I got a question for the employers on this board; Let's

>>1459653
>corporate police state
Does what is best for the corporate police state. It was all initiated to get rid of the slacker so they get rid of the slacker weedman and keep the meth head or whatever.
Better yet, replace the lot with third world immigrants on work visas, or best, outsource the entire operation to China.

>>1459656
The police state thing was more meant as a point of exaggeration to solidify my personal opinion on drug screening, but okay.

>>1459653
Fire the slacker and sweep the other one under the rug. If its simply an excuse.

Personally I think employers shouldn't be able to do drug tests unless its for safety and then it should be on the site swaps not piss tests.

Get rid of the slacker and keep the other one of course. It's on you to decide whether or not someone should be working for you.
Also, i'd keep the positive results of your role model, in case you'd need a reason to get rid of him in the future.

>>1459653

If it's the first time in a long time you've done a drug test, and you do a blanket one, expect a lot of your high performers to leave.

People will view it as an insult, and find a place that they feel respects them.

>>1459691
This. I, nor most self respecting performers, would ever work for an employer that drug tests, fuck them with the force of a million coke fueled dicks.

The only exceptions as mentioned are jobs where safety is on the line. However most of those jobs actually turn a blind eye to stimulant use in the interest of that very safety. Better your crane operator is on adderall and running top performance for 10 hours straight than have him dozing off for even a minute.

I wouldn't rely on a drug test to be the decider, this is why you say you're an at-will employer and just fire him.

I fucking love the private sector, it's just about being better than everyone else. Public sector is just whining crying babies, he-said-she-said, 20 man hr and complaint departments etc

>>1459653
>Let's say you got this really slacker employee

I fire him for being a fucking bum. Who cares about their employees' private lives?

>Reading this thread
>In yuropoorland
>where you need to demonstrate a good reason before you can fire someone

File: forbes_quote_of_the_day.png (22KB, 576x345px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 576x345px

>>1460543
That's why you let all your employees set up their own private companies so they don't have the same rights as employees.

My parents do this. The employee is buttfucked because they can't get social security and pension anymore, thanks to the great trade unions that made it impossible to hire someone without getting screwed.

>>1459916
wow you're so awesome, yeah dude!!!!!!!

>>1459653
I can't imagine being so beta that one of my employees is fucking useless and I need a contrived reason to fire him

>Write him up for transgression #1
>Document 'educative steps' taken to 'improve' his performance
>Repeat 2 more times
>After 3 warnings, fire him

>>1460620
this

I would NEVER let an employee fuck me like this. If his work is that bad, document it and fire him. Most people who complain that it's "too hard to fire someone" just don't want to deal with the hassle of doing the paperwork.

>>1459653
No problems, no firing. I do not give a flying fuck what people do on their free time, nor should I.

This is why I think corporate culture is so fucked nowadays - employers seem to think they own employees on their off time, too. I've had prior employers tell me that I couldn't pursue certifications in my free time, I told them I'd quit if they tried to stop me. Pussies.

>>1460630
Truth.

>>1459653

Employer here.

I would never run a drug test. I don't give a fuck. As far as the slacker, I'd just fire his ass and cite job performance as the issue.