Does EVERYbody test for drugs these days?

[CC]

I may be looking for some part time work in a month or so. The last time I sought work was a little over 40 years ago. At that time, the hoop you had to get through was a loyalty oath, promising your employer that you were not a Commie - an irrelevant assurance to most jobs, to be sure. Times have changed. Now, I gather that most employees have to prove that they are not doing drugs of any type in the privacy of their own homes on their own time, still irrelevant to most jobs. Will I probably be asked to do a drug test? Do they usually spring that on you at an interview? Do you get any lead time to prepare, as it were? What's the normal procedure these days? Thanks, Dopers - and I mean that in all ways possible.

[Harriet the Spry]

It really depends on the job and industry and the individual company. It will generally be evident to you before the interview that a drug test will be required. Sometimes it's as obvious as a big sign that says "Do not apply if you will not pass the drug screen." Otherwise the requirement for a drug screen would usually be on the application or in the online application system somewhere. It is least likely where employees are least likely to cause damage and liability by using drugs. Employers that have had drug/ alchohol related accidents or other incidents are more likely to institute a testing plan. And in some industries it's a virtual necessity for regulatory or insurance reasons.

[Markxxx]

Every application I fill out says they "may" test you for drugs prior to employment. My last two jobs tested me for drugs, one was for asst controller and the other was systems admin for a hotel.

Prior to that the drug testing was hit or miss.

One thing to realize is that not everyone is exactly what you expect. For instance, when I worked in H/R we said we may test for the following drugs: And we had a huge list, and marijuana was on that list. But in truth we NEVER tested for marijuana. The drug test you took for that place was strictly for the harder drugs and they used the hair test. We could've tested for marijuana but we didn't. Of course you wouldn't have known that

You normally won't get called to take a drug test until the end till after you have completed the interview and had your reference checks. Drug tests in the places I worked ran between $20 and $30 per test, so they only give it to people who have a legitimate shot at the job.

When I went for the job at the systems admin, the H/R manager called and said "Mark, we want to hire you but the next appointment we have is in two weeks, but we can get you in today. If you can take the drug test today (Thursday) you can start on Monday, otherwise you'll have to wait two weeks.

The asst controller job, they offered me the job, subject to the drug test and said "Here's the place we do testing, call and make an appointment, after you take it and we get the results we'll discuss the start date, please take it within two weeks."

So you see one sprung it on me sort of.

If you have any kind of job that involves driving for instance, expect your testing to be more intense and more often. At the hotels I worked at the drivers had to take a random drug test once per month. Also if they were involved in ANY moving traffic incident, they had to return to the hotel and they were sent to take a drug test immediately.

And that I can understand, 'cause they are driving people around.

One thing that kind of frustrated me in H/R was the large number of people that failed it. I thought "OK if a person KNOWS he's doing drugs he will just not take the test. But they took it anyway and failed. So the hotel was out the money and the person didn't get the job. Perhaps that's a way of getting back at the hotel or whatever.

[md2000]

I am always surprised when I hear that. In Canada (Ontario, anyway) drug testing is a violation of privacy and illegal as a hiring test. Really, our problems are not any worse than in the USA; in fact, the USA seems to have worse problems.

I suppose if you could afford to be vindictive, you could take the drug test and then decline the job just to cost them money. I suppose it says something about either what sort of problems people are running into with employees, or that it's a convenient crutch. The USA is so lawsuit-happy that if something happens, I'm sure the legal advice is "if you had a chance to test for drugs and you didn't, then you'll end up paying big time". After all, a large corporation can pay more than a drug-addicted employee who just got fired.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Do you get any lead time to prepare, as it were?Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? I don't do drug testing for my employees* but if I did, I would spring it with zero notice so you can't prepare.


* I figure that what you do on your own time is your own business. If you show up at work under the influence, I'll fire you for it, but if you want to get drunk or stoned on Friday night, it won't affect your work on Monday morning.

[Shagnasty]

I have been in the workforce for 13 years in white collar systems analysts jobs for mega-corps some of which are famous or household names. I have never been tested for drugs and neither have any of my colleagues as far as I know. I have never heard it mentioned except in a few job ads that I didn't either apply for or get. If you show up to work high on crystal meth, it would probably be obvious but I don't know why a company would care if you do cocaine on the weekend or marijuana on your own time.

In some really high pressure jobs, it is practically expected. I have known white collar workers that were on methadone treatments which is a drug in its own right and nobody smiles on that because it could cause tardiness and respect issues but companies sometimes understand and work around it for the right person. I have also seen people come to work obviously hung over and probably still legally drunk and nobody says much of anything as long as it is an isolated incident. I don't do illegal drugs myself at all and never have but that hasn't ever been something I have gotten worked up over even for people under me unless they make it a habit and it interferes with their work.

[PatriotGrrrl]

Same here, I've never been tested. White collar and tech industry jobs generally aren't.

[DrDeth]

Same here, I've never been tested. White collar and tech industry jobs generally aren't.

Right, it's often either low end, or jobs that make sense- like Air traffic controller, Police officer, and such.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

I've mostly worked in IT for companies that include some household names. Most or all of the jobs I've had were offered contingent on passing a drug test, but the test wasn't carried out in every case; I can recall at least one where I was supposed to be tested, but they never made the arrangements for it. Regardless, I showed up on my first day and everything was fine for the entire time I was there.

Drug testing is expensive, so they wouldn't normally spring it on you during an interview. Usually it happens after you accept the offer of employment.

[even sven]

In low-level positions, drug tests are often less about drugs and more about finding the kind of employee who is compliant enough to pee in a cup with someone watching.

[Spoons]

I am always surprised when I hear that. In Canada (Ontario, anyway) drug testing is a violation of privacy and illegal as a hiring test.You're on the right track. In Ontario (and to the best of my knowledge, all Canadian provinces), drug testing is not allowed because it may infringe a disability--addiction--which is a prohibited ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code. From page 2 of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's Policy on Drug and Alcohol Testing (http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/Policies/PolicyDrugAlch/pdf) (warning, PDF):

Section 5(1) of the Code prohibits discrimination in employment on several grounds including "handicap" (the Code uses the term "handicap" but the more currently accepted term is "disability" and it is therefore used in this and other Commission documents). The Code adopts an expansive definition of the term "handicap" which encompasses physical, psychological and mental conditions. Severe substance abuse is classified as a form of substance dependence,9 which has been recognized as a form of disability. Examples include alcoholism and the abuse of legal drugs (e.g. over the counter drugs) or illicit drugs. These types of abuse and dependence therefore constitute a disability within the meaning of the Code.Of course, the Code makes allowances for employees in safety-sensitive positions (drivers, equipment operators, and the like). Still, some time ago, I had to explain to an American client that no, they were legally prevented from pre-employment and random drug/alcohol testing their Canadian office employees because of the above from Ontario and similar Codes in other provinces.

Sorry for the hijack. Back to the discussion of drug testing in the US....

[EmAnJ]

I am always surprised when I hear that. In Canada (Ontario, anyway) drug testing is a violation of privacy and illegal as a hiring test. Really, our problems are not any worse than in the USA; in fact, the USA seems to have worse problems.



It's not Canada-wide. I'm in Alberta and was drug tested for my current job (started four months ago). My husband was also drug tested when he started with the Fire Department, and was previously drug tested with multiple companies as part of his employment in the oil field.

To answer the OP, as stated, it depends on the company. In my experience, they let me know it was a requirement after I had passed the interviews, references and was determined to be the chosen candidate. I was given about four days notice and went in for the mouth swab test. I was tested for all the harder drugs (not pot), but I didn't know that until I got there.

[Spoons]

It's not Canada-wide. I'm in Alberta and was drug tested for my current job (started four months ago). My husband was also drug tested when he started with the Fire Department, and was previously drug tested with multiple companies as part of his employment in the oil field.I can understand your husband's testing--firefighter is a safety-sensitive position, as is oilfield work. But we don't know about you. What do you do that would trigger a drug test?

It should be noted that the same logic that applies to Ontario (addiction = disability, so no drug testing except for safety-sensitive positions) applies to Alberta. From the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c. A-25.5 (link (http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=A25P5.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779745043)):

7(1) No employer shall

(a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ any person, or
(b) discriminate against any person with regard to employment or any term or condition of employment,

because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income, family status or sexual orientation of that person or of any other person.Emphasis added. Drug testing = discriminatory (unless the person being tested is in a safety-sensitive position) has been held in a number of Alberta cases, among them Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, 2006 ABQB 302, (link (http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2006/2006abqb302/2006abqb302.html)) where the Court said at paragraph 88:

[88] Like the policy found to be prima facie discriminatory in Entrop, recreational users are adversely affected by the KBR Policy. The Policy imposes a pre-employment barrier, with zero tolerance, automatic termination and no accommodation. It bars individuals from the workforce and a positive test result negatively affects their livelihood. KBR sanctions any person testing positive by the removal of employment on the assumption that the person is likely to be impaired at work in the future and thus not “fit for duty.” The Policy not only treats all prospective employees who test positive for drugs the same, it treats them as if they were drug dependent and further assumes that they are likely to report to work impaired. Even though Mr. Chiasson may not be drug dependent, the policy operates to treat him as such, and the requirement that he be tested for drugs with an automatic sanction for a positive test is prima facie discriminatory.Emphasis added again. The Kellogg case is quite informative, but (IMHO) too long and complicated to sum up in a single quote. For the complete story, follow the link to the decision itself.

[El_Kabong]

In the oil industry it's become fairly standard, in general because there are numerous safety-sensitive positions, and, practically speaking, because oilfield workers have a well-deserved reputation for hard livin'.

[EmAnJ]

I can understand your husband's testing--firefighter is a safety-sensitive position, as is oilfield work. But we don't know about you. What do you do that would trigger a drug test?

It should be noted that the same logic that applies to Ontario (addiction = disability, so no drug testing except for safety-sensitive positions) applies to Alberta. From the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c. A-25.5 (link (http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?page=A25P5.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779745043)):

Emphasis added. Drug testing = discriminatory (unless the person being tested is in a safety-sensitive position) has been held in a number of Alberta cases, among them Alberta (Human Rights and Citizenship Commission) v. Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company, 2006 ABQB 302, (link (http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2006/2006abqb302/2006abqb302.html)) where the Court said at paragraph 88:

Emphasis added again. The Kellogg case is quite informative, but (IMHO) too long and complicated to sum up in a single quote. For the complete story, follow the link to the decision itself.

Interesting!

As for me, I work in an office as an Environmental Analyst. I sometimes travel for work, but I don't really work in a profession where I might injure someone.

[EmAnJ]

I should add, I work for a very large multi-national company too. It's not like they wouldn't know the rules (or, rather, they really should know the rules, tbh).

[Spoons]

As for me, I work in an office as an Environmental Analyst. I sometimes travel for work, but I don't really work in a profession where I might injure someone.Office work, and they're making you do a drug test? That's interesting! I have a suspicion it isn't exactly legal to demand either; but then, I don't know all the facts so I am hesitant to say further.

I should add, I work for a very large multi-national company too. It's not like they wouldn't know the rules (or, rather, they really should know the rules, tbh).Well, they should, but they don't always. As I inferred above, I do have some decently-sized US companies as clients who don't understand (in general) employment law in Canada. Of course, they don't have to understand it; that's why they consult me. But at times, their questions are surprising. As are their reactions when I tell them that, "no, you can't do that in any province of Canada."

[Tom Tildrum]

I'm a lawyer for a US federal agency, and I think I am subject to being drug-tested at any time, but as far as I can recall I never actually have been.

[GameHat]

As an adult I've had two jobs - both engineering.

Both required a pre-employment drug test.

I thought both were stupid at the time, but I went through with both. Passed.

As stupid as I think they are, I'd rather have employment than be unemployed while enjoying marijuana.

That said - as soon as it's legal, I'm all in.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

In the USA, drug testing is mandatory for interstate workers in transportation industries who are involved in transit work. But sometimes company or union policy extends that. When I went to work for a large railroad, the union had demanded that all workers (including company management) had to take the same kind of drug tests that the union workers (like locomotive drivers) took. Also that the company policy about drinking on the job applied equally to 3-martini-lunches by management.

So when I was hired as a computer programmer on the personnel system, I had to take a drug test. But I'd been on the job for about 3 weeks when the test results came back. I guess they really weren't too worried about drugged-up computer geeks. At least, as compared to locomotive drivers.

[BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed]

I figure that what you do on your own time is your own business. If you show up at work under the influence, I'll fire you for it, but if you want to get drunk or stoned on Friday night, it won't affect your work on Monday morning.

I seem to recall that someone was using or developing a test that would indicate (through reaction time or some such) whether or not you were impaired by drugs currently, not whether you had any traces in your system. The brief bit of googling I did didn't turn up anything right up front, though.

[chorpler]

In some really high pressure jobs, it is practically expected. I have known white collar workers that were on methadone treatments which is a drug in its own right and nobody smiles on that because it could cause tardiness and respect issues but companies sometimes understand and work around it for the right person.

Under the ADA, it would be illegal to discriminate against somebody who was legally prescribed methadone or other painkillers, unless it was causing performance problems.

[rbroome]

I may be looking for some part time work in a month or so. The last time I sought work was a little over 40 years ago. At that time, the hoop you had to get through was a loyalty oath, promising your employer that you were not a Commie - an irrelevant assurance to most jobs, to be sure. Times have changed. Now, I gather that most employees have to prove that they are not doing drugs of any type in the privacy of their own homes on their own time, still irrelevant to most jobs. Will I probably be asked to do a drug test? Do they usually spring that on you at an interview? Do you get any lead time to prepare, as it were? What's the normal procedure these days? Thanks, Dopers - and I mean that in all ways possible.

I have been told by my HR dept that all US Gov't contractors, at least all Dept of Defense contractors, are required to obtain drug tests of all new hires. No exceptions. Now everyone in my company either has or can qualify for a security clearance, but as I understand it the rule isn't limited to people with clearances. And a positive drug test does not in itself mean loss of a clearance. Note that existing employees do not have to be tested, just new hires.
We inform the candidate about the requirement during the interview. Though the notice is on our job postings. The test is performed after the job offer but prior to start of work. It is not a "surprise" test, the candidate has several days to visit a clinic on our list of approved clinics. And the offer is contingent on passing the test.

[Sigmagirl]

I've never taken any illegal drugs, but I've always been kind of paranoid because of the drugs prescribed for my migraines. What if I've taken some Vicodin, say, and I get a "pop quiz?" Of course I have a valid prescription, but it always makes me worry how much of a hassle it's going to be before I can get my neurologist to verify that I am indeed supposed to be taking it. I'm sure I'm unnecessarily worrying, but I always dread it.

[groo]

For a short while, I needed "runway access" at LAX (Los Angeles International Airport), which is overseen by the FAA. The FAA required anyone with runway access (and probably other positions as well) to be subject to random drug tests. One day, about a dozen of us were given zero-notice drug tests. Since we really only needed to work at the airport 3-4 hours per week, all of us were back in our regular offices several miles away doing what engineers do: writing software, performing tests in our in-house lab, and giving presentations. Everything needed to stop as we left for the morning.

The tests were rather insulting -- we were sent to bathrooms with no running water, and where the water in the toilet was dyed blue. We were given baby-wipes to clean our hands. The chain of custody of our precious samples was very important, and we had to sign a couple of times to verify that the sample bottle label was correct (i.e., that they'd put the label on the bottle in our presence, and that the labeled bottle was placed in a plastic courier envelope in our presence). That actually started worrying me, as the measures were probably the result of people having made mistakes in the past. It would suck royally if my sample were intermingled with someone else's.

A smaller group (three or four) were also sent to a medical lab to have blood drawn; I'm not sure what they were tested for. All of us passed, and in fact, about half of our group seemed amused by the whole thing; the rest were just pissed that we had to blow an entire morning's work. Two had been pulled away from some formal tests, and those tests involved some assets that cost nearly $40K per day. Our company ate these losses (i.e., we were given overhead charge numbers for the time we spent away from work that day).

ETA: My company is a defense contractor, and we all have security clearances. In fact, everyone in our particular group had already agreed to be subject to polygraph tests in the past, though only one had actually had such a test.

[CC]

So it seems that drug testing might occur in jobs and professions where drug impairment might be a serious concern. Fair enough. But I'm looking to work for a book store, maybe one of the large chains. I worry that the corporate mentality might lead to drug testing of even sales clerks and the other low level workers. Likely?

[whiterabbit]

Heck, not only do many jobs require a pre-hiring test but if you are injured on the job they will test you before they are willing to cough up any money to pay for your medical care. See, if you trip and break your wrist on the sales floor, you must have been high!!!!

I'm so glad I'm out of retail. CC, low-level retail is exactly what I'm talking about here. They'll test you.

[Kingspades]

Drug-testing of white collar employees is done less with an eye toward safety or performance and more out of a fear of people stealing from the shop to get their next fix. Your average code jockey hacking away happily at a computer has access to tons of sensitive and valuable information: social security numbers, account numbers, etc.

[BrandonR]

It's certainly more popular than it used to be it seems. I remember reading somewhere that companies get various government incentives by drug testing and proclaiming they're a "drug free workplace" and that otherwise most companies wouldn't bother.

Here's a database that shows what companies drug test and their method: http://www.testclear.com/dtcompanies/searchcompany2.cfm (it looks to be user-submitted so obviously take the information with a grain of salt).

[Chimera]

IT Job, 1990;

New Manager: We should implement drug testing and test all of our current employees.
Director: No, because we'd have to fire half of our employees.
New Manager: So? They shouldn't be doing drugs!
Director: Shut up.

[md2000]

Heck, not only do many jobs require a pre-hiring test but if you are injured on the job they will test you before they are willing to cough up any money to pay for your medical care. See, if you trip and break your wrist on the sales floor, you must have been high!!!!

I'm so glad I'm out of retail. CC, low-level retail is exactly what I'm talking about here. They'll test you.

See, again, in Canada - it does not matter how high or stupid you were. If you are injured on the job, the cost is paid by the Workers' Compensation Board of that province. After all, most accidents are the result of stupidity or negligence (your's or someone else's), or occasionally just plain bad luck.

Of course, if it was an accident outside of work, the same rules apply. You can hang-glide, parachute, extreme skateboarding or be making jack-ass videos and all your necessary medical treatment is covered. No bills, except the prescriptions. No arguments over if it's covered, how much, or who pays.

The only difference - if it's on the job, and not deliberate, you get paid a portion of your lost wages too.

Every time I see people in the USA complaining about Obama's proposed medical coverage I just shake my head. Why? Why?

[sevenwood]

I'm retired now, and the last time I applied for a job (and was hired) was ten years ago. It was for one of those home-shopping companies, and I was "applying" for an IT job that I'd been holding down for the past four years as a contractor. I had to pass a urine test.

Not because they were concerned about either me personally or the possibility of having a stoner in the IT department - because everyone who was hired at that company had to pass a urine test first. Later on someone in HR told me that this policy essentially kept the discrimination police off of their backs, because there were no exceptions. When the CEO was hired (from an outside company) he had to take a urine test first.

[whiterabbit]

md2000, I guess that makes too much sense for US employers.

[dracoi]

In low-level positions, drug tests are often less about drugs and more about finding the kind of employee who is compliant enough to pee in a cup with someone watching.

Maybe... but I recall reading an article in Inc. some time ago where a business owner described the problems he had with warehouse workers. When a guy with a forklift can cause tens of thousands of dollars in damage, you want to be sure he's not shooting up in the bathroom during his breaks. And anyone in a position to handle cash or inventory is also in a position to steal it. People with chronic drug habits are more likely to steal.

Management and knowledge workers are less likely to be in a position to damage equipment or steal assets, but your blue-collar types often have jobs that involve receiving cash, using machinery, stocking inventory and/or packing orders.

[otternell]

Same here, I've never been tested. White collar and tech industry jobs generally aren't.

haven't read the whole thread, but this is not my experience. I am an MBA in mergers and acq and this job required it, though not all previous did.

it depends on the paranoia of the hiring company.

md2000 you just came up with another reason to love our northern neighbors. I hate drug tests, because it is a violation of privacy. If you catch me shooting up, then can me, but if I do it on my time in my home, piss off!! (you of course not meaning any of you dopers!)

[Jackknifed Juggernaut]

md2000, I guess that makes too much sense for US employers.

So in Canada, the costs are distributed over the entire population, while in the US, by the individual employer. I'm not saying that one system is better then the other. But let's not pretend that Canada's got it all figured out.

[Spoons]

If you catch me shooting up, then can me, but if I do it on my time in my home, piss off!! (you of course not meaning any of you dopers!)I nearly had a client who was canned for shooting up in the washroom during his lunch break. Interestingly, he was diabetic, and was injecting insulin. In spite of the sterile syringe and the little jar marked "insulin," the employer chose not to believe him and he was let go on the spot.

In the end, he went with a lawyer who was closer to his home (he actually lived in another city). Pity, because I would have loved to handle this one for him.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? I don't do drug testing for my employees* but if I did, I would spring it with zero notice so you can't prepare.


* I figure that what you do on your own time is your own business. If you show up at work under the influence, I'll fire you for it, but if you want to get drunk or stoned on Friday night, it won't affect your work on Monday morning.

But for most drugs, you'll still test positive - in some cases, even weeks later.

[Dangerosa]

I took one for the job I have now.

I brought in my daughter when I did it - I was breastfeeding. Amused the hell out of the staff.

IME, they send you offsite - its a "here, call this number and set up an appointment for sometime within the next 48 hours" thing.

And they are more likely to do it for low level retail jobs.

[whiterabbit]

So in Canada, the costs are distributed over the entire population, while in the US, by the individual employer. I'm not saying that one system is better then the other. But let's not pretend that Canada's got it all figured out.

I don't want my employer's first response to an on-the-job injury to be weaseling around trying to find any way to avoid helping pay for it, the more privacy-invading the better.

[PatriotGrrrl]

One amusing thing I remember from when I worked for a defense contractor: there was a federal policy that required companies to have a plan for drug testing any workers that they suspected of drug use.

But there was no requirement that they ever suspect anyone. So they didn't. We joked that if you know something, you don't suspect it.

[Mr Smashy]

I have been told by my HR dept that all US Gov't contractors, at least all Dept of Defense contractors, are required to obtain drug tests of all new hires. No exceptions. Now everyone in my company either has or can qualify for a security clearance, but as I understand it the rule isn't limited to people with clearances. And a positive drug test does not in itself mean loss of a clearance. Note that existing employees do not have to be tested, just new hires.
We inform the candidate about the requirement during the interview. Though the notice is on our job postings. The test is performed after the job offer but prior to start of work. It is not a "surprise" test, the candidate has several days to visit a clinic on our list of approved clinics. And the offer is contingent on passing the test.

Your HR dept is lying to you. I am an exec with a large Gov contractor; while you may or may not know the name (which you'll forgive me if I don't divulge) I'm quite certain that most of the people on this board have interacted with our folks in the last year, thinking they were talking to a govie. We are a defense contractor and hold a TS facility clearance.

Anyhoo, I never took any drug test when I joined. Nor did I take one with my previous employer, a high-end R&D Gov contractor. And of course although I hold an active, high-end (pardon the pun) security clearance, there is no requirement for a drug test to get one.

[Dallas Jones]

Some corporate drug policies are in place for insurance reasons. In manufacturing, the cost of worker's comp insurance is very high. There is a focus on safety and accident reduction. Zero tolerance drug policies are also part of getting the lowest insurance rates possible.

With a zero tolerance workplace you will be tested when you get hired and then maybe not at all for years. But if you have an accident you will be tested and if you test positive you will be fired. You might be working properly, following all safety proceedures, etc. and another careless employee comes around the corner and runs over your foot with a fork lift.

His test comes back clean and he may be written up about his safety violation regarding the fork lift, but keeps his job.

You test positive and even though you were not at fault, you are fired. No explanations accepted. Zero tolerance workplace policies make it just too dangerous to even occationally use. You could trip over your own feet, bump your head, and lose your job.

Also as mentioned up thread, any business that contracts with the US federal government must have a drug testing program in place. This is not restricted to security sensitive areas either. You could be bidding on providing mattresses to the Forest Service, somewhere in the contract language you will find 'drug free workplace' as a condition. They may not bother to actually check what your drug program is, but the language will be there.

This is due to the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988. You don't HAVE to be a drug free workplace, unless you want to sell anything at all to the federal government.

23.504 Policy.
(a) No offeror other than an individual shall be considered a responsible source (see 9.104-1(g) and 19.602-1(a)(2)(i)) for a contract that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, unless it agrees that it will provide a drug-free workplace by—

See the rest of the contract language here:

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2023_5.html

[Dallas Jones]

Your HR dept is lying to you. I am an exec with a large Gov contractor; while you may or may not know the name (which you'll forgive me if I don't divulge) I'm quite certain that most of the people on this board have interacted with our folks in the last year, thinking they were talking to a govie. We are a defense contractor and hold a TS facility clearance.

Anyhoo, I never took any drug test when I joined. Nor did I take one with my previous employer, a high-end R&D Gov contractor. And of course although I hold an active, high-end (pardon the pun) security clearance, there is no requirement for a drug test to get one.

You may not have been drug tested, not every business bothers to read or comply with all the contract language. But whatever contract you are working under for the US Federal government should have the page on this link in it.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2023_5.html

Now whether your company pays any attention to it is another thing. Since you are an exec. why don't you ask to look at the contract. I would be very surprised it you don't find the drug free workplace section.

[Mr Smashy]

You may not have been drug tested, not every business bothers to read or comply with all the contract language. But whatever contract you are working under for the US Federal government should have the page on this link in it.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2023_5.html

Now whether your company pays any attention to it is another thing. Since you are an exec. why don't you ask to look at the contract. I would be very surprised it you don't find the drug free workplace section.

We follow the policy, don't get me wrong. There are signs here and there, and I dont remember the hiring docs (it was a couple years ago) but I'm sure they said, "no drugs" or some such thing.

But I couldn't find anything in there about drug testing; just a policy about maintaining a drug free workplace (and letting the KO know if someone's doing drugs, etc)

When you say not every business complies.... you sure you mean to say that? I see nothing in the policy about drug testing.

Edit to add: now that I re-read your post, you should understand that we have 100's of federal contracts, and about 10k employees (not huge I admit, but decent size). We follow the FAR and DFARS of course. There's not just 'one contract' as you implied.

[Dallas Jones]

Well, I guess a company could call itself a drug free workplace with a minimal program. It at least needs a written drug policy that all employees are aware of. Usually you have to sign the drug free policy upon getting hired as part of the usual stack of stuff.

A drug free workplace policy that doesn't include at least pre-employment testing is a pretty thin program, in my opinion. But usually the drug policy language says something like 'may be tested' and can be waived at the descretion of the business.

I wasn't doubting that you got hired without a test, it was probably just waived in your case.

[Mr Smashy]

I wasn't doubting that you got hired without a test, it was probably just waived in your case.

You're probably right. I'm white after all, and don't have a ponytail, an Obama or 'Coexist' bumper sticker, or drive a Prius or some such silly thing.


I'm joking people, check your fire, man down-range

[Kozmik]

So it seems that drug testing might occur in jobs and professions where drug impairment might be a serious concern. Fair enough. But I'm looking to work for a book store, maybe one of the large chains. I worry that the corporate mentality might lead to drug testing of even sales clerks and the other low level workers. Likely?For managers and corporate, they have one less thing to worry about knowing that everyone has tested for drugs. From the perspective of the employee, you -- well, at minimum you can be fairly certain that that guy walking down the aisle isn't under the influence... (and he the same with you). This is good policy for retail, logistics, food service.

Book stores? There might not be a need for a strict drug policy in independent book stores, but for larger chains, it might not be a bad idea. Probably the difference between them. So drug is a four letter word. At least you'll have a job.

[Really Not All That Bright]

You may not have been drug tested, not every business bothers to read or comply with all the contract language. But whatever contract you are working under for the US Federal government should have the page on this link in it.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2023_5.html

Now whether your company pays any attention to it is another thing. Since you are an exec. why don't you ask to look at the contract. I would be very surprised it you don't find the drug free workplace section.
Nothing in the Federal Drug Free Workplace Act requires employees to be drug tested. Many similar (and similarly named) state laws do.

[rhubarbarin]

I have never once been drug tested. But all my jobs have been at very small businesses.

[Markxxx]

Part of drug testing is subjective and part is preventive.

For instance, I audited a company and they couldn't catch a guy stealing, so rather than go through their books, which were a total mess, I told them to test the guy for drugs. He failed and got axed ASAP.

Now I'll admit that was a lucky guess, but the stealing stopped. Most likely he was stealing to support a drug habit.

So you can use testing in many ways. I think they test everyone to simply rule out any chance of someone claiming discrimination.

For instance, when I worked at hotels, the last two airport hotels I worked at, all but one driver in each hotel was a minority. All the drivers (but one in each hotel) were black or Latino.

If you were to limit drug testing to drivers, for instance, someone is going to cry race.

[Clothahump]

You're on the right track. In Ontario (and to the best of my knowledge, all Canadian provinces), drug testing is not allowed because it may infringe a disability--addiction--which is a prohibited ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code. From page 2 of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's Policy on Drug and Alcohol Testing (http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/Policies/PolicyDrugAlch/pdf) (warning, PDF):

Of course, the Code makes allowances for employees in safety-sensitive positions (drivers, equipment operators, and the like). Still, some time ago, I had to explain to an American client that no, they were legally prevented from pre-employment and random drug/alcohol testing their Canadian office employees because of the above from Ontario and similar Codes in other provinces.

That's just plain fucking stupid.

I, as an employer, do NOT have the right to determine if someone I'm thinking of hiring is a junkie? The mind boggles at the level of asshattery it took to come up with that massive pile of ignorance.

[BrotherCadfael]

I once held a high-level security clearance for a Defense Department job - the kind where they interview the doctor who delivered you and everyone you've ever met since - and we didn't get a drug test. Of course, this was in 1982.

[bump]

Let's see.. out of 6 full-time jobs that I've had, only 3 have required pre-employment drug testing, and two have required random drug testing during the time of employment.

Of those two, one was a helicopter company, and had the policy that if our test pilots had to get tested, so did everyone else- sort of a twisted solidarity thing.

The other was a healthcare company who has the general policy that we won't sell any health related services that we don't also do for/on our own employees. Sort of a walk-the-talk and work-the-bugs-out-on-ourselves deal (which I actually respect), and pre-employment and random drug tests are something we offer to our clients.

The other 2 didn't say a damn word about drugs- one of them was a dot-com, one was a pretty big-name corporate restructuring firm.

Having seen some of the drug testing data at the healthcare company, the VAST majority of people pass those pre-employment screenings.

[Declan]

That's just plain fucking stupid.

I, as an employer, do NOT have the right to determine if someone I'm thinking of hiring is a junkie? The mind boggles at the level of asshattery it took to come up with that massive pile of ignorance.

I'm betting that when the policy of drug testing first started gaining momentum in the States, it was looked at in Canada as well. Most of our regulations mirror each other in most respects and our employers are no different than American ones, in fact we probably have enough work places that are branch plants of American companies that the corparate rules would come down on both sides.

The problem is that there is a high prevalence of drug use , primarily of marijuana in the lower levels , and higher end drugs in the corperate level. You would have quite a few workplaces that would be devastated by the penalty terminations and no one could get rehired due to screenings.

That and we have a different degree of what constitutes privacy, what I do on your property is your business, what I do on my own time is mine. I dont do drugs of any kind , but am reminded of a company down stateside called Motorolla, who decreed that all employees are now forbidden from smoking at any time, anywhere.

I think that if my company president came up with that little gem, I would light up a smoke in his office and tell him to go someplace really warm and get a tee shirt while he was there, it would save a lot of time.

Declan

[Northern Piper]

That's just plain fucking stupid.

I, as an employer, do NOT have the right to determine if someone I'm thinking of hiring is a junkie? The mind boggles at the level of asshattery it took to come up with that massive pile of ignorance.
Canada balances the rights of employers and employees differently than is the case in the United States. Canadian law tends to provide greater protection to employees than appears to be the case in the U.S. Most Canadians appear to be comfortable with that approach, since there's not been any pressure to change the laws in this area.

[Spoons]

Deleted post; repetition of points I've already stated. Sorry.

[Spoons]

Okay, now that I'm addressing the point I should have addressed previously...

That's just plain fucking stupid.

I, as an employer, do NOT have the right to determine if someone I'm thinking of hiring is a junkie? The mind boggles at the level of asshattery it took to come up with that massive pile of ignorance.Well, at least your language is cleaner than that of some of my American clients when they get this news.

But to put it simply, no you don't have that right. You can only demand a drug test if (a), you have extended a conditional offer of employment (conditional upon passing a drug test, for example); and (b), if the lack of drugs in your prospective employee's system is a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR). You cannot state that every position in your company has a "clean drug test" as a BFOR; if you are challenged on that point and fail to prove that such is the case, you'll end up paying heavily.

Northern Piper is quite correct when he notes that Canada balances the rights of employees and employers differently than in the US. In very general terms, the idea is that there is a level playing field, and neither side is bargaining from a position of strength. Clothahump, your post above implies that you want and expect to bargain from a position of strength, but you couldn't do that in Canada. Employment and human rights legislation supports this goal of a level playing field in a number of ways; among them is the "blind" hiring process, where Person X's qualifications are the only criteria used in deciding whether he or she is suited for Job Y. The system seems to work; certainly, Canadian employers end up hiring the most qualified people and Canadian employees are protected from any illegalities or rights infringements.

[robert_columbia]

I may be looking for some part time work in a month or so. The last time I sought work was a little over 40 years ago. At that time, the hoop you had to get through was a loyalty oath, promising your employer that you were not a Commie - an irrelevant assurance to most jobs, to be sure. Times have changed. Now, I gather that most employees have to prove that they are not doing drugs of any type in the privacy of their own homes on their own time, still irrelevant to most jobs. Will I probably be asked to do a drug test? Do they usually spring that on you at an interview? Do you get any lead time to prepare, as it were? What's the normal procedure these days? Thanks, Dopers - and I mean that in all ways possible.

I remember seeing copies some of my mom's old application forms (I know she had or has teaching licenses from NJ and PA so they were probably from one or both of those states) that she kept from when she was a schoolteacher in the 1970's - she had to certify that she was not a commie and that she didn't belong to any organizations that supported the overthrow of these US of A, but I don't remember there being anything about drugs at all.

I have never been tested for drugs by an employer. Ever. And I worked in a job where I had a Top Secret DOD clearance - and they didn't test me. Your mileage may greatly vary.

Speaking of tobacco, apparently there is a state law in Virginia that employees of the State cannot normally be fired for REFUSING to consume a tobacco product. http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+2.2-2902 That's Virginia for you.

[Skammer]

I never had a drug test in my white-collar consulting jobs, but when I switched to the retail industry (I'm in HR) I had to take one as part of the hiring process. Our company is mainly concerned about our store associates and warehouse workers using drugs, but to be fair all corporate employees have to take the test too.

[md2000]

Okay, now that I'm addressing the point I should have addressed previously...

Well, at least your language is cleaner than that of some of my American clients when they get this news.

But to put it simply, no you don't have that right. You can only demand a drug test if (a), you have extended a conditional offer of employment (conditional upon passing a drug test, for example); and (b), if the lack of drugs in your prospective employee's system is a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR). You cannot state that every position in your company has a "clean drug test" as a BFOR; if you are challenged on that point and fail to prove that such is the case, you'll end up paying heavily.

Northern Piper is quite correct when he notes that Canada balances the rights of employees and employers differently than in the US. In very general terms, the idea is that there is a level playing field, and neither side is bargaining from a position of strength. Clothahump, your post above implies that you want and expect to bargain from a position of strength, but you couldn't do that in Canada. Employment and human rights legislation supports this goal of a level playing field in a number of ways; among them is the "blind" hiring process, where Person X's qualifications are the only criteria used in deciding whether he or she is suited for Job Y. The system seems to work; certainly, Canadian employers end up hiring the most qualified people and Canadian employees are protected from any illegalities or rights infringements.

Yes. If you hire someone and can't tell they have a problem - then it isn't much of a problem, is it? Or your criteria are pretty lax. Most Canadian provinces have a 30 to 90 day "probation" period, where you can determine if the employee in fact can do the job. If not -sayonara. If you have the guy work for you for 2 months and can't tell there's something wrong, then there's nothing wrong.

What he does evenings and the weekends is NOYFB, unless it affects his work the next day. If he's a backslider, then he would have passed the hiring test. If he starts up after his probabtion - well that could happen to anyone, and you should be keeping your eyes open as an employer.

Besides, there's no urine test for texting on the job.

[shiftless]

The odd thing is that they don't test for alcohol in these "drug" tests. Sure alcohol is legal but the point of the tests is (or claims to be) to try to find people who are unsafe due to drug use at work - not to catch people who have done illegal things in the past.

My wife worked for years for a beer distributor (friends still claim that is why I married her.) So many of the employees are basically truck drivers that everyone had to be tested for drugs. Makes sense, they were out on the road with huge trucks and the state didn't want them high while they were doing it. But ... they delivered beer and thought little of consuming their product while working. If a job required testing for drugs and alcohol at the beginning of a shift I could understand the practice, but most testing is of the "have you done any illegal drugs in the past month" type.