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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
md2000, I guess that makes too much sense for US employers.
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.
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!)
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 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.
But for most drugs, you’ll still test positive - in some cases, even weeks later.
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.
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.