Comments on: Kellogg Brown & Root: Discrimination and pre-employment drug testing

By: Eric Brazau

Eric Brazau — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:57:39 +0000

Question to ask! If you ask for 50 dollars while we make love are you a postitute?
I could have trace elements for a # of resons. I am inocent till proven guilty by a court. This is a fundamental pilar of society. What about testing for blood suger, blood presure, fat. if I am phisically fit trace with trace amounts a weed in my systyme I am still a heathier robust specamin than, A fat person. or a skinny person with hearth problems. Peraps soon they could run genetic sequencing

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:14:40 +0000

I think the fact that this was debated is wrong. If it is a companies policy to be a drug-free environment, the applicant or employee shouldn't even risk doing drugs with the possibility of being tested. Especially when the work environment could be hazardous without any impaired judgment, it was foolish to fight it. More companies should be using a Professional Employer Organization to administer tests. It ensures the policy of a company is secure and safe from anyone who tries to find a way around their "occasional habits."

By: Erin

Erin — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:55:58 +0000

Correct me if I am wrong… but isn’t marijuana ILLEGAL? Besides the fact that it impares a person (delayed reaction time, lethargy, etc.) YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SMOKE IT. Simple as that. I can’t believe there is any debate about this.

By: Johannes H. Schenk

Johannes H. Schenk — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:21:28 +0000

The conundrum posed here is that had that employee been on the job for even only one month a positive drug test would have likely led to some form of an accommodation being imposed on the employer in respect of that emloyee.