Your boss should have hired more people to replace those who failed the test immediately, or had backup employees ready to step in. It's not fair to you or your coworkers to have to work that much more for doing the right thing.

I don't know why everyone is slagging off the boss so much, it's the employees' faults for taking drugs in the first place

for letting off people with drugs problem? hmm.. sounds like a real bad manager to me..

#1 stfu the boss did the responsible thing to fire those druggie bastards. Eventually he's going to hire more people and take the load off OP

I understand that the boss is not breaking any rules in ordering a drug test and firing those who fail the test. However, the question is, is it the right thing to do and is it good for business? It's obviously not good for employees to come into work under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but a good boss shouldn't meddle with what employees do outside of work (drug tests generally test not for current intoxication but for prior use, even if several days or weeks prior), provided that it doesn't affect work quality. If it does affect work quality, then the employees should be disciplined/fired for not doing their job. Firing the majority of the work force is much worse for the business than keeping employees that smoke weed outside of work hours.

correct, in THEIR FREE TIME, what you do at work is still up to your boss and you shouldn't do it before... that's just my opinion and I don't know why that's so unpopular.

it's not that unpopular of an opinion, but like the other commenter pointed out the drug test will show anything used in the last few weeks. If a staff member comes in under the influence then that staff member should be handled accordingly. Firing more than half the workforce, with no back up, for something they may have actually fine weeks ago on their own time is not the most responsible way of handling a situation.

Employers don't want the risk of having people who us illicit drugs. When accidents happen and someone involved used illicit drugs, the company is liable.

The employer likely had problems with employees working while under the influence. For the people saying that what they do on their own time shouldn't have anything to do with being employed, I disagree to an extent. I'm not comparing this to drugs, but say your new employee spends his free time breaking into people's houses and taking everything while the person is asleep. Or what if your new employee is a serial killer? Does this change your opinion of wanting the employee to work for you, even though they haven't stolen or killed at work yet? When you're employed somewhere, you always represent that company whether you like it or not. People can recognize you. Maybe someone complained to the boss about seeing several employees getting high on crack. Sure, it's outside of work hours, but that person's opinion is still that all the workers get high on crack. Look at Rob Ford as an example. He got belligerently drunk and high. It was out of work hours, but he still represents the mayoral office.

People also forget what they post on social media can get them in trouble and or fired if it can make the company look bad or is illegal. It's not protected in any fashion. That's why companies will do a search on new employees or current ones to see if they are partying too much or doing other things that might indicate they are irresponsible and potentially a liability for the company. That's also why you don't post pictures of you high, or drunk doing stupid stuff on your fb or twitter it will get you fired if it get's to your employer.

Honestly in my opinion what they do on their own time should be left out of work place dealings unless it directly effects someone else. Serial killers obviously effect others, why you're considering employing a known killer instead of alerting officials is beyond me, but that would be an example of personal activities effecting others making them unsuitable for the work place. I'd hire someone who drinks socially, but I wouldn't even consider someone who drives while under the influence; again the difference is drinking on its own doesn't really effect others where as driving after drinking puts everyone at risk. Someone who recreationally smokes pot outside the workplace on their own time, verses a junky that may pose a public threat are two very different cases, the first one isn't really a problem but still would have failed that drug test and in my opinion should not have been fired.

"those druggie bastards" Calling someone a "druggie bastard" doesn't help with their drug problem at all nor does firing them. If people focused less on hating people with problems and more on helping them, then drug abuse probably wouldn't be a problem.

You know, I don't think people would think of bringing up the "free time" issue for any other illegal activity. Drugs may not effect others in an immediate sense, however drug users are more likely to commit crimes, from petty theft up to homicide If money is tight, addicts may steal from employers. Drug trafficking is known in some areas to find terrorism and insurgents, is linked with human trafficking, people being forced under threats to their own lives and that of their families to act as mules. I don't doubt there's plenty more. Marijuana may be less so, if grown and sold locally on a small scale. But ultimately, as it stands, when you buy drugs you help fund a lot worse crimes. This isn't an anti-drugs tirade, if they were legal I'd agree with it being up to people how they spend their free time, but right now it's not. Also it's hard to feel entirely sorry for drug addicts, nearly all started taking them of their own free will.

The employees shouldn't have been doing drugs.

I work at a pediatric office. Im sure a lot, maybe most, of the parents would be upset if I was found with drugs, even if it was outside work. it gives you and the company a bad reputation. Youre still performing illegal activities, which the company has the right to know. Dont do drugs and get upset when youre caught and punished for it.

the boss is an idiot. while it's perfectly acceptable to fire someone because of drug use, the boss should have been prepared for the situation. he should have had employees to replace the ones fired or should have held on to the results so he could have conducted interviews to replace the ones who failed. But since almost 1 in 10 Americans uses drugs, then theoretically he'll hire another person that uses drugs. And there's a difference between using drugs and abusing drugs.

Most employers hire people and let them know that they could be drug tested at anytime. It is up to the boss to decide when the drug test is conducted. It sucks that OP has to deal with more than his fair share of work, but OP should feel great about the fact that he was able to pass a drug test!

what the hell is wrong with you people! using drugs is not the same as having a drug problem! What you do in your spare should not be of any concern to their boss. Seems to me that their boss only thought "drugs are bad mkay" without actually investigating if they had a problem in productivity. Brainwashed people like that make me sick because they **** up society with their pretentiousness.

Actually, I've seen this before. He actually wanted to fire people, but didn't want to pay unemployment. So he did a random drug test. I don't know if he wanted it down to three people, but he definitely wanted to fire at least some of the rest.

In Ohio, you would be fired on the spot, with no chance for unemployment.

Yeah, if you have four times the work, you should be making four times your current salary!

She should, but I'm pretty sure it won't happen.

23 - Not sure if sarcastic or not..

nope she was serious.

well when someone starts a sentence with "yeah!", it screams sarcasm to me. sorry dude.

That yeah was for agreement

He should at least give her a nice bonus for helping keep things running. If he's a decent human being, anyway.

I think 4x the work = 4x the pay. If OP is doing his or her coworker's work, he or she should get their pay.

What are you trying to find the cosine of?

Let's not go off on a tangent of math jokes.

Wow, I still don't know how you guys derive so many puns and easily integrate them into your comments.

It's as easy as pi

To sum it all up, you just have to do what we've been

Yes, retaining bunch of druggies is better than one-off investment in much more capable human capital..

because retaining bunch of druggies is better than investing in much more deserving human capital..

Sir, you are clearly ignorant when it comes to drug usage (by that I mean that you don't have reliable knowledge). Failing a drug test doesn't mean you are a bad worker. I could fail one any day, but I'm a manager myself, very reliable, and go to school full time. On the other hand some of my best workers actually use drugs recreationally, and the ones who I'm sure don't are actually not reliable and don't work as hard. Learn and understand reality before judging based on a way of thinking that was shoved down your throat. Have a nice day.

Still doesn't matter. Part of the reason loads of professional, hard working people don't do drugs recreationally is BECAUSE it is illegal and because it can affect your job. It's like stealing a bunch of food to give to a food bank. Good intentions, yes. Illegal? Hell yeah. Just because it's not a necessarily BAD thing to do doesn't mean a boss has to condone it. It's against the law and the boss has every right to fire people for it.

55-- you would be surprised by the loads of professional people that do drugs. There are a lot of health care professionals that are addicted to prescription meds. The main reason drugs are kept illegal is because the "war on drugs" makes the U.S. tons of money.

61, has a great point. When Colorado made billions in sales from marijuana, you know how quick some other states started looking at starting the process of legalization. Not that it will happen anytime soon. But you can bet your ass it will happen in our lifetime. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. There should be some limits set in place, such as the legalized states have done. But it's all about what will make them more $$.

The reasoning behind the drug laws or how many professional people do it does not matter. What matters is that every drug user is completely aware of the fact that their ILLEGAL drug use may cause issues in their job life and still choose to do drugs. It may only be pot, which I personally don't think is bad, but it's still not legal. You do drugs, you invite the consequences into your life and lose every right to complain.

Well said #103. I agree, if you are found taking drugs, you really aren't in any position to complain about such issues.

The reason behind drug laws don't matter? Have you ever done any research behind certain laws and how they came to be. Pretty sure you'd be surprised judging by how you feel.

I agree with #100. I don't think smoking pot occasionally is necessarily bad, but anyone and everyone who willingly partakes in drug usage knows what they're signing up for. It's illegal, and obviously it can lead to ramifications. Do what you please, but don't expect to not face potential consequences. The boss did nothing wrong, aside from not having a back up plan. Also... people saying the only reason drugs are illegal is money. Really? Money is a big factor in the continuation of the war on drugs, but drugs are actually damaging (alcohol included) to the body and there is a legit medical reasoning to prohibition. Also, the government could make a shit ton more money legalizing certain drugs and subsequently taxing the hell out of them, so it's not only a money angle.

I haven't smoked weed in over a year, but there is no "legit medical reason" for the prohibition of it. It mas made illegal because of a smear campaign against hemp (a cousin of the marijuana plant) because hemp made paper that was cheaper and easier to produce than lumber paper. It had nothing to do with medical studies or anything of the kind. Go watch "reefer madness" on Netflix. That was part of the smear campaign against pot. See if what that movie describes lines up with what weed ACTUALLY does.

*Get or have gotten

or be getting

It's nobody's business who does drugs in the workforce if it doesn't affect your professional work or relationships. Harm reduction anyone? I am seriously disgusted of what an ass hole that employer is.

No it is their business especially depending on where you work. That school teacher that was fired for posting about smoking pot on her twitter? It will give the school a bad rep and most places will fire you. I used to work at a hospital and a few of the guys in engineering smoked pot. Though they never let it affect their work or come in still messed up. Though, if they were tested they would've been fired. Company image and money lost will win out. Pot does affect your ability to think clearly and can still can cloud your decisions days after so there is a reason why "your free time" does matter to your boss.

" clouds your decisions days after "..Sources please.

check any reliable medical journal. This is well known