Big Brother is watching you (& your cigarettes)

[angledge]

A US firm sacks four of its workers after they refuse to take a test to determine if they are smokers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4213441.stm

Comments

[sskipstress.livejournal.com]

Before January 2005, employees could claim smoker or non-smoker status. All employees claiming non-smoker status were subject to random testing for tobacco use. As of September 2004 employees not claiming non-smoker status were encouraged to join a program to help them quit. At that time they were advised that anyone who didn't meet their criteria for non-smoker would no longer have a job as of January 1, 2005. The company claims that of the 20 "smokers" 15 of them entered the program to quit and 3 resigned.

I would like to know if the 4 who refused the tests had previously claimed to be "non-smokers"

The company, like many others, also performs random tests for alcohol and drug use. Is the recent smoking issue any more wrong than this common practice?

[angledge.livejournal.com]

The company, like many others, also performs random tests for alcohol and drug use. Is the recent smoking issue any more wrong than this common practice?

Heck, *I* get randomly tested for illegal drug use at my job. Emphasis on illegal drug use. I suppose an argument can be made that an employer should be allowed to make sure its employees aren't using illegal drugs.

But testing for alcohol use & smoking? I think that's going too far. Legal activities that employees engage in while not at work are nothing their employers has any right to know. I applaud companies that offer smoking cessation programs & the like, but they should not be allowed to go prying into their employees' non-work lives.

I remember reading a not-so-distant science fiction novel where a character consulted a lawyer after his employer looked at his genetic profile, determined he was suspectible to carcinogenic mutations from chlorine, & ordered him to stop swimming in chlorinated pools. Horrors!!

[sskipstress.livejournal.com]

The only reasons I can see for testing for illegal drugs are the loss of productivity if that person gets caught or lack of performance due to effects of the drug. I don't see how the first is the employer's business anyway. The second case is the employer's business, but should be a reactive drug test based on suspicion due to performance issues rather than a random procedure.

[angledge.livejournal.com]

The random nature of the tests is supposed to be a deterrent. Also, a random drug-testing policy is required by the Federal government on some contracts (specifically, anywhere where our company's employees could endanger human health or the environment if they're working while impaired).

[llefser.livejournal.com]

I suppose an argument can be made that an employer should be allowed to make sure its employees aren't using illegal drugs.

On company time, perhaps. But I don't think it's the company's business to know what its employees do on their own time. It's bad enough that we tolerate this sort of intrusion over illegal substances, but to extend it to legal ones is completely wrong.

Sure, a privately owned company can do what they want provided it's legal, and this isn't illegal. But perhaps it should be.