Welp, guess I won't take that job

[Do Not Taunt]

I've recently re-entered the job-search market, and, for my first formal interview, I went through the trouble of flying 6000 miles and screwing up my sleep schedule for a few days. No big deal, but it seems like a lot for an interview, especially when the job market in Seattle is so strong. I got mostly softball questions, which I didn't have too much trouble with. And the company responded with a pretty good offer. I'd be working pretty independently, for a guy I've worked with before and liked as a boss, and for compensation I saw no reason for complaint about. There'd be some travel involved, but that's got its pros and its cons, so I called it a wash.

But.

As I learned - after flying all the way out there - the company has a mandatory pre-employment drug test policy. I've always said I refuse to take them on principle. They're insulting, they're an invasion of privacy, and they cost the companies that require them way more than the good that could possibly result. Plus they reinforce society's idiotic hysteria about illegal drugs and the equation of all drug use with drug abuse.

So now I continue my search for a company with rational hiring practices that somehow manages to believe that treating all its potential hires as criminals is counter-productive.

Dumb-asses. Your loss.

[Ogre]

Good for you. I'll not take them either...not because I'm a user, but because they are a ridiculous invasion of privacy, and I won't stand for it.

[Do Not Taunt]

Good for you. I'll not take them either...not because I'm a user, but because they are a ridiculous invasion of privacy, and I won't stand for it.
Thanks, Ogre. I should add that I'm confident, though not positive, that I would pass the test. That isn't the point for me.

[Larry Mudd]

One of my current cohabitants is from the same berg as Ogre, and is a pretty striking example of WoD hysteria. He's literally terrified of being proximate to people who have been around marijuana smoke, because he's worried that it'll impact his job security.

Don't misread this, it's not about not wanting to be around people who are stoned out of their tree (which I imagine can be a bummer) or to share an enclosed space with someone who's smoking a big fattie, or being pressured somehow into taking a lungful from a waterpipe...

I mean, he'll flee the room if someone who's recently been around people who were smoking pot enters -- even if it can't be smelled, and he just learns of it by inference.

He's sure that one stray molecule might get into his system and he'll fail his next (regularly scheduled) pee test. He may understand that he can't fail it that way, but he still worries that his employers will know that he's been around a controlled substance, and begin looking for ways to quietly get rid of him. There's no talking to him about it, either -- he's deadly serious and deathly afraid.

It's a bit funny, and a bit sad.

[friedo]

Good for you, DNT. I feel exactly the same way, and although I've changed jobs quite a bit over the past few years, I have fortunately never had to confront the issue directly.

I hoped you explained to them why they will have to extend their search.

[Do Not Taunt]

I hoped you explained to them why they will have to extend their search.
Actually, I'm in the midst of composing and email that I intend to fire off to their HR staff as soon as I'm satisfied with it, but I'm having trouble being as articulate as I'd like to be. Basically, I'm trying to argue, "Hey, this isn't in your interest. You're failing to hire a lot of good people this way. And don't even think about comforting yourself by thinking, 'That's the cost of the doing the right thing.' Because monitoring your employees extra-curricular activities isn't the right thing, it's an unwarranted invasion of privacy."

My most desired outcome, admittedly unlikely, would be for them to come to their senses and change their policy. I doubt they'd do that unless they were convinced it's hitting their bottom line, so I'd like for that to be quite clear in my email.

[An Arky]

The employer probably has to do it to satisfy "drug-free workplace" requirements for govermnment contracts, etc. The problem is with government policy, not companies who have to comply with it.

So, IMHO, you won't be striking a blow against anything but your employment opportunities here. The real action has to be at a policy level.

[blinkingblinking]

The reason I would not like to take one of those tests is they are never 100% foolproof or accurate. The test may give a false positive test one time out of 10,000 for example. I do not do any drugs. If I take that test there is a 1 in 10,000 chance I will lose my job and be accused of being a druggie. Why would I want to do that ?

[Jman]

Well, I don't have a problem with it. Of course, I'm used to it: I got drug tested in the military 2-4 times a year. False positives are extremely rare, since they batch test for a positive test, and if the batch comes back positive, they test each individual sample.

[Athena]

My current job had a bit in the employment contract about how they might someday want me to do a drug test.

I had a hard time with it. I think it's a horrible invasion of privacy, and it's none of their damn business what I do on my own time. And I'll add in that there's no way I'd fail the test - my drug of choice is wine. I can't remember the last time I did anything that would cause a problem with a drug test.

If they ever do come around and ask for one, it's gonna be a problem.

[Sean Factotum]

Well, I think that company is better off without someone like the OP working for them. Like An Arky pointed above, it may be that they have to do this to get government contracts. Or it may be that they have been losing money and worker time due to people being too stoned to work effectively (yes, what you do the night before does impact your performance the next day at work. You wouldn't think it doesn't for a chronic alcoholic who doesn't drink on company time, would you?)

And, just maybe, the people who run the company just don't want to deal with potheads and their ilk on a daily basis. I know I would have a testing policy in place for any company I owned, just to weed out people who I find more useless than not.

[Johnny L.A.]

The employer probably has to do it to satisfy "drug-free workplace" requirements for govermnment contracts, etc. The problem is with government policy, not companies who have to comply with it.
Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode41/usc_sup_01_41_10_10.html).

[Revtim]

I wish I could afford to refuse to take them (also on principle; I am not a user), but I've had too many employment problems the last few years. I start a new job Monday, and although nobody mentioned a test, I'll take one if it's required. I hate it, but I have bills to pay.

[Lissa]

The employer probably has to do it to satisfy "drug-free workplace" requirements for govermnment contracts, etc. The problem is with government policy, not companies who have to comply with it.

IIRC, they also get some sort of discount on their worker's comp insurance.

[Sal Ammoniac]

Good for you, Do Not Taunt. I think your proposed e-mail is spot-on. Sean Factotum's remark about potheads in the workplace is nonsense. If someone is a pothead and it's affecting their work performance, fire them. The pre-employment drug test is an irrelevancy.

I only wish everyone had the luxury to refuse to take the test.

[Wallenstein]

I wish I could afford to refuse to take them (also on principle; I am not a user), but I've had too many employment problems the last few years. I start a new job Monday, and although nobody mentioned a test, I'll take one if it's required. I hate it, but I have bills to pay.

Good luck for Monday :)

I'd be the same - sometimes my principles will come second to putting food on the table.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

I once applied for a job at a service station, here in Tennessee.
They wanted me to be fingerprinted. (At my expense)
They wanted a drug test.
They wanted a polygraph (I'm not certain if this was legal at the time or not).
All of this pre-interview.
Minimum wage, no benefits.
:smack: :eek: :mad: :rolleyes:
45 minutes into the application process, I said "F___ IT!"

More than a decade later, they still do some/all of this.
They still get robbed/ripped-off regularly.

[Nancarrow]

You poor sods. :(
Yet another reason I feel smug here in Blighty.


Well actually I think *some* companies do drug test, but only a small minority, and it's certainly not governmentally pressured. All the contracts I've signed so far have certainly highlighted being intoxicated as grounds for dismissal, but no-one's had the sheer cheek to assume all their employees are guilty until proven innocent.

One thing puzzles me, if the job market's so good where you're at, why the 6000-mile jaunt? But well done on sticking to your principles, Do Not Taunt.


Bosda... a service station?! Ye gods!

[kayT]

Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode41/usc_sup_01_41_10_10.html).
I read these links Johnny LA provided to the govt. regulations and I see nothing there about requiring testing to be a fed. contractor. Doesn't look like a govt. requirement to me...just some company trying to be self-important.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

You poor sods. :(
Yet another reason I feel smug here in Blighty.


Well actually I think *some* companies do drug test, but only a small minority, and it's certainly not governmentally pressured. All the contracts I've signed so far have certainly highlighted being intoxicated as grounds for dismissal, but no-one's had the sheer cheek to assume all their employees are guilty until proven innocent.

One thing puzzles me, if the job market's so good where you're at, why the 6000-mile jaunt? But well done on sticking to your principles, Do Not Taunt.


Bosda... a service station?! Ye gods!

Ummm..possible translation issue--"service station" means "petrol station"? Yes? No?

[Nancarrow]

Ummm..possible translation issue--"service station" means "petrol station"? Yes? No?

Sure. That was my point. Was this one of those petrol stations where you have to perform brain surgery, pilot a jumbo jet, infiltrate a terrorist network, become president of a large country and land a three man crew on the moon?

'Cause if it wasn't, their application process could seem a little excessive!

[ratatoskK]

Some of our business is with the government, and we don't have to take any drug tests, or be investigated or anything like that.

[astro]

As a practical matter what impact does drug abuse by employees have in mostly professional and technical jobs (I'm assuming your job falls in that category). Is it big, small or indifferent?

Any HR types know? Do the drug tests in these job classes help or hurt employers re assembling a quality workforce?

[devilsknew]

I've heard of people who are under the constant threat of drug tests. Any little mistake they make on the job, the employer will give them an automatic drug test. Because of this, they have reasoned that since marijuana will remain testable in their system for such a long time that they are safer doing a more "soluble" drug like cocaine that will leave their system and remain undectectable. So now, these occasional pot smokers are racing snowblowers.

I know, it's not an excuse,but this was their reasoning. These people like their recreation time on days off and this was their solution... now they're addicts.

[cbawlmer]

My office does random drug testing quarterly, but here it's understandable. We have raw narcotics and other prescription drug ingredients in bulk on the premises, and the DEA is here all the time (just yesterday, in fact!) doing inspections and stuff. They have to do the testing to keep the license to have these chemicals. They don't have a mandatory test as a part of the hiring process, though.

I completely understand why they do it here and at some other places, depending on what kind of business they do, but at some places it's just silly. I'm not into drugs at all, but I'm completely paranoid about possibly being around them now because of the testing.

[bup]

I wish I had the same guts as you, DNT. I've taken them before when I needed the job. I'm the only wage-earner in my family, and I'd be afraid to turn down a good offer when looking for a job (given that everything else was OK), for fear I wouldn't get another.

[Sean Factotum]

Good for you, Do Not Taunt. I think your proposed e-mail is spot-on. Sean Factotum's remark about potheads in the workplace is nonsense. If someone is a pothead and it's affecting their work performance, fire them. The pre-employment drug test is an irrelevancy.
Nonsense? Hardly. The US Navy instituted mandatory drug testing in the '70s, in part, because autopsies on pilots that had crashed their planes showed a significant number (though not all, of course) of them had detectable levels THC in their blood stream. In the years immediately after the testing began, these incidents sharply decreased. Obviously, the pilots weren't toking up in the cockpit just before landing - they had done this on "their own time." And that's just one example.

kayT Section 702 of that link specifically states a workplace must be drug-free to receive Federal money:
(a)(1) No person, other than an individual, shall receive a grant
from any Federal agency unless such person agrees to provide
a drug-free workplace by ...
... and then it goes on to describe the requires to call a business drug free with respect to Federal funding. Seems pretty clear to me. YMMV for various reasons.

In the OP's case, any privately owned company that he/she would apply to has the right to screen out users of illegal drugs before hiring them. Then, after that, fire/discipline workers with on the job behavior problems. But now they have one less group of misfits to worry about.

[Rigamarole]

I wish I had the same guts as you, DNT. I've taken them before when I needed the job. I'm the only wage-earner in my family, and I'd be afraid to turn down a good offer when looking for a job (given that everything else was OK), for fear I wouldn't get another.

Guts? I wish I had the same luxury as you to turn down a good job offer due to such a relatively minor issue (and I agree with you about the drug testing thing, I just don't have that kind of luxury)

[Uncommon Sense]

You're absolutely making the wrong decision!!

You know, maybe it would be better to take the job and then try to change their policy. They'd be ten times more likely to accept criticism of their drug policy from a current employee in good standing (who passed the drug test) than from some guy who turned down the job (who presumably uses, since he declined the test). And maybe it's outside sources that require them to test people, like insurance holders, contractors, the govn't, etc. You might be making a stand, but it will fall on deaf ears.
If you make the same stand as an employee in good standing, however.....

[jsgoddess]

IIRC, they also get some sort of discount on their worker's comp insurance.

Huge discounts, depending on circumstances. My company pays tens of thousands of dollars per year less because of instituting a Drug Free Workplace.

We're in manufacturing, but we're not very big. For bigger companies, this money would have to be astronomical.

[Uncommon Sense]

I've heard of people who are under the constant threat of drug tests. Any little mistake they make on the job, the employer will give them an automatic drug test. Because of this, they have reasoned that since marijuana will remain testable in their system for such a long time that they are safer doing a more "soluble" drug like cocaine that will leave their system and remain undectectable. So now, these occasional pot smokers are racing snowblowers.

I know, it's not an excuse,but this was their reasoning. These people like their recreation time on days off and this was their solution... now they're addicts.

I call BS on this. The old "Entry Level Drug Theory/Scare Tactic".
People I've known did not switch to coke when pot got scarce, they drank if anything.
People addicted to coke won't care about the 'future' drug tests either. And I know lots of pot heads who never ever used coke, much less became addicted to it. Not to mention, a coke addiction is an incredible money pit. Coke addicts are more detectable than pot heads also, IMHO.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

I once applied for a job at a service station, here in Tennessee.
They wanted me to be fingerprinted. (At my expense)
They wanted a drug test.
They wanted a polygraph (I'm not certain if this was legal at the time or not).
All of this pre-interview.
Minimum wage, no benefits.
:smack: :eek: :mad: :rolleyes:
45 minutes into the application process, I said "F___ IT!"

More than a decade later, they still do some/all of this.
They still get robbed/ripped-off regularly.

I imagine the motivation for all these tests is that they have to be extra careful because you'd be handling cash. Because everyone knows that if you're a pothead, before you know it you'll be robbing the till in order to keep your supply of "reefers" coming in. Because it's not like you'd have to balance your cash drawer at the end of each and every shift, is it?

[Do Not Taunt]

Wow, thank you for all your comments, everyone.

First of all, I'm only familiar with the Drug-Free Workplace rules in passing, since they've never applied anywhere I've worked in the past, and I seriously doubt they apply now.

One thing puzzles me, if the job market's so good where you're at, why the 6000-mile jaunt?
Well, mainly because the job had a lot going for it - good boss, good money, interesting work. Sure, there's a lot of other jobs, but this one would probably have been my top pick.

Nonsense? Hardly. The US Navy instituted mandatory drug testing in the '70s, in part, because autopsies on pilots that had crashed their planes showed a significant number (though not all, of course) of them had detectable levels THC in their blood stream. In the years immediately after the testing began, these incidents sharply decreased. Obviously, the pilots weren't toking up in the cockpit just before landing - they had done this on "their own time." And that's just one example.
I'm skeptical. Is there any solid evidence that THC affects performance after the period of the initial high?

But even if it did, this is hardly comparable. I'm not a pilot; I'm a software engineer. I get to do things pilots can't, like have a beer at my desk.

In the OP's case, any privately owned company that he/she would apply to has the right to screen out users of illegal drugs before hiring them. Then, after that, fire/discipline workers with on the job behavior problems. But now they have one less group of misfits to worry about.
I'm sorry you think everyone who uses drugs recreationally is a 'misfit.' This is a belief more consistent with a DARE program or a Partnership for a Drug-Free America commercial than anything I've seen in the real world, where a large number of the best engineers I've worked with have also been recreational marijuana users. And if a company doesn't want to hire them, that's plain irrational.

I think this really summed it up:

just some company trying to be self-important

[Ogre]

You're absolutely making the wrong decision!!

You know, maybe it would be better to take the job and then try to change their policy. They'd be ten times more likely to accept criticism of their drug policy from a current employee in good standing (who passed the drug test) than from some guy who turned down the job (who presumably uses, since he declined the test). And maybe it's outside sources that require them to test people, like insurance holders, contractors, the govn't, etc. You might be making a stand, but it will fall on deaf ears.
If you make the same stand as an employee in good standing, however.....A stand? It's not a stand. It's an unwillingness to subject myself to an intrusive invasion of my privacy. In fact, it's a flat refusal to do so. Nobody, but nobody is going to tell me they are going to watch while I take my dick out and piss in a cup, so they can satisfy their unfounded paranoia. The mere thought is absolutely intolerable. I'm a professional, I hold a master's degree in a technical field, and I have a superb resume. If they want me to piss in a cup for them, I will simply find someplace else to work. Fuck them.

[bup]

You're absolutely making the wrong decision!!

You know, maybe it would be better to take the job and then try to change their policy. They'd be ten times more likely to accept criticism of their drug policy from a current employee in good standing (who passed the drug test) than from some guy who turned down the job (who presumably uses, since he declined the test). And maybe it's outside sources that require them to test people, like insurance holders, contractors, the govn't, etc. You might be making a stand, but it will fall on deaf ears.
If you make the same stand as an employee in good standing, however.....I disagree. Taking the job demonstrates that however you say you feel, when push comes to shove you'll cave.

Not taking the job, if it burns them often enough, will lead to an inferior group of employees.

[jsgoddess]

I disagree. Taking the job demonstrates that however you say you feel, when push comes to shove you'll cave.

Not taking the job, if it burns them often enough, will lead to an inferior group of employees.

It's not likely to affect them, really.

And I'll be frank: I don't like the DFW. We didn't want to institute it. But if someone were to send me a letter refusing a job offer because of it, I would shrug and consider myself better off for it. Not because I would assume the person was a druggie, but because I would assume the person had an inflated sense of self-worth that made him or her believe that I will change workplace policies in order to hire them. That's the sort of employee I don't need.

[Ogre]

It's not likely to affect them, really.

And I'll be frank: I don't like the DFW. We didn't want to institute it. But if someone were to send me a letter refusing a job offer because of it, I would shrug and consider myself better off for it. Not because I would assume the person was a druggie, but because I would assume the person had an inflated sense of self-worth that made him or her believe that I will change workplace policies in order to hire them. That's the sort of employee I don't need.Intersting. You don't need independent-thinking employees with a strong sense of personal dignity? That sounds like the kind of job I don't need.

[jsgoddess]

Intersting. You don't need independent-thinking employees with a strong sense of personal dignity? That sounds like the kind of job I don't need.

I don't need employees who think that they are the exception to the rule. We have a reason for having drug tests. It's not whimsical. If someone asked us why, we'd tell them. If the OP asked, he might get an answer similar to ours. "We can't afford not to do it."

We've had 2 raises for our employees since we've put this in place, money that we've saved by agreeing to a government mandate. If we hired the OP and did away with the DFW to please them, we'd have to take those raises away.

[Ogre]

I don't need employees who think that they are the exception to the rule. We have a reason for having drug tests. It's not whimsical. If someone asked us why, we'd tell them. If the OP asked, he might get an answer similar to ours. "We can't afford not to do it."

We've had 2 raises for our employees since we've put this in place, money that we've saved by agreeing to a government mandate. If we hired the OP and did away with the DFW to please them, we'd have to take those raises away.I am the exception to the rule. Unless I or my family were on the brink of homelessness, and I had absolutely no other choice (including flipping burgers,) I'd never agree to a drug test in a trillion years. It's demeaning and an unreasonable breach of privacy.

There is one person on the face of this earth that has the right to ask that I take my cock out for their own purposes. Hint 1: it ain't, and never will be, my boss. Hint 2: I'm married.

[devilsknew]

I call BS on this. The old "Entry Level Drug Theory/Scare Tactic".
People I've known did not switch to coke when pot got scarce, they drank if anything.
People addicted to coke won't care about the 'future' drug tests either. And I know lots of pot heads who never ever used coke, much less became addicted to it. Not to mention, a coke addiction is an incredible money pit. Coke addicts are more detectable than pot heads also, IMHO.

You can call BS on this, that's fine. I don't lie. This is a true account, and I'm sure it's not an isolated frame of reference and logic to many recreational users. This is the logical step in their particular view. I personally think it's stinkin' thinkin', but that's my POV.

[jsgoddess]

I am the exception to the rule. Unless I or my family were on the brink of homelessness, and I had absolutely no other choice (including flipping burgers,) I'd never agree to a drug test in a trillion years. It's demeaning and an unreasonable breach of privacy.

I hope you never end up having to make that choice. Our employees did, and every one of them decided that a drug test was worth it. And I think they'd fight pretty hard to keep those raises, which added up to 25% over two years.

Businesses have to make tough choices all the time, and some choices are the difference between staying in business and going under, or between giving raises or losing benefits. Our employees voted with their feet and stayed.

Since the government is pushing these policies, I would expect more and more employers to start instituting them. Like I said, we're in manufacturing, so we got hit harder with increases (and the bungling of the BWC) than white collar employers. And our workplace is a million times more dangerous. There is no place for anyone here to be under the influence of mind altering drugs, since a mistake could kill someone. But even in workplaces where that's simply not the case, I expect more drug tests rather than fewer. It's too much money. There's too much at stake. And most employees would rather have a raise, or a job, than not.

[Ogre]

Fine. You make your choices, and I'll make mine. As I said, it's somewhat understandable (but personally unacceptable to me) if human life and safety are on the line. But it's still deeply loathesome and abhorrent, whether or not the government mandates it. Hell, it's MORE abhorrent because the governmet mandates it.

[Do Not Taunt]

I don't need employees who think that they are the exception to the rule. We have a reason for having drug tests. It's not whimsical. If someone asked us why, we'd tell them. If the OP asked, he might get an answer similar to ours. "We can't afford not to do it."
I'm not asking to be an exception to the rule. To the extent that I'm asking for anything, it's for the rule to be eliminated for everybody.
We've had 2 raises for our employees since we've put this in place, money that we've saved by agreeing to a government mandate. If we hired the OP and did away with the DFW to please them, we'd have to take those raises away.
I'm sure you could save money on your health insurance premiums too by firing all your smokers and doing health background checks into your potential hires, and avoiding those with a history of getting sick. How would your employees feel about that? How would you feel about that?

[jsgoddess]

I'm not asking to be an exception to the rule. To the extent that I'm asking for anything, it's for the rule to be eliminated for everybody.

To benefit you, not them.

[Do Not Taunt]

To benefit you, not them.
Yes, what's your point? That's why I ask for a salary, too.

However, it bears reiteration that I still believe the drug-test policy is lose-lose. Potential employees either lose a little bit of privacy or dignity, or the job, and the company loses employees they would otherwise want to hire.

[Nava]

As a practical matter what impact does drug abuse by employees have in mostly professional and technical jobs (I'm assuming your job falls in that category). Is it big, small or indifferent?

Any HR types know? Do the drug tests in these job classes help or hurt employers re assembling a quality workforce?

In one of my old jobs it could be critical. One of my coworkers was a pothead, which is legal, but so is drinking alcohol and both are forbidden while you're in a chemical factory. Yeah, chemistry - that line of job where bad spelling kills. This guy only worked weekends, so the bosses usually never saw him. We had to warn him a few times to lay off the pot while he was handling explosives: some of us are kind of attached to our hides :smack:

But we didn't get tested for drugs, not even in our yearly checkup (which would have been confidential anyway).