Employer drug testing

Great Debates
81

you call using illegal drugs while job hunting smart?

Nope, but it’s one way to judge the decision making process of perspective employees.

Maybe, but would you consider an otherwise intelligent person who decides to do illegal drugs while job hunting to have good judgment and foresight?

And I think it’s ridiculously stupid and shows a total lack of judgment to take illegal drugs while looking for a job.

Many companies drug test for ideological and insurance reasons. If you VOLUNTARILY do something illegal that limits your employability WHILE JOB HUNTING, I believe you to be an idiot.

82

This site lists blood and urine detection times.

It also notes:

It goes on to recomnd that the best way of getting an accurate postive measurement is to employ a “zero-tolerance” policy, meaning that a postive result is given when even a trace of the drug is found.

wring, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. My cite generally agrees with all of your estimates.

Sgt. J:

Nope. However, what if they didn’t actually do the drugs that were detected in their system while they were looking for a job? The cite I posted above claims that mj stays in the system “Several days to 30 days average, seen up to 3 months on an extremely heavy user.” A lot can happen in 30 days, including losing a job and having to look for a new one. It would be even worse if the company that was testing the urine sample did so on a zero-tolerance basis.

Look, I agree with your point that if someone does an illegal drug while actively looking for a job, then they aren’t too smart, or at least displayed a moment of poor judgement.

However, since I feel that certain drugs shouldn’t even be illegal, and since certain drugs are more likely to be detected for longer periods of time, I don’t think that drug testing is inherently fair, and thus my problem with it.

83

all of the data I’ve read about drug testing is that if the lab is reliable, then the test is too. “zero tolerance” generally was not ‘acceptable’ for CJ system, since the possability of a false positive was not acceptable (however, they did adopt a low level alchol reading, 0.02 IIRC as ‘dirty’ for alcohol. If some one was to not drink at all, impairment wasn’t the issue. HOwever, they couldn’t legitimately make it “zero” since there’s quite a few legitmate ways to get some alcohol in the system - mouth wash, cough syrup etc.)

The data also suggested that if the employer was trying to ‘go cheap’ as it were and hire a lab that didn’t have proper quality controls, their results were going to be less accurate.

However, in the whole view of accuracy, I stand by my statement that the person who is giving the specimin has the best motive for adulterating it and the best opportunity.

84

This always happens. Every time a question is asked, or a proposition is put forth, about chemical vs impairment testing the debate wanders off into areas not germain to the subject.
I went back and re-re-read Mr2001’s OP. He is (and I am) clearly interested in a debate over the relative benefits of both methods of determining an employee’s fitness to work. Not once did he claim that a drug user (specifically) was of any special value to his/her employer because of drug use. He (and I) feel that impairment testing could be of some real value, whereas present testing methods have not been shown to be so.
I get the same sort of response when I try to bring the subject to the safety and medical people at work. They can’t show a correlation between piss testing and safety/productivity so they won’t discuss it.
Where’s Cliff? :wink:
Peace,
mangeorge

85

So, here’s where it stands today:

Drug testing is simply a game, and the rules are readily available to any person smart enough to ask for them. The rule is: It’s okay if you manage to put your drug use on hiatus, get a job, then resume drug use.

If you’re so weak-willed that you are unable or unwilling to temproarily discontinue the use of drugs, you are an idiot, and therefore don’t deserve a job.

If you ask me, I would agree with the above! The only problem, though, is the whole “give an inch, take a mile” concept----if we allow discrimination like this to take place, it only opens the door for things to get worse.

A few friends of mine who worked at Home Depot told me the policy there: A pre-employment test, and if you had an accident on the job where damage cost more than $250, you’d be tested again… Similar principle: Don’t be an idiot, and you’ll never get caught.

If I may diverge for a moment…

When I got hired by a manager at Circuit City, he sent me to another manager for my “loss prevention interview.” This first manager told me that he wasn’t allowed to coach me on it, but that he was going to do so anyway. He told me the rules: No matter what they ask me, even if it’s stealing an apple off a tree, I was to declare that (1) it’s wrong, (2) I’d never done that before, ever, and (3) if I were to observe someone else doing it, I’d inform the proper authorities immediately.

The manager went on to explain that he’d once had the perfect job candidate, who subseqently failed his loss prevention interview by admitting to once buying a pair of “hot” speakers, and he didn’t want this to happen again.

When my own loss prevention interview started, the manager conducting it read verbatim from a sheet that said I should answer honestly, and that even if I admit to doing something, it wouldn’t necessarily bar me from employment… this would lead some interviewees to believe that it’s okay to appear “human” by admitting to stealing a candy bar or whatever… but the real deal is, if you admit to any kind of stealing whatsoever, you won’t get hired.

This was my first experience with such a “test;” I had a similar time when I later worked for Best Buy. By that time, I knew perfectly well what Best Buy wanted to hear.

My point?

Loss-prevention interviews serve to filter out people who are poor at taking loss-prevention interviews; they do not really serve to filter out thieves.

Likewise, pre-employment drug testing serves to filter out true addicts, people who don’t know how the tests work, or people who didn’t plan their job search in advance (i.e. just got laid off yesterday). I can’t see any possible way that our current way of drug testing would ever filter out regular, but non-addicted and intelligent users.

86

Impairment testing? For my cashiers? WTF am I supposed to do, make sure they can find the keys on the cash register? And let’s say I owned a metal shop. When do I do this 'impairment testing"? Every morning? After lunch on Friday? Randomly twice a week? Impairment testing only protects your employees if you do it every day. If you only do it once a week they could be high the rest of the days and you’d never know it. And how about a cite on impairment testing (did I miss it)? What is it? Is it in use? By who?

posted by mangeorge

(bold mine)

That is the farthest thing from a proven fact here, don’t throw it out like a “given”. YOU think present methods have no real value, but they have a great deal of value to me.

And again, how about a cite showing why we should feel it has value?

Impairment testing has to be done more often than urinalysis. Why should I as the business owner go out of my way to help you with your illegal drug habit? I have enough to worry about and pay for. Most small business fail in the first five years. I’m not spending a dime or a minute making drug testing more convenient for my employees to get high at home.

All of this is geared toward letting people get high in the privacy of their own home. I don’t care if it’s difficult for you. It’s a voluntary action and it’s illegal, and the best argument for it is “it’s fun” (most users are not on chemotherapy or have chronic Glaucoma). My sympathy meter isn’t moving too far.

posted by Demise

“Because you want to legalize pot” isn’t a good reason for me not to drug test, it’s a good reason to try and legazise pot (and I would vote for it too).

87

Oral sex can be pretty intrusive on the job, too. Just ask Bill Clinton.

Rimshot.

**

This is largely an irrelevant argument (but then again, so is the argument concerning people who recently got fired). Rarely does anyone go do an interview the same time they go for a urine test. In fact, most companies don’t require urine tests until after they’ve made a job offer, something that generally takes at least a week after the interview to be made (and for soon to be college graduates, can take up to two months). One can hide one’s addiction in the interview and turn around and be going through withdrawal during the urine test. No one would be the wiser.

88

“no one would be the wiser”? bwhahahahahaha. Except, of course, all the lab personnel etc. Have you ever known serious level drug abusers?? they all think they’re ‘passing’ and often anyone who spends any time w/em knows better. and thinking they’d be able to ‘get by’ during a routine interview? On Mondays at the half way house, we’d do ‘evaluations’. Every Monday. Same list of 12 questions (‘how do you feel about your job’ etc.). One day one of my little folks came in and I’m going through the list, same list she’s heard at least 30 times before (she’d been there before). She kept getting distracted. “how do I fell about what? oh… my job,” and failed to notice that her bra was on crooked so that it cut across her breasts much like those sashes on beauty queens - had to be uncomfortable. “what’s wrong w/your bra” I asked. “My what?” 'Your bra" and pointed - that’s when she noticed it was on wrong. Yep. I never noticed she was out of it.

Sgt J makes an excellent point re: impairment testing. IN order for impairment testing to be of any significant use (other than to determine relative levels of responsability after an accident), it would have to be done at the least, daily.
which involves significant use of $$ and a much more significant level of personal intrusion (wanna get tested at your job pre employment and potentially some time after ward, or every single day?)

89

You have, Sgt. J, made it clear that the use of drugs is not your concern. But cashiers are not considered to be in safety sensitive positions, so I can understand that position.
My main concern is safety, then productivity. And I care about productivity only because I don’t like picking up someone else’s slack.
I just snagged these from google;

http://www.ndsn.org/APRIL93/TESTING.html

http://www.pmifit.com/

http://startribune.hr.com/index.cfm/46/91F1F852-01F3-11D5-9ABA009027E0248F

http://www.aclu-mass.org/issuebriefs/drugtesting.html

BTW; ol’ mangeorge doesn’t use drugs.
Peace,
mangeorge

90

Thank you mangeorge! Finally something more than vague terminology from the OP.

The first cite makes sense for some occupations, but I don’t see how it would dissuade most companies from drug testing, and the fact that the info was from the President of a company that is selling an impairment testing machine doesn’t lend that air of objectivity. (Same with the second))

The StarTribune article contradicts the ascertain from the Drugwarfacts page that drug testing is decreasing in the US, but had a lot of info I found interesting.

The ACLU page has a lot of reasons drug testing is bad, but also contained the following info:

The SCOTUS sees a use for the procedure in certain situations. I also see a use for them in situations where I have a vested interest in a workforce at least bright enough to get past a per-employment piss test.

I was just reading my post from this morning. Speaking of drug impairment, I think I need to cut back a little on the caffeine.

:smiley:

91

I did. I work for the state, and the day I interviewed, I was also asked to go to the bathroom with a cup. A bit unexpected, to say the least. And, I had no idea it was coming. Of course, had I anything to worry about, maybe I would have found out aboout drug testing beforehand. But I had nothing to worry about, so I coped just fine.

92

You’re assuming a few thing here.

(1) The people administering the test actually give 2 shits about the physical condition of the person taking it.

(2) They know for sure what a drug addict going through withdrawal look like, compared to maybe somene who is really sick with some other condition.

(3) They call up the employer, report this to the employer, and the employer takes this hearsay information into consideration to disqualify the candidate.

Now maybe that’s the way things work in some areas.

When I had to pee in a cup, I think I had to sign one form, was given a cup by a receptionist, entered the bathroom, and did my thing. I then returned the sample and walked out. I think a grand total of two or three people actually had contact with me, for only a small period of time. Personally, I think they were just glad they were making some profit by administering the test.

But IANALab Technician, so I couldn’t tell you for sure.

**

Have you ever known any lab technicians? Have you talked to any of them about a situation like this? Or are you just working off assumptions?

93

did I know any lab techs? surely you jest. I ran a correction center for 14 years. Was part of the ‘chain of evidence’ for drug testing. Yea, I know lab techs.

My main problem w/employer testing from centuries ago was that they’d hand some one a cup and wait patiently for it’s return. To me, that’s guarenteeing that you’ll only get casual drug users. But from what I’ve gathered (from asking employers and the places that they use to drug test), the process is now:

  1. Person establishes w/picture ID their identity.
  2. They’re accompanyed into bathroom by personnel, and observed as they fill container.
  3. Container is then sealed in front of the person, both observer and person initial it.
  4. sample is secured in restricted area until tested. If seal is broken or some how not official, spec. is not tested.
  5. first test is generalized test. if it shows neg, neg result is posted and no further tests are done.
  6. if first test is positive, then further tests are done to identify drug. if subsequent tests are inconclusive, neg result is posted. If subsequent tests are positive, then positive result is posted. Sample is retained in case of dispute.

Again, while a false positive test is not impossible, it’s also not very likely at all, and absent specific malice, it seems to me that the sole person in a position to adalterate the specimin is the person giving the specimin.

My experience was that several folks swore up and down that they’d not had any drugs. In cases of known drug users, well, I recall the woman who was caught with drugs in her possession and she said “thank god you caught me, I was thinking of using again”. In cases of folks w/o a history, I tracked the timing back and in both cases, they were physically at their families home w/in a day or so prior to the test, and at each of the homes involved there were other residents w/serious physical problems who were on prescription pain killers. Both of those cases, the person involved had either had a head ache or back ache while at home and had taken what they thought was OTC tylenol. In my opinion they actually took tylenol 3’s (w/codeine).
So, my experience was with thousands of samples, and there were 2 results that weren’t expected/expectable. And those two had plausible explanations. and the methods have improved in the past decade since my experience.

94

Okay. Who did the lab techs work for? What kind of instructions were they given? Did they tend to have higher cases of drug users due to them working with a correction center? Were correction centers their primary or only clients?

95

Medical lab. They ran tests for the correction center, for doctors and for employers. they increased the level of service for the correction center (by having the specimins signed for) so that they could have a clear chain of evidence should the case go to court. However, the procedures were all the same (ie, same people would have access to stuff, same security so that janitors from outside sources wouldn’t have access etc.). The difference is that for court you must name specific people who had ‘custody’, and allow them to testify ‘no, I didn’t do anything’ vs. know that only these 5 people might have had custody and none of them did anything.

The difference is not significant for the purposes of test quality (unless you’re suggesting that the lab techs would specifically intend to alter the test results. )