Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
My Son is embarrassed
- Thread starter MEKer
- Start date
forklifts and other powered industrial trucks weigh about 3 times what your car does. do you really want someone on drugs driving one around?
this may come as a shock to you, but you can say no and not get the job. that is your 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Something Borderline Offensive
...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.
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.
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.
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.
Thats a poor screening process for theives...
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?
And if the person who dropped stuff on you was sober? Would your wife be any less devastated?
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.
I understand the reasons for doing them, but most people who do drugs know how to pass a pee test.
Trying to stay on topic (I know). 
+3
Busted!
Nice.
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
Something Borderline Offensive
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.
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.
