And it is not egregious - if you don't want to submit to a test - DON'T WORK THERE. Very simple.
Oh you need to provide your social networking passwords to work here by the way. Oh you don't like it? That's ok, just go and get another job instead! Oh, they require one too?
You need to install this GPS tracker in your car to work here, just incase you were thinking of doing anything illegal or taking a fake sick day.
Oh you'll need to use this company issue mobile phone to work here, wouldn't want you doing anything we don't know about now, would we?
etc. etc.
But that's all ok. Because you have the CHOICE to work there. I mean, you can choose to be homeless if it means that much to you, right?
Of course not. But they are much more likely to do so than someone who does not, and they are much less likely to be longer-term, reliable and consistent as compared with someone who does not.
It does not mean that they are all that way. But it's an absolutely insane denial of reality to say that there is no statistical difference between the future hazards involved in hiring someone who tests positive for meth than for someone who does not.
I'm not sure where find the information to make those claims? Some sort of statistical analysis, or just your own personal experience? I guess you could argue that it's common sense, but I'd argue that a lot more people use drugs than you think.
Regardless, i'm fairly sure there is a term for that. It's called discrimination and largely frowned upon, particularly when it comes to hiring people for a job.
Just because somebody appears to fit into category X, doesn't mean you should assume that they do. Not to mention, if they can show up to an interview on time and as far as you are aware are an otherwise employable person, why should you even bother to drug test them.
"Well, it looks like you have the experience and expertise we require, but first I'll need to come back to your house and make sure you keep it clean and tidy, despite the fact that it's completely irrelevant to your job performance."
I don't disagree with ensuring your employees are capable. And I don't disagree with firing employees who show up to work under the influence of impairing drugs (illegal or otherwise), what I disagree with is the metric of peeing in a cup to discern whether or not somebody is a capable employee, despite the fact that it provides little or no indication.
NEWS ALERT:
The company just called him and he got the job (whew!)!!
Maybe the dump-taking during the interview impressed them. Or the amount? Or how carefully he draped TP over the mess? Dunno. But he got the job.
Congrats! It's all about making a good first impression
