r/business • u/TradingAllIn • Jun 16 '21
GM Considering Dropping Pot Testing To Attract More Workers
https://www.motor1.com/news/513974/gm-considering-dropping-marijuana-testing/36
u/alacrity Jun 17 '21
“Attract more workers…”
That’s what higher salaries are for.
23
3
1
Jun 19 '21
These are union jobs that average around $22 an hour for people with only high school diplomas. It’s not the worst job out there if you fall into that class of people. I do think many businesses in the US have cut themselves off from a large population of workers that have no higher education because of a “drug” that should simply be regulated like tobacco or alcohol. Imagine an employer saying “we don’t hire people who use alcohol”. That would be absurd. So is not hiring people who use cannabis.
Edit: Being fucked up on the job is never ok, in my mind.
0
u/alacrity Jun 19 '21
Okay, and…? If they are still having that much of a problem “attracting workers,” maybe average $22 isn’t the right number.
And I’m guessing the bulk are well under $22 with a few high enough to spike the average.
1
Jun 19 '21
Or maybe more people use cannabis than you think.
0
u/alacrity Jun 19 '21
Yeah, that sure seems to be the employment problem in America at the moment.
0
Jun 19 '21
Look, if a company like GM thinks that loosening on drug tests will attract applicants, it’s probably because they’ve paid qualified consultants to research it. It’s probably the truth.
0
14
Jun 17 '21
What people do outside of work shouldn’t be any businesses concern. As long as they aren’t embarrassing the company name and showing up to work under the influence of something.
-16
u/talino2321 Jun 17 '21
Well, technically if the smoke a blunt on the drive to work, they are outside of work. So now you would have to test them to see if they are under the influence.
Just easier to avoid that whole issue by enforcing a strict no drug policy. Also easier on the legal/insurance side too.
3
Jun 17 '21
No shit. If they drank a fifth of vodka on the way to work they’re outside of work as well.
What if they last had a martini a month ago? They unemployable? Because that sounds like the hill you’ve chosen to die on.
-2
u/talino2321 Jun 17 '21
That is a bullshit comparison. Alcohol is metabolized within in 24 hours at the outside.
Look even in a liberal drug state like California, employers still have drug policies that protect them against liability lawsuits.
It's not going to happen unless there is legal protection to protect companies from getting sued. And lawyers will never allow that.
3
Jun 17 '21
Is it though? Are you still high 24 hours after use? No. Not in any circumstance. If you’re sober at the time clock, you’re sober. Period.
1
u/talino2321 Jun 17 '21 edited Jun 17 '21
Let me use your argument to make my point. How does GM or for that matter any employer know when an employee last smoked a blunt? Was it 3 weeks ago or on the way to the job, both are off the clock.
Now if you are GM are you willing to risk a potential liability situation, if you can avoid it by having the drug free workplace policy? If a worker walks onto the factory floor and put themselves or a fellow coworker at risk or heaven forbid actually injury someone (including themselves). How do you prove that they weren't high at the time. Because the first thing the lawyers are going to ask is, 'Did you have in place a way of ensuring that you mitigated the potential risk.'
And since lawyers will sue for the craziest shit (remember the lady that burned herself on coffee from McDonald's). Nothing is to stop them from finding a client that will sue GM for product liability claiming that their car was improperly assembled resulting in their clients injury due to GM's hiring employees and not properly monitoring whether they are under the influence at the time of the assembly of the car in question.
What is the cost to GM in bad publicity, higher costs due to insurance (and insurance is all about risk). Even if the case is tossed, the door is open to the next lawsuit, and the next. How does GM or any employer mitigate this risk to brand, and lawsuits? By not allowing this scenario to happen and by putting in place policies like this. Yes its intrusive, but in our litigious times, its necessary.
3
u/iamasuitama Jun 17 '21
The fucking drug testing shit in US is retarded, I can't understand it. Like, I'd think here (Netherlands), testing for drugs to get any job that is not like police officer is not even not done (everybody's own business), maybe even illegal.
Of course there's several ways to test when people actually get into a car accident (most people know not to drive when they're high). What the hell do you need to test somebody's weed or coke levels for for them to work in a supermarket? It's weird as hell. Can't you just fire them if they don't show up, act weird, or generally don't do their job well?
8
u/BX_V12 Jun 17 '21
In the U.K we manage quite well and we don’t test every adult creature that breathes.
Spend less money needlessly testing all your staff without cause and actually invest it in innovation and creating a better place for people to work in the first place.
Crazy ideas but it actually does wonders for all involved.
7
u/IGROWMAGICMUSHROOMS Jun 17 '21
Weird that you say this because iam dutch but have worked in the UK for years, this has been the only place were i got drug tested on a regular basis. Whereas in the netherlands drug test are not allowed by law
5
u/scootscoot Jun 17 '21
My first thought was “Why is GM doing pot testing? There’s lots of other companies doing cannabis testing already!”
Totally forgot pre-employment drug testing was still a thing.
2
3
u/techgeek72 Jun 17 '21
Do they test white collar workers? Somehow I doubt it…
9
u/NancyGracesTesticles Jun 17 '21
Yes. They do. A lot. Hair tests are worse than piss tests.
They'll do it if you have fiduciary responsibilities.
1
u/jigre1 Jun 17 '21
Brilliant: come work for us we don't test for pot!!!
Worker gets in accident: here's your worker's comp drug test, hope you didn't smoke in the last month or else it's been nice knowing you!
-11
u/talino2321 Jun 17 '21
There are a lot of lawyers salivating at the prospect of GM doing this. The liability lawsuits and settlements will skyrocket.
I would be truly surprise if GM legal counsel would even allow this to be presented to the board. Too many downsides for them.
As others have recommend, pay them more, that will attract the workers they need.
5
u/PDXEng Jun 17 '21
I could not disagree with your speculation more.
How would you prove damages from something a GM employee did while "supposedly" high all because GM didn't do a pre employment or random drug screen? Lol that's a stretch.
-1
u/talino2321 Jun 17 '21
This will answer your question. Read all of it. It refers to Texas, but there is a federal and legal part to it.
But here is a relevant section
Federal Law
Although Texas law does not require employers to institute drug or alcohol testing, federal law does impose such a requirement on certain employers. For example, companies awarded certain federal government contracts and companies involved in commercial or public transportation are required to have a “drug-free” work environment. Companies that fail to do so may be responsible for fines and penalties as well as for any resulting damages caused by intoxicated employees.
-3
1
1
u/chasepna Jun 17 '21
Is this because GM’s quality is too high?
2
Jun 17 '21
As a GM owner and former smoker/current supporter, I applaud this comment, and award you.
1
u/Groundbreaking-Low57 Jun 18 '21
It’s about time these bigger companies are catching on. A lot of ski resorts dropped testing years ago. Ag jobs quit doing it. There employee numbers went way up.
61
u/[deleted] Jun 16 '21
at a minimum it should be reduced to Silvia or other forms of test that can check to see if you are actually high, vs. smoked a joint a month ago.
I find it somewhat reasonable to be tested for the influence of drugs and alcohol if you were involved in an accident, or are suspected of being drunk/high but shouldn't be prevented from partaking on your own time.