Insurance companies insure based on risk. If the insurer can reasonably assume fork lift operators or whatever aren’t impaired, there’s less risk and they can charge less for insurance. That’s really all there is to it
How would drug testing prove any of that? I could snort coke Friday night, pass a piss test Monday morning while chowing down on shrooms and jump right on that forklift.
Drug testing only catches people who used weed any time in the last month
It’s not about certain proof, it’s about reduction of risk. If you can’t/won’t even try to find someone who can pass, you probably have a higher risk. If you can, you’re probably lower risk.
I for one wouldn’t want to shop at a Home Depot with employees operating tow motors and other heavy equipment while high. If a customer gets killed by falling equipment while shopping then the lawsuit would be enormous. It would make the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit look like chump change.
When insurance companies aren’t allowed to mandate drug tests then they’re going to charge the store premiums commensurate with the assumption that all employees are on drugs. This would make it extremely expensive to run these stores and they’d pass the costs on to employees. This would paradoxically create an incentive for only drug-test-positive (drug using) people to work there! This phenomenon is known as adverse selection.
You realize they have the same policy for everybody from checkout clerks to corporate software developers, right? Even in positions that never get anywhere near any sort of dangerous equipment.
Hell, even pure software companies, that don’t have any employees where the issues you cite would legitimately apply, sometimes have the same bullshit allegedly-insurance-mandated drug testing.
Point is, a lot of this shit is driven by busybodies inventing excuses for their puritan moral crusade, not genuine risk.
(Full disclosure: (a) I have firsthand experience working as a software engineer at places that do drug testing, including Home Depot specifically, and (b) I don’t actually use drugs, so this pisses me off purely as a matter of principle.)
And I’m sure the discount varies based on how much of a risk there is with each work environment. Low risk workplaces like software companies are going to have much less of a difference in risk between drug-using and non.
The thing is, it’s almost never going to be zero. And if employers and insurance companies can save a few bucks by getting everyone to pee in a cup, they will!
Personally, I don’t have an issue with cannabis use. It’s legal here in Canada and I’ve even grown it myself. But I don’t think people should be getting high at work, just as I don’t think people should drink at work (despite how amusing it is on Mad Men).
Having said that, I’ve never had a drug test in my life. Maybe it’s not a thing for most jobs in Canada.
I thought drug testing was only done once, during the hiring process. If they’re drug testing on a regular basis that’s something entirely different. I would not support that unless the job actually required operating heavy equipment (including cars) or dangerous tools etc.
My former roommate is a drywall taper contractor and he’s told me many stories of people showing up to a job site high on meth and making a huge mess, causing dangerous accidents with tools, dropping heavy objects off unfinished upper floors etc. They definitely should be drug testing these workers regularly but they aren’t. He himself smokes cannabis but never when he’s at work. I would be fine if they tested for harder drugs but not cannabis. They should be conducting sobriety tests at work too though, as he’s also seen people show up to work drunk (though the foreman often notices this and sends them home if he’s any good).
That is genuinely the argument insurance companies would use, and they’re allowed to charge more for more risk, that’s the basis of insurance.
No one’s guilty, and insurance companies stent courts. If they had to do an innocent before guilty, everyone would get one free car wreck and you wouldn’t pay monthly for insurance until you wrecked someone.
That shit should be illegal. Insurance companies should not have that kind of power.
Drug testing should be illegal, with very rare, carefully regulated exceptions.
Your body chemistry is none of your employer’s business.
Insurance companies insure based on risk. If the insurer can reasonably assume fork lift operators or whatever aren’t impaired, there’s less risk and they can charge less for insurance. That’s really all there is to it
How would drug testing prove any of that? I could snort coke Friday night, pass a piss test Monday morning while chowing down on shrooms and jump right on that forklift.
Drug testing only catches people who used weed any time in the last month
It’s not about certain proof, it’s about reduction of risk. If you can’t/won’t even try to find someone who can pass, you probably have a higher risk. If you can, you’re probably lower risk.
I for one wouldn’t want to shop at a Home Depot with employees operating tow motors and other heavy equipment while high. If a customer gets killed by falling equipment while shopping then the lawsuit would be enormous. It would make the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit look like chump change.
When insurance companies aren’t allowed to mandate drug tests then they’re going to charge the store premiums commensurate with the assumption that all employees are on drugs. This would make it extremely expensive to run these stores and they’d pass the costs on to employees. This would paradoxically create an incentive for only drug-test-positive (drug using) people to work there! This phenomenon is known as adverse selection.
You realize they have the same policy for everybody from checkout clerks to corporate software developers, right? Even in positions that never get anywhere near any sort of dangerous equipment.
Hell, even pure software companies, that don’t have any employees where the issues you cite would legitimately apply, sometimes have the same bullshit allegedly-insurance-mandated drug testing.
Point is, a lot of this shit is driven by busybodies inventing excuses for their puritan moral crusade, not genuine risk.
(Full disclosure: (a) I have firsthand experience working as a software engineer at places that do drug testing, including Home Depot specifically, and (b) I don’t actually use drugs, so this pisses me off purely as a matter of principle.)
And I’m sure the discount varies based on how much of a risk there is with each work environment. Low risk workplaces like software companies are going to have much less of a difference in risk between drug-using and non.
The thing is, it’s almost never going to be zero. And if employers and insurance companies can save a few bucks by getting everyone to pee in a cup, they will!
Personally, I don’t have an issue with cannabis use. It’s legal here in Canada and I’ve even grown it myself. But I don’t think people should be getting high at work, just as I don’t think people should drink at work (despite how amusing it is on Mad Men).
Having said that, I’ve never had a drug test in my life. Maybe it’s not a thing for most jobs in Canada.
Right but drug testing means they can’t smoke out side of work. Why are you okay with your emplo5telling you what to do in your free time?
I thought drug testing was only done once, during the hiring process. If they’re drug testing on a regular basis that’s something entirely different. I would not support that unless the job actually required operating heavy equipment (including cars) or dangerous tools etc.
My former roommate is a drywall taper contractor and he’s told me many stories of people showing up to a job site high on meth and making a huge mess, causing dangerous accidents with tools, dropping heavy objects off unfinished upper floors etc. They definitely should be drug testing these workers regularly but they aren’t. He himself smokes cannabis but never when he’s at work. I would be fine if they tested for harder drugs but not cannabis. They should be conducting sobriety tests at work too though, as he’s also seen people show up to work drunk (though the foreman often notices this and sends them home if he’s any good).
Well, I think you should be arrested and jailed.
Just because we haven’t caught you, you must be a thief.
That’s how your argument sounds to me.
That is genuinely the argument insurance companies would use, and they’re allowed to charge more for more risk, that’s the basis of insurance.
No one’s guilty, and insurance companies stent courts. If they had to do an innocent before guilty, everyone would get one free car wreck and you wouldn’t pay monthly for insurance until you wrecked someone.
My stance is that insurance companies are for profit. Period.
In my mind, this negates all arguments for or against anything related to insurance.
Insurance is a racket.
Why should they be punished for what they are doing in their office time? Why does no drug tests automatically mean they are high at work?