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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
Nothing in the Federal Drug Free Workplace Act requires employees to be drug tested. Many similar (and similarly named) state laws do.
I have never once been drug tested. But all my jobs have been at very small businesses.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
Deleted post; repetition of points I’ve already stated. Sorry.
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.
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. Legislative Information System That’s Virginia for you.
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.