My Son is embarrassed

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by Unrepresented

Yes. Seriously.

Employers or prospective employers shouldn't be allowed to demand bodily fluids from us any more than they should be allowed to tap my phone calls, put a GPS on my personal vehicle, have access to my social network accounts, or any other violation of my privacy, all of which could certainly be argued are "for safety." If I'm not fit to perform a job function, than that should be clear by my work record, not the contents of my urine.

If a court needs a warrant to get it, why should my boss or my potential boss be allowed to take it or deny me employment?

Quite right.

[DwaynieAD]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

A drug test for a warehouse job - why?

forklifts and other powered industrial trucks weigh about 3 times what your car does. do you really want someone on drugs driving one around?

[DwaynieAD]

Originally Posted by Unrepresented

Yes. Seriously.

Employers or prospective employers shouldn't be allowed to demand bodily fluids from us any more than they should be allowed to tap my phone calls, put a GPS on my personal vehicle, have access to my social network accounts, or any other violation of my privacy, all of which could certainly be argued are "for safety." If I'm not fit to perform a job function, than that should be clear by my work record, not the contents of my urine.

If a court needs a warrant to get it, why should my boss or my potential boss be allowed to take it or deny me employment?

this may come as a shock to you, but you can say no and not get the job. that is your right.

Originally Posted by Unrepresented

Yes, random drug screens are even more invasive. Why not just go the extra step and have all employees required to wear ankle monitoring bracelets that detect alcohol in our perspiration? It's good enough for parolees, it should be fine for the rest of us working stiffs, right?

if you showed up to work in my warehouse under the influence of something i'd rat you out in a heartbeat. too many people are killed in warehouses every year due to crap like that.

[MrLenny1]

S$%t happens.

[smcfarland1337]

Well.

This escalated quickly.

[Relic]

Anyway back to the original spirit of the thread:

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

I'm going to mention this to my oldest son...I figure it's a good learning thing because I can so see him doing this as well.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Yeah, the drug test thing is BS. It can trace use even if it was months ago. Having some weed over the weekend doesn't mean you'll come to work stoned.

Maybe they shouldn't hire anyone that drinks either, just incase they come to work under the influence.

It's almost the same level of BS as employers asking for your username and password so they can access your facebook or whatever social networking websites.

[Chebass88]

It is only a question of perceived risk & minimizing the perceived amount of money that the company would have to pay, if an event happened.

The drug test only indicates whether the specific chemicals are in the body at that time. I've heard the rule of thumb of 30 days, but it is heavily dependent on usage rate, metabolic rate, hydration level, etc. If an individual fails a drug test, there is no direct correlation between single use, multiple use, or even when the drugs were used - only that the concentration is sufficient to fail the test.

A company minimizing the amounts of money they have to pay (even perceiving that they will pay) in the event of an incident will take the conservative approach. It is very easy to assume that failed drug test = person likely to use again, or worse, a person who recreationally breaks the law.

From the employer's perspective - there is an employee who has engaged in illicit activity, and there is the potential to do so again. What other laws would the applicant break, and is there an increased risk in the workplace (resulting in pay-outs by the employer)?

And it is not egregious - if you don't want to submit to a test - DON'T WORK THERE. Very simple.

[Strat-Mangler]

Originally Posted by Chebass88

And it is not egregious - if you don't want to submit to a test - DON'T WORK THERE. Very simple.

Exactly.

It's their rules. It's also your choice to play by them by throwing your hat into the ring or foregoing that opportunity and trying your hand somewhere else.

[DwaynieAD]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

Yeah, the drug test thing is BS. It can trace use even if it was months ago. Having some weed over the weekend doesn't mean you'll come to work stoned.

Maybe they shouldn't hire anyone that drinks either, just incase they come to work under the influence.

It's almost the same level of BS as employers asking for your username and password so they can access your facebook or whatever social networking websites.

mouthswab

[MakiSupaStar]

He's just being thorough in case they wanted a stool sample too.

[MarkMgibson]

Originally Posted by Strat-Mangler

Exactly.

It's their rules. It's also your choice to play by them by throwing your hat into the ring or foregoing that opportunity and trying your hand somewhere else.

If every company is doing it, then you either submit to these tests or you don't work. Where's the "choice" in that?

[Unrepresented]

Originally Posted by DwaynieAD

this may come as a shock to you, but you can say no and not get the job. that is your right.

...Except, to my knowledge, there are no limits as to what industries or employers are allowed to ask for a drug screening as a pre-employment condition. They can potentially all demand it, and then we as members of society who need employment to function are denied that if we refuse to submit.

Originally Posted by DwaynieAD

if you showed up to work in my warehouse under the influence of something i'd rat you out in a heartbeat. too many people are killed in warehouses every year due to crap like that.

If someone's under the influence, then as I said, document it and go through the proper procedures. I'm not advocating that people be allowed to work when they're not sober, I'm simply arguing that the increasing amount of standardized urine testing is a violation of all of our privacy.

[klyph]

Pre employment drug screenings say more about what the company thinks of on-site management than about how they view the workers. The more tests they can perform to screen that don't involve the managers, the more reliably they can cheaply replace said managers. It's just a ploy to take control OUT of the workplace. Any good manager/foreman could judge the capacities of an applicant, but there are very few of those working outside the trades or the military. Better to just hire some low IQ cipher to hand you a cup and check little boxes on a form. If you keep your mouth shut about all the ignored OSHA regs and macho BS that goes on in ALL warehouses, then YOU can be a low IQ cipher, too!

Remember too that drug screenings have dropped in cost dramatically over the last 20 years, and the savings realized on liability premiums now more than cover the cost. Ain't nothing you can do about that except.... get a job at a drug testing company.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

A drug test for a warehouse job - why?

Originally Posted by Downunderwonder

Who wants to employ a thieving drug addict for any position?

Thats a poor screening process for theives...

Originally Posted by Tony Flow MMMM

but I do know who I'd want to hire if I was an employer. Someone who has the better chance of being a good worker and protecting my ass.

Would that be the guy who smokes pot in the evenings after he gets home from work? Or the cokehead who stays clean for two weeks to pass his drug test and then gets amped up before his shift with a nice key bump? Or perhaps the guy who goes home after work and beats his wife?

Originally Posted by Tony Flow MMMM

It's all about accident prevention. I guess used to it. Safety is a big factor where I work. If someone comes into work influenced drops something from 100ft up and kills me.... I'd be a very unhappy dead person. Maybe the drugs had nothing to with it. BUT MAYBE if that person wouldn't have been under the influence it would have never happened. That would devastate my wife.

And if the person who dropped stuff on you was sober? Would your wife be any less devastated?

Originally Posted by DwaynieAD

forklifts and other powered industrial trucks weigh about 3 times what your car does. do you really want someone on drugs driving one around?

But a drug screen doesnt stop anyone from taking drugs after their test.
Pre-employment drug screening is a flawed method of determining whether or not a potential employee does drugs.

Originally Posted by Chebass88

It is only a question of perceived risk & minimizing the perceived amount of money that the company would have to pay, if an event happened.

The drug test only indicates whether the specific chemicals are in the body at that time. I've heard the rule of thumb of 30 days, but it is heavily dependent on usage rate, metabolic rate, hydration level, etc. If an individual fails a drug test, there is no direct correlation between single use, multiple use, or even when the drugs were used - only that the concentration is sufficient to fail the test.

A company minimizing the amounts of money they have to pay (even perceiving that they will pay) in the event of an incident will take the conservative approach. It is very easy to assume that failed drug test = person likely to use again, or worse, a person who recreationally breaks the law.

From the employer's perspective - there is an employee who has engaged in illicit activity, and there is the potential to do so again. What other laws would the applicant break, and is there an increased risk in the workplace (resulting in pay-outs by the employer)?

I understand the reasons for doing them, but most people who do drugs know how to pass a pee test.

[boynamedsuse]

Trying to stay on topic (I know).

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

"That's what I think of your test policy"

+3

Originally Posted by pocketgroove

I know a guy who borrowed his sister's pee for a drug test...a while later, when the results came in, his employer came to tell him congrats about his pregnancy.

Busted!

Originally Posted by MakiSupaStar

He's just being thorough in case they wanted a stool sample too.

Nice.

[Chebass88]

Originally Posted by MarkMgibson

If every company is doing it, then you either submit to these tests or you don't work. Where's the "choice" in that?

The choice is that you can take a job that does not require a drug test. For example, you are free to start your own lawn care company, or be a free lance musician.

There is a choice - you just don't like the alternatives.

[Unrepresented]

Originally Posted by Chebass88

The choice is that you can take a job that does not require a drug test. For example, you are free to start your own lawn care company, or be a free lance musician.

There is a choice - you just don't like the alternatives.

Starting a business requires start up capital.

Living in society requires an income.

One shouldn't have to have the luxury of capital to retain privacy.

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

"That's what I think of your test policy"

LMAO!

[LiquidMidnight]

Originally Posted by Chebass88

It is only a question of perceived risk & minimizing the perceived amount of money that the company would have to pay, if an event happened.

The drug test only indicates whether the specific chemicals are in the body at that time. I've heard the rule of thumb of 30 days, but it is heavily dependent on usage rate, metabolic rate, hydration level, etc. If an individual fails a drug test, there is no direct correlation between single use, multiple use, or even when the drugs were used - only that the concentration is sufficient to fail the test.

A company minimizing the amounts of money they have to pay (even perceiving that they will pay) in the event of an incident will take the conservative approach. It is very easy to assume that failed drug test = person likely to use again, or worse, a person who recreationally breaks the law.

From the employer's perspective - there is an employee who has engaged in illicit activity, and there is the potential to do so again. What other laws would the applicant break, and is there an increased risk in the workplace (resulting in pay-outs by the employer)?

And it is not egregious - if you don't want to submit to a test - DON'T WORK THERE. Very simple.

While that's a well-reasoned argument, the counter to that is many selection protocols have poor criterion-validity (i.e., they're not necessarily predictive of future performance). If employers understood that more, so many of them wouldn't base their hiring decisions primarily on how candidates perform in job interviews.

It's been a while since I've looked at the literature, but I have done some research into pre-employment drug screening. From what I remember, it really wasn't effective at screening out candidates. Unfortunately, I can't remember all of the details at the moment.