unconscious, in her own vomit, she was OD'ing.. I had worked in health care so I had some very basic skills, I opened the restroom door, and My boss said I screamed code blue, which I don't remember, I was calling 911, I turned her on her side so she would not choke to death on her own vomit, then I saw the blood from where she hit her head, my boss came in and was freaking out, and he said I told him to shut up, and get me something to press on her head to stop the bleeding... I totally focused on the 911 operators voice, Is she breathing... Yes.. I can just barely see her chest moving, Check for a pulse, I could not find it at her wrist, I did find in at her throat, its was thready, weak and slow...can you do CPR, Yes I have been trained, is there a AED... Yes someone has gone to get it... Thankfully paramedic got there they had to give her narcan, several times... I will tell you it seemed like a life time, from the time I called 911 to when the paramedic arrived was only 5 minutes... Once they got her stabilized and transported... The paramedic, said you did good...and with that, I sat down and cried... I found out later that she had come for an interview...and that she had smoked a little weed, that was laced with fentanyl... I'm not sure if she knew it, or someone did it without her knowing... so for me the phrase "it's just a little weed" doesn't cut it..

Our friends have a fence and landscape business... their maintenance person, fell off a ladder while changing a light bulb in the office, broke his arm, and collar bone, and had to have surgery, the drug tested him and he was high, on weed... Well that cost them, a ton of money... they had to foot the workmans comp bills, pay all the medical, prescription, therapy, plus he was getting 60 percent of his salary that they had to pay... then on top of that the workman's comp insurance that they have to carry, the premiums went up.... If this was your business how do you think you would react? Would he have fallen off the ladder if he had not been high... that can be debated...

I have a artist friend who smokes weed, he said it help him get creative, relax and get into his work... he works for himself... so he's the boss and makes the rules..

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

Employer's have all kinds of reasons for having a drug free work space...

I'm all for a drug free workplace but I also don't like dictating what people can do outside of work. Drug testing generally isn't checking if you are currently high on a substance but if you have used that substance in the last X days/weeks/months. Coming to work high is different from smoking a joint on a Friday night but they are punished the same way.

I'm in one of the states that has legalized recreational marijuana though so my opinion/tolerance may be a bit different than others.

 

[NotUrsula]

A maintenance worker would be one of those professions where testing is a safety issue, so I'd have no problem with that. I'll amend my previous list to include anyone using power tools or hazardous machinery of any kind, or anyone who has to climb ladders as a normal part of their job.

The situation with the young lady in the restroom is unfortunate, to be sure, but as she had not yet been hired, drug testing wouldn't have prevented it. (Very few places that test office-type workers test on interview day; they usually set up a test time later, and in her case, even had she failed, the emergency would still have happened.)

BTW, an attorney friend of mine pointed out that WC is not limited to premises liability issues. Moving your workforce offsite does not eliminate the need to carry WC insurance.

Also, comp statutes in almost every state provide for reduction of and even forfeiture of benefits if your injury arises directly out of the use of a controlled substance in contradiction of employer policy. I'm perfectly fine with policies that say you don't come to work under the influence and you don't ingest it at work; that's not what we're talking about. It's just the expense of regular blanket or blanket random testing that I think makes no sense for a typical office-type environment; testing for cause is fine by me. If you're acting high as a kite at work and your employer requires that you either be tested immediately or fired, that's reasonable.

 

[LovesTimone]

I'm all for a drug free workplace but I also don't like dictating what people can do outside of work. Drug testing generally isn't checking if you are currently high on a substance but if you have used that substance in the last X days/weeks/months. Coming to work high is different from smoking a joint on a Friday night but they are punished the same way.

I'm in one of the states that has legalized recreational marijuana though so my opinion/tolerance may be a bit different than others.

OP here

For me personally, I want to work in a drug free work space, working with and around people with clear mind for me is just a better working environment ...

In thinking back most of the time from my experience that when they perform random drug testing.... it's for a reason... When I was working in an office, normally if they wanted to test someone, they would test everyone in the office... 4 or 5 of us, along with the management team ... So that no one could claim bias... Most companies aren't going to spend the money for something like this not unless they are pretty sure of what's going on...

Another thought is that with Marijuana becoming more prevalent and accepted in society, and legalized in some states how do you handle this?...
The problem I see is how to you differentiate between all the different scenarios that can come up...? As well take all of the employee's concerns into account...?

Still if a companies policy is a drug free work space...and you know going in that's what is required...