Suppose you had worked with a very good young apprentice for the better part of a year. Imagine you had thought him talented, hard working, and at the beginning of a bright future as a solid and productive craftsman in the electrical industry. Then one day, you heard that he had been suddenly separated from employment after a random drug test. What would you think? Bet most of you would probably say, "Tough luck, kid, that's what you get for doing illegal stuff."
But what if you also knew that he had just returned from a short vacation in another country where his lady friend is working, and where marijuana is legal? Assume you had never observed any actions by him outside of serious and sober exemplary behavior, as well as a respectful and easy going personality on and off the job. What's more, his attendance and timeliness record overall matches your own, which is pretty damn good, being old school as you lamentably are. Throw in the fact, that as a veteran of the sixties, you also know that weed is far less debilitating of motor skills, and nowhere near as harmful, on the whole, as booze. Additionally, you are aware that the body can require up to 30 days to purge the residue of cannabis sufficiently to avoid detection by a drug test, whereas even a somewhat intoxicating amount of alcohol can be oxidized and not found by testing in as little as two hours.
Would you then perhaps be tempted to conclude that employers are foolishly allowing their insurance carriers to push them into decisions which often only insure that they not retain the best employees, and that your union should be ashamed of itself for cooperating in this invasive stethoscope -up-our-rear-end warrant less search activity, rather than opposing it? I would.