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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
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.