Why do companies that are hiring mention "random alcohol testing"?

W

WinAZ

New Member
While looking for a PT gig to supplement my fixed income, I ran across a job listing that says "subject to random drug and/or alcohol testing."

Drug testing makes sense, but what about alcohol testing? How could this be done?

Doesn't alcohol leave the body within hours? Would such testing take place in the morning when a person shows up for work?
 

If you party till 2AM then go to work yes you could still be drunk so an employer isn't going to want you driving or running equipment. Or if there's a workplace accident an employer can immediately test you, if you test positive for drugs or alcohol you can be held liable.
 

Generally, under the law of Agency, the Employer is liable for the acts of its employees, exceptions concerning State laws. Having this as being on record may be essential in legal proceedings.
 
ohioboy said:
Generally, under the law of Agency, the Employer is liable for the acts of its employees, exceptions concerning State laws. Having this as being on record may be essential in legal proceedings.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, testing should only be permitted if a person is suspected of using drugs/alcohol on the job, coming in under-the-influence, or if the job involves safety issues.
 
I don’t think a person drinking in moderation (off the job, the night before) would have anything to worry about. Personally I don’t drink, but if I did, it would be in extreme moderation, and I would take care not to cause some struggling alcoholic to stumble.

I just watched a documentary on the Prohibition. Clearly it was a mistake. But I am very much in favor of laws that come down hard on drunken behavior that harms others like drunk driving or domestic abuse.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the replies.

Alcohol testing during work hours to determine if an employee is under the influence in the office makes sense.

I was thrown off by the word "random." Started envisioning Monday morning tests to see if someone had a few beers over the weekend...
 
WinAZ said:
Thanks for all the replies.

Alcohol testing during work hours to determine if an employee is under the influence in the office makes sense.

I was thrown off by the word "random." Started envisioning Monday morning tests to see if someone had a few beers over the weekend...
Click to expand...
Unless there's reason to suspect the person, it's still a violation of 4th Amendment rights.
 
JaniceM said:
In my opinion, testing should only be permitted if a person is suspected of using drugs/alcohol on the job, coming in under-the-influence, or if the job involves safety issues.
Click to expand...
I'd want my kids' school bus driver to be tested.

And I like random testing because it's possible for an offender to clean their system for scheduled testing.
Parolees and parents under CPS "scrutiny" do it all the time.
 
Murrmurr said:
I'd want my kids' school bus driver to be tested.

And I like random testing because it's possible for an offender to clean their system for scheduled testing.
Parolees and parents under CPS "scrutiny" do it all the time.
Click to expand...
School bus drivers might be one example of jobs with safety issues.

However, as far as 'cleaning their systems,' info that's come up in work projects proves when someone's goal is to 'get away with' something (such as drug use), there's virtually no limit to their options.

In contrast, testing law-abiding citizens who'd never even consider using drugs is humiliating, degrading, AND insulting, unless there's a work-related need for it, or some other special circumstances like you mentioned.
 
JaniceM said:
Unless there's reason to suspect the person, it's still a violation of 4th Amendment rights.
Click to expand...
No, not with a private employer. Could there be instances where it "could" happen, yes, if the seemingly private conduct is such a close nexus as to entwine a State Actor's conduct.
 
JaniceM said:
School bus drivers might be one example of jobs with safety issues.

However, as far as 'cleaning their systems,' info that's come up in work projects proves when someone's goal is to 'get away with' something (such as drug use), there's virtually no limit to their options.

In contrast, testing law-abiding citizens who'd never even consider using drugs is humiliating, degrading, AND insulting, unless there's a work-related need for it, or some other special circumstances like you mentioned.
Click to expand...
I submitted to random testing when I worked in a saw mill, when I operated heavy equipment, and while I was a psych nurse who dispensed medications. I didn't find it degrading at all, but maybe that's just me.
 
ohioboy said:
No, not with a private employer. Could there be instances where it "could" happen, yes, if the seemingly private conduct is such a close nexus as to entwine a State Actor's conduct.
Click to expand...
Private employers can get away with a lot of things that are normally illegal. I encountered a few of those myself. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't lose if they were sued.
 
Murrmurr said:
I submitted to random testing when I worked in a saw mill, when I operated heavy equipment, and while I was a psych nurse who dispensed medications. I didn't find it degrading at all, but maybe that's just me.
Click to expand...
Your post brought up a thought: I've seen numerous local news stories about individuals working in daycare centers and even in charge of daycare centers, that were 'seriously intoxicated;' and nurses that worked at hospitals stealing prescription medications... no testing required for those fields?
 
win231 said:
LOL - I worked at an aerospace plant where that would cause many engineers to be sent home.
They were on a "Liquid Diet." :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I believe it. The last place I worked didn't drug test and neither did my present job. I have been drug tested in the past as part of the hiring process. At my last job, I asked the guy doing my initial orientation why they didn't drug test. He replied "because half the front office would fail." He wasn't joking and as I dealt with some of those clowns, I'm convinced he was right.
 
JaniceM said:
Your post brought up a thought: I've seen numerous local news stories about individuals working in daycare centers and even in charge of daycare centers, that were 'seriously intoxicated;' and nurses that worked at hospitals stealing prescription medications... no testing required for those fields?
Click to expand...
Might depend on the actual job. Drug addicts and drug stealers are slick. They will know what to do, how long to stay clean, to pass a drug test. Once they are in, it might be a rarity to do routine drug testing. I actually don't know this. Many doctors, nurses and pharmacists have drug addictions. So I have heard.
 
JaniceM said:
Your post brought up a thought: I've seen numerous local news stories about individuals working in daycare centers and even in charge of daycare centers, that were 'seriously intoxicated;' and nurses that worked at hospitals stealing prescription medications... no testing required for those fields?
Click to expand...
I think that varies from state to state. And I don't know if all 50 states require background checks to get a day-care license or to work at one. Calif does, but random testing isn't required, just as it isn't required for school teachers and faculty. Teachers under the influence on the job is extremely rare, though, right? ...below college level, at least. :giggle:
 
The federal government randomly tests me, drugs and alcohol. (USA) I just did a pre-employment drug screen where I expect to be pure pure.
 
I worked for a company that employed approx 1,000 truck drivers, and DOT mandated random drug/alcohol testing, and as a matter of company policy, the random testing was extended to cover all employees. All new hires had to pass a drug screen (I remember at least a couple of accounting types that failed, and tons of drivers) and any on the job accident was also a trigger for a screening. It is just part of life in America in the 21 century.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top