Employer Drug Test Policies

[MKSheppard]

But that doesn't make it RIGHT for companies to act as de facto enforcers in the War on Drugs and deny qualified people employment because they smoke marijuana, unless they also plan on firing people for drinking alcohol on their spare time.

Anyone ever sneaked a look at what other stuff they're testing for?

Like PCP, Cocaine, etc? I certainly don't want people who do that stuff
to be working in the same damn room as me.

[MKSheppard]

And besides, they usually pay you a full day's salary if you pass the
damn test

[Robert Treder]

And as I pointed out to Aly, businesses fire people for convictions handed down in a court of law. Failing a privately administered drug test, from the point of view of the law, doesn't prove the employee committed a misdemeanor.

It's business; they're just covering their asses. Once again, not considering shoulds and shouldn'ts, the kinds of jobs for which you need to take a drug test are usually pretty low on the totem pole, and employers have no problems putting "at will" bits into their contracts. When I was working at Hollywood Video, the contract I signed said that I could be fired for any reason at all (but remember - they're an equal opportunity employer *wink wink*).

[MKSheppard]

I see where you're coming from (and frankly, it's not that hard to spoof a piss test if you know how anyway)

It's kind of hard keeping that piss at body temperature for a few hours

[The Kernel]

It's kind of hard keeping that piss at body temperature for a few hours

Uhh, Shep? I'm pretty sure he was referring to drug test blockers that you can pick up in any head shop.

[Darth Wong]

Urinalysis detects the breakdown products of THC days or weeks after the marijuana is actually smoked. It's perfectly possible to smoke on Saturday night and fail a test Monday morning.

If somebody is so hopelessly addicted to weed that he can't keep off the shit for a week in order to pass a scheduled drug test, I don't want him as an employee. How much self-discipline can he possibly have?

Denying someone a job on that basis would be the equivilant of denying someone a job because someone from the company caught him drinking beer in a bar over the weekend.

But it would be reasonable to fire someone for walking into work on Monday with elevated levels of alcohol in his blood, especially if he was told beforehand that he would be tested that day. Anyone who has that little self-control is going to be a shitty employee.

There's no way to tell, through urinalysis, if a marijuana smoker is actually intoxicated at that moment, or how much he smokes (and since companies consider any failure disqualification, it doesn't matter anyway).

So? There are people who can be quite functional even with elevated levels of alcohol in their blood, but it still indicates a severe lack of self-control for someone to be incapable of keeping off the booze long enough to pass a test.

Pre-employment drug screening has been sold to companies as a method to weed out potentially troublesome employees, but what it really is is enlisting private industry to enforce drug laws in a way the Constitution would never allow the government.

Are you saying that the government cannot perform drug testing on its employees because of the Constitution? I recall seeing no explicit prohibition of such testing in that document.

[Durandal]

If somebody is so hopelessly addicted to weed that he can't keep off the shit for a week in order to pass a scheduled drug test, I don't want him as an employee. How much self-discipline can he possibly have?

None. But what about people who haven't smoked in 8 weeks and still fail the test anyway? Are they completely lacking in self-discipline?

But it would be reasonable to fire someone for walking into work on Monday with elevated levels of alcohol in his blood, especially if he was told beforehand that he would be tested that day. Anyone who has that little self-control is going to be a shitty employee.

Unfortunately, in this scenario, an employee who last drank a month ago would be considered just as much of a liability as one who drank the weekend before the test was administered. Drug tests have no way of telling exactly when the last time an employee used drugs was, and most people don't find out about a required drug test until after the interview. So you can't just assume that every person who failed the test they took on Monday (which you told them about that previous Friday) must have smoked between Friday and Monday.

So? There are people who can be quite functional even with elevated levels of alcohol in their blood, but it still indicates a severe lack of self-control for someone to be incapable of keeping off the booze long enough to pass a test.

When companies start informing people up-front of drug-test requirements, then this argument will be valid. As it stands, an employer will usually not even bother telling the person until after he's already been hired.

Are you saying that the government cannot perform drug testing on its employees because of the Constitution? I recall seeing no explicit prohibition of such testing in that document.

No, he's saying that the government can't run around and randomly piss-test citizens, as much as it'd like to, because that annoying thing called the 4th amendment prevents them from doing so. However, they've done the next best thing and used the private sector (who are not held to the same standards) to do it for them.

[Darth Wong]

If somebody is so hopelessly addicted to weed that he can't keep off the shit for a week in order to pass a scheduled drug test, I don't want him as an employee. How much self-discipline can he possibly have?

None. But what about people who haven't smoked in 8 weeks and still fail the test anyway? Are they completely lacking in self-discipline?

Since it typically takes several months of job searching to secure a good full-time job, yes. Either that or he's a fucking idiot to be out doing drugs when he should be looking for work.

Unfortunately, in this scenario, an employee who last drank a month ago would be considered just as much of a liability as one who drank the weekend before the test was administered. Drug tests have no way of telling exactly when the last time an employee used drugs was, and most people don't find out about a required drug test until after the interview. So you can't just assume that every person who failed the test they took on Monday (which you told them about that previous Friday) must have smoked between Friday and Monday.

Oh of course, because alcohol, once it enters your bloodstream, never leaves, nor does any other drug

When companies start informing people up-front of drug-test requirements, then this argument will be valid. As it stands, an employer will usually not even bother telling the person until after he's already been hired.

Interesting. What's your source for this?

Are you saying that the government cannot perform drug testing on its employees because of the Constitution? I recall seeing no explicit prohibition of such testing in that document.

No, he's saying that the government can't run around and randomly piss-test citizens, as much as it'd like to, because that annoying thing called the 4th amendment prevents them from doing so.

Then it's an irrelevant point, since he is comparing testing for the purpose of criminal prosecution to testing for the purpose of determining hiring suitability.

However, they've done the next best thing and used the private sector (who are not held to the same standards) to do it for them.

Boo fucking hoo. While the company is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of personal behaviours which are irrelevant to its business concerns, it is allowed to discriminate on the basis of things that the government is legally bound to ignore if they constitute a legitimate risk to its business interests. For example, you cannot charge a man for a crime simply because he has a criminal record, but you can refuse to hire a man for a job on that basis. Oops, is that something he did while not on company premises? Yes. Too bad, isn't it?

Welcome to JobWorld. In JobWorld, your precious right to smoke weed with your buddies doesn't mean sweet fuck all. In JobWorld, you can't get a job by citing the Constitution because you're not dealing with the government; you're dealing with a company that has no particular obligation to hire you, and for whom you are competing with a hundred other fresh-faced newbies for the position. They can refuse to hire you because they don't like your fucking hair, kiddo. And there's tough shit you can do about it.

In JobWorld, the instant you start bitching about your rights, you become classified as a whiny, self-important brat who is going to be a shitty employee, and a big red X gets put on your resume. And do you know where the resume goes next? That's right: a shiny place called Shredder Town.

You see, back in JobWorld, the company is taking a calculated risk by hiring you. It's not just an exchange of goods and services, because employment is an implicit contract which carries numerous obligations on their part, as stipulated in various employment regulations. The first two months of your employment are basically a waste of money for them, because you're learning the ropes and your productivity is not high enough to make it worthwhile. So they need assurances that you aren't going to fuck them over by becoming a liability, wasting their investment, or worse yet, becoming one of those annoying pseudo-employees who spends all their time trying to figure out what you're entitled to.

So in JobWorld, they can care about what you do when you're away from work, as long as they can justify their belief that there is a risk that it will infringe upon your activities at work. This is why Mr. Boss at JobWorld can throw away the resume of an ex-con, even though the crime in question was 5 years ago. This is why Mr. Boss at JobWorld can fire an alcoholic. This is why Mr. Boss at JobWorld can point at the addictive nature of drugs and the correlation between drug use and social problems and say he is no more interested in taking on a bad risk than your local auto insurance company. And by the way, those auto insurance guys don't have to respect your precious privacy either. AutoWorld is a lot like JobWorld that way.

Of course, you can always opt out of AutoWorld and JobWorld. There's a nice yellow brick road that leads to the lands of BicycleWorld and WelfareWorld.

[Durandal]

Since it typically takes several months of job searching to secure a good full-time job, yes. Either that or he's a fucking idiot to be out doing drugs when he should be looking for work.

When have you ever seen a job ad that displays whether or not a drug test is required?

Oh of course, because alcohol, once it enters your bloodstream, never leaves, nor does any other drug

Don't be ridiculous. The breakdown products from THC can take weeks to months to leave your urine stream. So assuming that someone who failed a drug test must have smoked a couple of days before is completely unreasonable.

Interesting. What's your source for this?

Personal experience, and the experience of my friends mainly. I had to take a drug test to work at CompUSA, and they told me about it after they hired me. It's quite common in retail outlets for people to be fired after they've started working because the test results came back positive for opiates or THC breakdown products.

Then it's an irrelevant point, since he is comparing testing for the purpose of criminal prosecution to testing for the purpose of determining hiring suitability.

Well take that up with him then.

Boo fucking hoo. While the company is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of personal behaviours which are irrelevant to its business concerns, it is allowed to discriminate on the basis of things that the government is legally bound to ignore if they constitute a legitimate risk to its business interests. For example, you cannot charge a man for a crime simply because he has a criminal record, but you can refuse to hire a man for a job on that basis. Oops, is that something he did while not on company premises? Yes. Too bad, isn't it?

Welcome to JobWorld. In JobWorld, your precious right to smoke weed with your buddies doesn't mean sweet fuck all. In JobWorld, you can't get a job by citing the Constitution because you're not dealing with the government; you're dealing with a company that has no particular obligation to hire you, and for whom you are competing with a hundred other fresh-faced newbies for the position. They can refuse to hire you because they don't like your fucking hair, kiddo. And there's tough shit you can do about it.

My hair and presentation are things which are obvious. Whether or not I smoke marijuana is not. What you're not seeing here is that companies which administer drug tests have inconsistent standards, because they don't test their employees for alcohol consumption either.

I'll respond to the rest later. Something just came up.

[Lonestar]

I'm all for Drug tests. I don't someone who has used Drugs recently to be standing next to me on the hose during a GQ.....

[Beowulf]

I'm all for Drug tests. I don't someone who has used Drugs recently to be standing next to me on the hose during a GQ.....

And I don't want somebody who used drugs recently working on the my base's birds... because they have a strange tendency to get really close to my work (I watch planes takeoff and land every single day).

[Darth Wong]

When have you ever seen a job ad that displays whether or not a drug test is required?

It's common knowledge that such a thing might be required, as you have acknowledged yourself. Don't tell me you seriously think it's a little-known secret that some companies require drug tests.

Don't be ridiculous. The breakdown products from THC can take weeks to months to leave your urine stream. So assuming that someone who failed a drug test must have smoked a couple of days before is completely unreasonable.

So? If I'm hiring, I don't want somebody who does drugs at all, just like I don't want somebody who committed a felony 5 years ago. It's a risk, and I see no reason to take that risk.

My hair and presentation are things which are obvious. Whether or not I smoke marijuana is not.

The obviousness of the behaviour is totally irrelevant to the point. The point is that the company can discriminate based on things that the Constitution allows you to do, so the entire Constitution angle is a red herring and you should look for a better argument.

What you're not seeing here is that companies which administer drug tests have inconsistent standards, because they don't test their employees for alcohol consumption either.

That's because they can't. Alcohol leaves your body too quickly. But if they could figure out who drinks a lot and who doesn't with a simple test performed on their premises, you can bet your ass they'd hire the guys who don't drink a lot, or at all.

[Stuart Mackey]

Well..running a Fire Service museum has given me interesting perspective on such things..no way I would want someone on a hose who has a risk of having even slightly impared judgment from alcohol or anything else, because lives depend on that judgment.

[Durandal]

It's common knowledge that such a thing might be required, as you have acknowledged yourself. Don't tell me you seriously think it's a little-known secret that some companies require drug tests.

Of course it's not. But not everyone spends months looking for a job. One day you might get laid off from your job, and the next day are out looking for one to make ends meet. Say you find one, but oops, you smoked some weed 3 weeks ago, and this place requires a drug test. Sure, the company is well within its rights, but it's a drug test is a stupid basis on which to decide employment.

So? If I'm hiring, I don't want somebody who does drugs at all, just like I don't want somebody who committed a felony 5 years ago. It's a risk, and I see no reason to take that risk.

And what data are there to show that someone who smokes marijuana is a risk to the employer? Because there are plenty of contradictory data that show that drug testing is a poor investment with no real benefit.

The obviousness of the behaviour is totally irrelevant to the point. The point is that the company can discriminate based on things that the Constitution allows you to do, so the entire Constitution angle is a red herring and you should look for a better argument.

I will concede that employers are not obligated to give people jobs. They can hire or fire on pretty much any basis they want. If they think my hair looks crappy, I might not get hired; this is especially true for sales positions or any other job where face-to-face interaction is a big part of the business. And it's true that the obviousness does not matter. As far as I know, a company could hire a private investigator to follow you around all weekend if they really wanted to.

That's because they can't. Alcohol leaves your body too quickly. But if they could figure out who drinks a lot and who doesn't with a simple test performed on their premises, you can bet your ass they'd hire the guys who don't drink a lot, or at all.

That's not analogous in the slightest to drug testing. Drug test cannot tell you the frequency with which a person uses drugs. They can tell whether or not a substance has been ingested. They can't tell you when the person ingested the substance, how it was ingested, the frequency with which it is ingested or even if the person ingested it on purpose.

There is absolutely no data to backup the idea that drug tests result in decreased absentee counts, increased productivity and does in fact, cost more than it's worth. As for alcohol, I have a hard time believing that a company would actually choose an employee based on the fact that one drinks a glass of wine before he goes to bed and one doesn't.

[The Kernel]

*snip*

Christ that data is positively frightening. $77k to find a single drug user? And for what? The off chance that they might result in decreased productivity for which they could be fired for anyways?

What gets me is that employers don't seem to take into account the psychological and morale implications that drug tests incur on workers. It isn't hard to see that a great number of people feel violated by these practices (the implication being that the company which you work for does not trust you enough to keep your personal and professional life seperate) which can result in a loss of morale and hence productivity. I have a very hard time believing that whatever dubious bonuses are granted by firing recreational drug users make up for the emotional reaction of the rest of the employees.

[Durandal]

Christ that data is positively frightening. $77k to find a single drug user? And for what? The off chance that they might result in decreased productivity for which they could be fired for anyways?

Businesses generally don't even bother conducting studies to show whether or not drug testing actually does anything or saves them any money. Back in 1986, Saint Ronald started heavily promoting the idea. He knew that he could never get away with having cops randomly piss-test citizens on the streets, so he got the corporations to do what he would've loved to but simply could not. I'm not sure if corporations who drug test get tax breaks or what, but there's no data to show that drug tests do anything useful.

[The Kernel]

Mike, is it your position that coporations should be allowed to discriminate so long as the thing they are discriminating against is a personal choice?

[PainRack]

Just a question: How can a simple urine test detect marijuana use from more than a week ago?

From what I know, the normal drug test aren't sensitive enough for that. So, unless your company is willing to actually send your results to a lab for analysis.

[Durandal]

Just a question: How can a simple urine test detect marijuana use from more than a week ago?

Breakdown products from THC can stay in your body for months at a time.

From what I know, the normal drug test aren't sensitive enough for that. So, unless your company is willing to actually send your results to a lab for analysis.

Which most of them do. That's why it's common for someone to get hired and start working, only to be fired a week later because the test results just got back from the lab.

[PainRack]

Breakdown products from THC can stay in your body for months at a time.

The normal urine test is that sensitive?

Which most of them do. That's why it's common for someone to get hired and start working, only to be fired a week later because the test results just got back from the lab.

Perhaps I should have been more selective in my words.
Do they really do such a comprehensive test that marijuana from more than a month ago is detectable? I am under the understanding that the drug test done at the lab, is normally not sensitive for more than 2 weeks.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The normal urine test is that sensitive?

No, its just that it detects the breakdown products and delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol has a very long half-life, I imagine.

Perhaps I should have been more selective in my words. Do they really do such a comprehensive test that marijuana from more than a month ago is detectable? I am under the understanding that the drug test done at the lab, is normally not sensitive for more than 2 weeks.

I've never heard of a marijuana test which cannot nab you even two months later.

[Durandal]

Breakdown products from THC can stay in your body for months at a time.

The normal urine test is that sensitive?

This site claims up to 5 weeks of detection time. However, depending on your metabolism, it can stay in your fat for longer.

Perhaps I should have been more selective in my words.
Do they really do such a comprehensive test that marijuana from more than a month ago is detectable? I am under the understanding that the drug test done at the lab, is normally not sensitive for more than 2 weeks.

Yes. Hair analysis can detect marijuana use in the past 90 days (that's approximately three months).

[Darth Wong]

It's common knowledge that such a thing might be required, as you have acknowledged yourself. Don't tell me you seriously think it's a little-known secret that some companies require drug tests.

Of course it's not. But not everyone spends months looking for a job. One day you might get laid off from your job, and the next day are out looking for one to make ends meet. Say you find one, but oops, you smoked some weed 3 weeks ago, and this place requires a drug test. Sure, the company is well within its rights, but it's a drug test is a stupid basis on which to decide employment.

Hardly. There are a lot of people who would prefer to have totally drug-free employees, and there's a perfectly operable rationale for such discrimination. If you don't like it, tough nuts for you. There are certain kinds of worker problems that are directly correlated to drug use, so it's not as if there's no reason.

And what data are there to show that someone who smokes marijuana is a risk to the employer?

What data is there to show that someone with just one felony conviction ten years ago is a risk to the employer? It's a risk, and one which the company should not be forced to take. Not by you, not by the government, not by anybody.

Because there are plenty of contradictory data that show that drug testing is a poor investment with no real benefit.

Wrong. That summary is disingenuous to say the least. It promotes a $77k cost to find each drug user, but that figure is based on the spending of the federal government, which quite frankly could easily spend $77 to find a toilet. Inside the actual study itself, it acknowledges that some studies provide contradictory data to others, so the results are at best inconclusive. This does not prove that drug testing is worthwhile, but it certainly does not prove that is a "poor investment with no real benefit". Managerial risk management, particularly with regard to sociological issues which only affect a small portion of the population, is not necessary going to turn up the kind of glaringly obvious correlations you'd find when, for example, correlating tobacco use to cancer.

I will concede that employers are not obligated to give people jobs. They can hire or fire on pretty much any basis they want. If they think my hair looks crappy, I might not get hired; this is especially true for sales positions or any other job where face-to-face interaction is a big part of the business. And it's true that the obviousness does not matter. As far as I know, a company could hire a private investigator to follow you around all weekend if they really wanted to.

Precisely; the corporation is offering you something which they are not obligated to offer. In return, they ask that you offer something which you are also not obligated to offer. Hence, they are not doing anything immoral. And while thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to identify a single drug user sounds like a frightening figure, it is actually not necessarily a big deal from a major corporation's viewpoint. Most companies would be overjoyed to spend just $77 to find a single embezzler, for example.

That's not analogous in the slightest to drug testing. Drug test cannot tell you the frequency with which a person uses drugs. They can tell whether or not a substance has been ingested. They can't tell you when the person ingested the substance, how it was ingested, the frequency with which it is ingested or even if the person ingested it on purpose.

So? Why do we need exact data on precisely how much the person uses drugs in order to say "we don't want to hire a fucking drug user"?

There is absolutely no data to backup the idea that drug tests result in decreased absentee counts, increased productivity and does in fact, cost more than it's worth.

You're oversimplifying. The results are inconclusive because drug users don't account for a large enough percentage of the workforce to overwhelm other factors and create a statistically significant correlation in every study. That's what the study says when you actually read it instead of accepting the disingenuous summary of it. While you can crow that it's inconclusive, the point remains that the company has a workable rationale for being concerned about drug use, and quite frankly, it's not up to you to decide whether it's cost-effective for them. A drug-addicted worker can do far more damage than missing work or suffering from limited productivity, and it is the concern over this risk (a term that I keep using but which you don't seem to grasp in this context) which prompts their use of drug testing.

As for alcohol, I have a hard time believing that a company would actually choose an employee based on the fact that one drinks a glass of wine before he goes to bed and one doesn't.

If there is no other difference between the two employees, I would choose the clean one, yes. A person who is hiring new employees looks for any remotely reasonable criteria upon which to whittle down the list of applicants to its eventual final value of one. Is that so hard to understand? You still don't understand JobWorld, do you?

[Darth Wong]

Mike, is it your position that coporations should be allowed to discriminate so long as the thing they are discriminating against is a personal choice?

They can discriminate on any damned thing they want unless it becomes a human rights issue (eg- racial discrimination). Haven't you had a real job? Don't you know they can refuse to hire you based on nothing more than gut instinct? Or body odour? Or hairstyle? Or choice of clothes? Or the firmness of your handshake?

I knew a guy once who rejected a promising job applicant solely because of his handshake. Do you want scientific studies to prove that handshakes are correlated to worker productivity? Well too fucking bad; they don't have to provide any. They are offering to pay you money for a service. They are not obligated to overlook factors in selection which you personally think they should overlook. And like it or not, drug use is not considered a specially protected activity, unlike (for example) religion.

[The Kernel]

They can discriminate on any damned thing they want unless it becomes a human rights issue (eg- racial discrimination). Haven't you had a real job? Don't you know they can refuse to hire you based on nothing more than gut instinct? Or body odour? Or hairstyle? Or choice of clothes? Or the firmness of your handshake?

I knew a guy once who rejected a promising job applicant solely because of his handshake. Do you want scientific studies to prove that handshakes are correlated to worker productivity? Well too fucking bad; they don't have to provide any. They are offering to pay you money for a service. They are not obligated to overlook factors in selection which you personally think they should overlook. And like it or not, drug use is not considered a specially protected activity, unlike (for example) religion.

Alright then, how would you feel if your company fired you because they decided it wasn't economical to hire people with children because obligations to your family my take away from your productivity? What if this became a widespread form of discrimination on the same level as drug testing?