Drug Testing

[flatlander13]

I work for a west coast company that was just purchased by a LARGE east coast company. The head of “Drug Testingâ€

[lucky420]

invasion of privacy. It also depends on the where and when of it all. Are they going to require drug testing so that you can keep the job you already have? Are they going to drug test if you are involved in a work place accident? Pot is tricky because it can stay in your system for so long and you can test positive but not be stoned at all. That part sucks, but there are things people can do/take to pass the drug tests.

[neon tetra]

Definitely an invasion of privacy. I only agree with it in certain cases, like airline pilots & such.

[Sham]

What type of industry are you in? There is a lot of liability issues in regards to insurance etc. product, public safety etc. I am not a big fan of drug testing and don't do it at my work, but on the other side, I have had employee theft to pay for drug habits.

[neon tetra]

Pot definitely messes the whole thing up.
My old company only drug tested if/when someone got into a car accident in a company car. Seems fair on one hand, but even if you last smoked a few weeks ago, it could still show up.

[Trishntek]

Having been a victim of a surprise pee test,,,,, after smoking weed 12 hours prior,,,, not even my employer but a client,,,,, not because of work performance or anything I did,,,,, but because of a change in policy.

I was summarily banned from that facility without any given recourse. They refused to even provide the test results,,,, not even to my personal physician! They refused to disclose the test results in any fashion whatsoever.

After my surgeons I work with threatened to take their business elsewhere, a deal was brokered for my eventual return. This involved evaluation by a psychologist and pissing clean, which took 6 weeks! None of the popular means of tricking the test worked for me,,,, course I did not try to use someone else's pee,,,,, but I digress,,,,,

If confronted with that situation again,,,,, I would refuse the test and make damn good and sure I pee clean before testing. That would have its own consequences, but at least there would be no evidence!

[Simon of the Playa]

if a potential employer asks if i'll take a pee test, i smile, whip out my dick, pee on their desk then ask if i pass.


i learned that from George "I've got a tiger tattooed on my ass" Shultz.


US president Ronald Reagan insisted that all members of his Cabinet would have to submit to a compulsory urine test. Secretary of State designate (at that stage) George Shultz told Reagan that if he didn’t trust his proposed appointments sufficiently without the support of a negative urine test, then he should not appoint them. So Shultz became Secretary of State without the benefit of a urine test.


just my humble opinion.

[BAS]

When I interviewed for a grocery store job, the interview was done by some professional interviewing organization. I apparently messed up their system by stating I didn't take drugs, but didn't think it any of my business if a co-worker was taking drugs as long as it didn't interfere with their job performance. We went round and round with that set of questions until I finally stated that I had experimented with pot back in the late 1980s and hadn't used it since. I wound up getting the job.

When I had a workplace accident at that job, I did get a drug test. The pot from about fifteen years ago was apparently out of my system since I never heard anything about the test.

[lucky420]

A person I know who works at a distribution plant keeps one of those fake pee kits (it's in a little flask) taped to his thigh, just in case he gets picked for random testing. He actually did have to use it one time...he passed.

[JStep]

My company performs random testing so I don't partake in any herbal relaxation that I might otherwise quite enjoy, and maybe used to enjoy quite regularly. I believe drug testing without cause is an invasion of privacy. I particularly feel that the random (ie: without cause or what an LEO would call reason to believe or reasonable suspicion) testing is very onerous as it just simply boils down to a pot test for most casual users. Cocaine, meth, etc clear the system in around 48 hours, opiates I think take a little longer but not much. Since pot is not a toxin the body makes no attempt to eliminate it, it's fat soluble so it lingers for weeks after the effects have long worn off so you can have a guy that does 8 balls every weekend test clean on Wednesday and a guy that blew a joint at a party a month ago loses his job the same day. It just aint right.

[moonrise]

It's modern day "witch burning"

This "witch burning" practice forces some to turn to alcohol and meth and such, whatever clears the system fastest. Thus resulting in tragic consequences.

I recall the employees at some of my jobs over the years (where asshats wasted time, money and resources on drug tests) would order very lifelike prosthetic penises and vaginas designed to urinate artificial urine that would pass these "witch burning" tests.

Employers often loved canning people who were paid better and the savings of better pay thus justified the expense of the "witch burning" tests and retraining.
Disgusting, and I know it's the truth, trusted human resources gals told me so.

For the record, I am not advocating intoxicating drug use while performing dangerous jobs. What someone does on their own time, ok fine, avoiding "witch burning" ok fine.

[Thecatman]

As a holder of a CDL, (Commercial Drivers Licence) I'm subject to random drug and alcohol testing. If I change employers, I would have to take a mandatory test. Both mandated by the federal DOT.
I don't give my employer reason to have PC to pull me from my job and haul me in for a test, like some have done and have lost their job. When I have to take a random test, the whole crew goes in.

[FIGJAM]

Golden Seal!

[ygmir]

well, I can see, though, times it would be in the companies, and even societies best interest, to know if someone was "on drugs" (alcohol included), while at work. And, if an accident occurs.
I could see, a company, not wanting someone "impaired", while operating a sawmill.
And, it would seem, testing at work, would make sense, in finding if it's happening, on work time.

I'm not saying it's always ok, but, I can see how they'd want to know.

Seems there'd be a way, though, to tell if someones "using" at work, or, last weekend?

I don't know much about them, but, seems there'd be a way to tell?

[JStep]

well, I can see, though, times it would be in the companies, and even societies best interest, to know if someone was "on drugs" (alcohol included), while at work. And, if an accident occurs.
I could see, a company, not wanting someone "impaired", while operating a sawmill.
And, it would seem, testing at work, would make sense, in finding if it's happening, on work time.

I'm not saying it's always ok, but, I can see how they'd want to know.

Seems there'd be a way, though, to tell if someones "using" at work, or, last weekend?

I don't know much about them, but, seems there'd be a way to tell?

There are probably ways to tell but they'd be so expensive no one would do it. The testing itself is pretty expensive. Companies do this because they save a boatload more money on their insurance than they spend in testing.

My boss was recently termed due to a test that his boss and his bosses boss pretty much knew was a bogus positive because they use a saliva test and he tested positive for cocaine. In order for a saliva test to come back positive for cocaine the user would have to have used it within about 3 hours of the test. My boss insisted he be retested, he said do a hair test (virtually infallible but also costs about $1800) or just retest my saliva or take a urine test, I'll pay for it if it's positive cause I KNOW it's not positive. They (my boss, his boss and HIS boss) were all traveling together and in meetings for well over 3 hours before the test. They knew it was a bogus test or contamination etc... but because our HR dept said there's nothing in our policy about hair testing the termination stands. The problem here is that real human lives are affected by iron clad policies and an inhuman scientific variable and the affected victim has little to no recourse... and all to save a company millions of dollars in insurance, not because there was any performance problem.

[Thecatman]

well, I can see, though, times it would be in the companies, and even societies best interest, to know if someone was "on drugs" (alcohol included), while at work. And, if an accident occurs.
I could see, a company, not wanting someone "impaired", while operating a sawmill.
And, it would seem, testing at work, would make sense, in finding if it's happening, on work time.

I'm not saying it's always ok, but, I can see how they'd want to know.

Seems there'd be a way, though, to tell if someones "using" at work, or, last weekend?

I don't know much about them, but, seems there'd be a way to tell?

Where I work, there have been some who have come to work under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I know two of them and they lost their job.

[Kinetik V]

Golden Seal!

Enough said....

[ygmir]

well, I can see, though, times it would be in the companies, and even societies best interest, to know if someone was "on drugs" (alcohol included), while at work. And, if an accident occurs.
I could see, a company, not wanting someone "impaired", while operating a sawmill.
And, it would seem, testing at work, would make sense, in finding if it's happening, on work time.

I'm not saying it's always ok, but, I can see how they'd want to know.

Seems there'd be a way, though, to tell if someones "using" at work, or, last weekend?

I don't know much about them, but, seems there'd be a way to tell?

There are probably ways to tell but they'd be so expensive no one would do it. The testing itself is pretty expensive. Companies do this because they save a boatload more money on their insurance than they spend in testing.

My boss was recently termed due to a test that his boss and his bosses boss pretty much knew was a bogus positive because they use a saliva test and he tested positive for cocaine. In order for a saliva test to come back positive for cocaine the user would have to have used it within about 3 hours of the test. My boss insisted he be retested, he said do a hair test (virtually infallible but also costs about $1800) or just retest my saliva or take a urine test, I'll pay for it if it's positive cause I KNOW it's not positive. They (my boss, his boss and HIS boss) were all traveling together and in meetings for well over 3 hours before the test. They knew it was a bogus test or contamination etc... but because our HR dept said there's nothing in our policy about hair testing the termination stands. The problem here is that real human lives are affected by iron clad policies and an inhuman scientific variable and the affected victim has little to no recourse... and all to save a company millions of dollars in insurance, not because there was any performance problem.

yeah, I could see it a real "sticky wicket".........
the human element, and humanity of it all.
and, the need to be safe, and assured every is on top of things......not "altered".

sounds, like they just wanted to get rid of your boss. to me.

Dang tough one.
It'd be nice, if, as a "boss", you could know that when you told people not to come to work "stoned", they'd respect that.
But, then, you get "bitten" by maybe only one person, and, you may lose your job, or company......so, you end up treating everyone as "liars".......and, that's not good, either.

Tough on both sides.

[JStep]

well, I can see, though, times it would be in the companies, and even societies best interest, to know if someone was "on drugs" (alcohol included), while at work. And, if an accident occurs.
I could see, a company, not wanting someone "impaired", while operating a sawmill.
And, it would seem, testing at work, would make sense, in finding if it's happening, on work time.

I'm not saying it's always ok, but, I can see how they'd want to know.

Seems there'd be a way, though, to tell if someones "using" at work, or, last weekend?

I don't know much about them, but, seems there'd be a way to tell?

There are probably ways to tell but they'd be so expensive no one would do it. The testing itself is pretty expensive. Companies do this because they save a boatload more money on their insurance than they spend in testing.

My boss was recently termed due to a test that his boss and his bosses boss pretty much knew was a bogus positive because they use a saliva test and he tested positive for cocaine. In order for a saliva test to come back positive for cocaine the user would have to have used it within about 3 hours of the test. My boss insisted he be retested, he said do a hair test (virtually infallible but also costs about $1800) or just retest my saliva or take a urine test, I'll pay for it if it's positive cause I KNOW it's not positive. They (my boss, his boss and HIS boss) were all traveling together and in meetings for well over 3 hours before the test. They knew it was a bogus test or contamination etc... but because our HR dept said there's nothing in our policy about hair testing the termination stands. The problem here is that real human lives are affected by iron clad policies and an inhuman scientific variable and the affected victim has little to no recourse... and all to save a company millions of dollars in insurance, not because there was any performance problem.

yeah, I could see it a real "sticky wicket".........
the human element, and humanity of it all.
and, the need to be safe, and assured every is on top of things......not "altered".

sounds, like they just wanted to get rid of your boss. to me.

Dang tough one.
It'd be nice, if, as a "boss", you could know that when you told people not to come to work "stoned", they'd respect that.
But, then, you get "bitten" by maybe only one person, and, you may lose your job, or company......so, you end up treating everyone as "liars".......and, that's not good, either.

Tough on both sides.

I can assure you they did NOT want to get rid of my boss. He's just screwed. Our policy allows for the person to have his sample retested, at his own expense, and submit the results (after he's already been termed) for reconsideration. This doesn't allow for the (assumed) fact that there was some contamination of the original sample. If the sample is contaminated then of course the retest will yield the same result. The only real recourse he has is that if he were to get a hair test at his own expense, then attempt to submit to HR who would then inevitably deny his appeal since the hair test is outside of our established policy, he would then have good grounds upon which to sue the company since he can provide solid evidence as to his his innocence which the employer refused to consider. One of those F'd up situations where you have to decide if the end result would be worth the time and expense of the means. In this case, probably not. Spending how many thousands of dollars on a sophisticated drug test and a lawsuit against a company with a large legal dept and millions in cash to get your job back and then be stuck in a job with a company whose HR dept has a real grudge against you.... Sort of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[ygmir]

There are probably ways to tell but they'd be so expensive no one would do it. The testing itself is pretty expensive. Companies do this because they save a boatload more money on their insurance than they spend in testing.

My boss was recently termed due to a test that his boss and his bosses boss pretty much knew was a bogus positive because they use a saliva test and he tested positive for cocaine. In order for a saliva test to come back positive for cocaine the user would have to have used it within about 3 hours of the test. My boss insisted he be retested, he said do a hair test (virtually infallible but also costs about $1800) or just retest my saliva or take a urine test, I'll pay for it if it's positive cause I KNOW it's not positive. They (my boss, his boss and HIS boss) were all traveling together and in meetings for well over 3 hours before the test. They knew it was a bogus test or contamination etc... but because our HR dept said there's nothing in our policy about hair testing the termination stands. The problem here is that real human lives are affected by iron clad policies and an inhuman scientific variable and the affected victim has little to no recourse... and all to save a company millions of dollars in insurance, not because there was any performance problem.

yeah, I could see it a real "sticky wicket".........
the human element, and humanity of it all.
and, the need to be safe, and assured every is on top of things......not "altered".

sounds, like they just wanted to get rid of your boss. to me.

Dang tough one.
It'd be nice, if, as a "boss", you could know that when you told people not to come to work "stoned", they'd respect that.
But, then, you get "bitten" by maybe only one person, and, you may lose your job, or company......so, you end up treating everyone as "liars".......and, that's not good, either.

Tough on both sides.

I can assure you they did NOT want to get rid of my boss. He's just screwed. Our policy allows for the person to have his sample retested, at his own expense, and submit the results (after he's already been termed) for reconsideration. This doesn't allow for the (assumed) fact that there was some contamination of the original sample. If the sample is contaminated then of course the retest will yield the same result. The only real recourse he has is that if he were to get a hair test at his own expense, then attempt to submit to HR who would then inevitably deny his appeal since the hair test is outside of our established policy, he would then have good grounds upon which to sue the company since he can provide solid evidence as to his his innocence which the employer refused to consider. One of those F'd up situations where you have to decide if the end result would be worth the time and expense of the means. In this case, probably not. Spending how many thousands of dollars on a sophisticated drug test and a lawsuit against a company with a large legal dept and millions in cash to get your job back and then be stuck in a job with a company whose HR dept has a real grudge against you.... Sort of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

that's screwed.......for sure.
Above all, I'm sorry for the fellow. Dang it!!

but, jobs are hard to come by these days.......it might be worth the fight?
Maybe, just the threat of the fight, and lawsuit, would convince the company, to re-consider?

[moonrise]

Golden Seal!

Enough said....

They also FAIL employees for Golden Seal. Especially the gubbermint employers.

BTW, some peeps perform better while high.

@Simon, you are AWESOME! To be a fly on the wall, you would get a gazillion youtube hits if THAT could be filmed and shown...lmfao.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am related to a lawyer, I hear the horror stories. Get the kits, get allllll of the kits....protect your J! O! B! Insurance companies are vicious entities.
Fight the "witch burning", google it on a regular basis, stay current with alllll of the kits, tricks, legal tactics, mindfucks, whatever it takes...fight the corporations back harder than they fight you. (and I'm not even a fullfledged "hippie" gee, who woulda thunk) it's about survival and fucking with a person's livelihood. Condsider it proactive war at allll costs, be the winner, it's common sense.

Yes, it's an invasion of your privacy but "legal" sheesh, it's about much much much more. Oh and yea, it's about keeping your J! O! B! and your privacy!

A Major Hotel Chain recently stopped testing, hahahaha, they could NOT get enough emplyees to pass. The "old guard" is dying off it seems, LOL

(excluding intoxication at certain jobs)

[neon tetra]

ygmir, you, my friend, are king, of the commas!

[ygmir]

ygmir, you, my friend, are king, of the commas!

yeah, it's embarrassing.
I write like I think, and, tend to put commas when I pause typing.
dang it.

I am trying to overcome the predilection though really really I am.

[Trishntek]

Here's areal kick in the ass for ya,,,,, the experience I explained earlier involved one of my surgeons asking me if it was okay if he talked to his lawyer nephew about the case to see if anything could be done legally about the situation. The surgeon told me, "he's an advocate for legalizing pot and you can even smell it in his office." So I permitted him to disclose my problem to his nephew.

His nephew basically told him, "I'm sorry, but I am lead counsel for that facility and cannot help you in any way,,,,, in fact we never had this conversation." Now what kind of bullshit hypocritical nonsense is that?

The psychologist I was required to see for evaluation told me flat out, "If they tested me like that, I would have failed too! And I have medical privileges there!"

So it seems the policy only applied to "vendors" who are in direct contact with the patients. Physicians never get tested,,,,,, nor do those who write and defend those policies,,,,, WTF?

[lucky420]

synthetic urine works really well it even comes with a little pocket warmer so that you can keep it at body temp...just microwave it for a few secs and then keep it in the pocket warmer pouch until needed.

[flatlander13]

I work in the Pharma industry. I have no contact with anything that goes into people.

Drug testing is for all new employees and employees that are involved in a work related accident. Since we have been purchased and are new employees to this company we get tested.

I have a friend whose company of 500 employees was just purchased by another company that does drug testing. Even with a month’s notice before the test; 40% of my friend's company failed the drug test. Seeing that the company would cease to function by firing the 40%; the people who failed the drug test were placed on a year’s probation with surprise mandatory testing though out the year. This is an internet company.

[Aiee! It burns!]

that camel's nose has been under the tent for decades .

[Sail Man]

Well personally, I am a huge advocate of testing drugs, but, and it's a big but btw, only the illegal ones. That way my conscience is clear.



muah hah hah hahhhhhhh

jk, jk'ing. Maybe

But testing for drugs without probable cause is bullshit. Maybe when they put ignition interlocks in the cockpits of airliners that require the pilots to do a breath test before firing up them thar engines, then maybe I'd consider it for all other critical jobs. Are we going to start testing surgeons before they operate? Commanders of nuclear submarines before they break out the missile keys? The president of the US? Well ok, maybe he does need to chill with a doobie from time to time.

I hate this bullshit presumption of guilt before innocence. It's not unlike being groped by TSA. So I smoke a little weed on the weekend? BFD! When they can come up with a drug test for pot that shows you are actually, currently high then maybe I'd consider it, under probable cause of course, but when my buddy Joe Blow snorted up a few lines, and peed clean 2 days later, and my pot is still potentially in my system 2 weeks down the line, I have issues with that.

What about people with medical marijuana cards? How does the pee tests affect them? Here in Michigan a past worker at Walmart is fighting in court over his firing over a positive test when he had a card.

In my 19 yrs working EMS, I can tell you that the biggest drug that I have had to deal with is alcohol, and it's legal After that its heroin, especially a few years back when it was mixed with fentanyl. Crack and crank are also up there. But the only time i've knowingly responded or dealt with pot is when Daddy catches their kid smoking it and calls us, or when somebody decides to try salvia which really isnt pot, and weirds out on that.

And the argument that pot is the gateway drug? Bullshit. Alcohol gave me far more liquid courage to try a variety of "mood enhancers" then pot, which more often the not caused me to don headphones and chill with some nice Pink Floyd. Welcome to the Machine my friends.

[flatlander13]

My favorite part about our coming drug tests is…..everyone will be sampled, but not all samples will be tested…..WTF?

[Simon of the Playa]

i still stand by my original post....If they want a sample, they better open their mouth.


Pee Free or die.