Would you ever fire a very good employee because they failed a drug test?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No and I can't understand why anyone would. If they have great performance and are obviously never under the influence at work why care?

Then again I have yet to hear of this ever happening and suspect "random" drug tests are just targeting people the company wants to have an excuse to fire anyway. That's why I'd be in favor of banning drug tests except in cases where the company can provide evidence that the employee has to come to work under the influence.

[tpfkaw]

No.  I probably wouldn't even do drug tests at all (provided it's a white-collar job where it would not be dangerous for someone to be under the influence).  If someone were performing poorly, I would fire them, and if they weren't, I wouldn't.  But banning drug tests is ridiculous.  FWIW the reason why mandatory drug testing is so common is because "anti-discrimination" provisions mean that nowadays as soon as you fire someone they call up their lawyer, so businesses try to find several different reasons to fire someone lest they be challenged in court.

[dead0man]

Why would you give somebody a drug test if you weren't going to fire them if they failed?

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Only if it hinders their performance on the job.

[SvenssonRS]

Depends on the circumstances. There are quite a lot of things to consider.

Lean "no".

[Хahar 🤔]

If the job involved handling heavy machinery, yes.

[useful idiot]

Ever? Yes, if it was a serious enough drug and I gave them a second test to be sure it wasn't a false positive.

I mean, would you really want a meth addict working for you? If it hasn't effected their work before then, there's a helluva good chance it would in the future. Of course, giving them time off with the promise that they go into drug treatment with tests afterwards would probably be the best solution...

[RosettaStoned]

Yes, of course.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Yes, of course.

[fezzyfestoon]

Of course not, I'd only fire someone if they were bad at their job.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ever? Yes, if it was a serious enough drug and I gave them a second test to be sure it wasn't a false positive.

I mean, would you really want a meth addict working for you? If it hasn't effected their work before then, there's a helluva good chance it would in the future. Of course, giving them time off with the promise that they go into drug treatment with tests afterwards would probably be the best solution...

How about if it was positive for pot?

[Associate Justice PiT]

If the job involved handling heavy machinery, yes.

     Agreed with this. My boss once fired a guy who was a very good worker for testing positive for meth & pot simultaneously on no fewer than three different occasions. Given the sort of job he had to do, there's really no excuse for being stoned on the clock.

[angus]

oh hell yes I'd fire him. 

The only reason ever to give a drug test is because your insurance company requires it.  And if you have chosen that particular policy, it is because either their rates were the best or because they had the best package.  Generally, I'd try to avoid doing drug testing on anyone and I don't have a problem with folks doing drugs on their own time, and I'd try to avoid such insurance requirements when possible.  But if I were ever in the position of having to sacrifice either the principle of insuring my employees at a manageable price or the principle that what you do on your time is your business, then the money principle wins out.  The unfortunate sap can always get another job--I'd even give him all the help I could in that regard if he were a good employee--but the rest of the staff shouldn't suffer, either in the form of lower wages or of not having insurance, just on principle.

[useful idiot]

Ever? Yes, if it was a serious enough drug and I gave them a second test to be sure it wasn't a false positive.

I mean, would you really want a meth addict working for you? If it hasn't effected their work before then, there's a helluva good chance it would in the future. Of course, giving them time off with the promise that they go into drug treatment with tests afterwards would probably be the best solution...

How about if it was positive for pot?

No. You didn't specify the drug in question in your OP, but pot is a whole different story from other drugs that will almost inevitably lead to problems that affect on job performance. If anything, if I knew my employee was a drug addict(again, not pot), I'd feel a responsibility to intervene and tell them they need to get clean to work for me.

[dead0man]

I'm still trying to figure out why a company would pay to drug test somebody for no reason at all.

[Earth]

No. I'm interpreting this like if I were a supervisor, and I didn't have a say in whether or not to give them out, just in the hiring and firing. If I owned a business, I'd never resort to a drug test. I wouldn't even fire a not so good employee if they failed a drug test.

[The Dowager Mod]

Yes.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No.

[Earth]

Yes.

Why? Your scores seem to suggest otherwise.

[??????????]

Earth what about a CDL holder?

[Earth]

Earth what about a CDL holder?

That depends. If I were a business owner, I'd take them off their route, and reassign them to a job where their methed out antics wouldn't get anyone killed, and I'd try to get them to go to rehab. If I were only a supervisor, I guess I could only attempt the former.

If their work suffers more and more, I don't think there's any other option besides letting them go, but it would have to get serious. But if you're a user, and it doesn't effect your work, it's not my business.

[Gustaf]

Assuming it's a real drug and not marijuana, yeah. Drugs make people terribly unreliable.

[The Dowager Mod]

Drugs are illegal, break the law and you don't work for me.

[Semaphore]

If an employee starts showing up for work while under the influence of drugs, I doubt that he will continue to function normally. If he refuses to stop working while under the influence, he needs to go. I certainly don't want to be liable for workplace accidents and other problems caused by someone whose judgment and perception are impaired by drugs. I'm sure that I could be in even more trouble if there was evidence that I knowingly allowed such an employee to continue working despite failing a drug test.

Maybe some people want to think that working while drugged makes a person really hip and cool and scene and thus getting rid of such an employee would make my company uncool, but I'm more interested in not getting my company into trouble.

[tpfkaw]

Yes.

Why? Your scores seem to suggest otherwise.