Drug test before employment, but why not during? (unemployed, employers, jobs)

[mehhh]

Originally Posted by h0tmess

It seems as if more companies do a drug screening prior to hiring someone. I fully agree and support this.

Why is it your business what I do on Friday night? The best employees go home and soak up dateline, before retiring early, to, you know, "get a head start?" Jesus, just kill me now.

Originally Posted by h0tmess

What I don't understand is..why don't they do a follow up?Why don't they have a few random drug tests per year?

Money. They do the initial screening for insurance reasons. So, the answer to all of your questions is, money.

Originally Posted by h0tmess

In my opinion, it seems as if the person would be clean prior to working at a place because they had no job/money to buy the drugs in the first place.. lol

I see a few people at my job who seem really cracked out or REALLY strung out sometimes. It's not a debate on whether or not drugs are bad--and which ones are OK or not-- it's more or less the fact that it's a place of business. I'd love to go to work drunk off my ass, but I don't simply because... I'm an adult?

In this economy we really should have only the best people working. This would be a great way to trim the fat of the company and hire potentially better employees, IMO.

So, does your company do this?

Self-employed.

Originally Posted by h0tmess

If not, is it possible that a company can do this upon request? At the same time I'd hate to be that guy to start this and be called a "narc".. lol!

An employer can drug anyone at anytime, unless unions and contracts are involved. Most of the contracts stipulate that such testing is allowed, but theoretically they could exclude it.

Originally Posted by h0tmess

What do you think?

I think it would make Orwell cringe.

[annika08]

Because it costs the company money to randomly drug test employees.

I was never tested where I work-surprising, because it's a large corporate chain. We had to sign waivers upon being hired that we would consent to a drug test but no one was ever given one. I guess if they think you're "under the influence" they can have you take one-that's what the waiver is for.

No, I don't agree with random drug testing (unless maybe for government and state officials). I may work for the company but I don't belong to them, and what I do off the clock is my business. If there is a problem with my work performance, then address those problems specifically.

[YaFace]

The sole reason they don't do this is money. Don't let anyone fool you about morals and job performance, stuff like that. Money is the only reason they don't do randoms at every job.

[annika08]

Originally Posted by kodaka

just because your own employer doesn't continue with random screening after hiring doesn't mean all employers are the same.

And just because you think a person is acting or behaving in an inappropriate way doesn't mean your employer agrees, or that the source of it is illegal drugs.

Anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, and other psychiatric medication, especially overmedication or interactions, can cause a person to behave as if they are under the influence of illegal substances. And of course these people deserve the same medical privacy as the rest of us and do not have to explain the reasons for their behavior to their colleagues such as you.

I tried to rep you for this.

I get really bad migraines. Sometimes I have to take a prescription medication to kill the headache when it becomes so bad that I'm vomiting, etc. It's the only thing that'll work at that point. The medicine can make me a little light-headed (it has barbituate compounds in it) but I'm still able to function fine and do my job. But as you said-it's nobody's business and not something I'm going to advertise to all of my coworkers.

[Moonlady]

I worked for a large Fortune 500 company that did random drug testing because they had contracts with the government (supposedly that's a requirement). My division was sold twice and the current company I work for doesn't do drug testing at all. Why? There's no cost benefit. It's an enormous expense and there's little if any benefit that finding out that someone smokes marijuana (the most likely drug to show up) on the weekends doesn't necessarily correlate to poor job performance. If someone has a substance abuse issue, it generally shows up in their performance, and it's the performance that is dealt with, not the root cause. Supervisors can recommend substance abuse treatment (which is covered by insurance) if they want to give the employee a chance. Alcohol abuse is actually far more prevalent than drug abuse and it's legal, so the ONLY way to deal with it is through managing the employees performance.

Since I've worked in both environments I can say that the non-drug testing environment is no different and may be actually better - in the case of non-Public Safety jobs. IMO, it's not the responsibility of the workplace to monitor employee behavior off the job. However, I do agree that in the case of Public Safety - drug testing is a requirement.

[texdav]

More and more do random drug testig how days;especailly in skilled positions.With the number of incidents its alos increasing in positions never covered before.

[YaFace]

Originally Posted by texdav

More and more do random drug testig how days;especailly in skilled positions.With the number of incidents its alos increasing in positions never covered before.

If they had message board drug testing, this yahoo would be the prime candidate.

[JetJockey]

Originally Posted by Moonlady

I worked for a large Fortune 500 company that did random drug testing because they had contracts with the government (supposedly that's a requirement). My division was sold twice and the current company I work for doesn't do drug testing at all. Why? There's no cost benefit. It's an enormous expense and there's little if any benefit that finding out that someone smokes marijuana (the most likely drug to show up) on the weekends doesn't necessarily correlate to poor job performance. If someone has a substance abuse issue, it generally shows up in their performance, and it's the performance that is dealt with, not the root cause. Supervisors can recommend substance abuse treatment (which is covered by insurance) if they want to give the employee a chance. Alcohol abuse is actually far more prevalent than drug abuse and it's legal, so the ONLY way to deal with it is through managing the employees performance.

Since I've worked in both environments I can say that the non-drug testing environment is no different and may be actually better - in the case of non-Public Safety jobs. IMO, it's not the responsibility of the workplace to monitor employee behavior off the job. However, I do agree that in the case of Public Safety - drug testing is a requirement.

We are required by the FAA (and so are most of our vendors) to be on a Federal drug testing program where I work.

I've worked at both (drug testing and non drug testing) and I would prefer working at the drug testing place by a large percentage.

Unfortunately, at many of the non drug testing places, they probably wouldn't have any employees left if they drug tested. I was working at a place that didn't have a testing program in place, but when the place was sold, the new owner implemented new policies all over the place, testing being one of them. We were given nearly 3 months to 'prepare' for the test, and they ended up firing over 60 people in total for failing (this was a 7 store regional chain), which included 1 entire store (had to be shut down and all new employees retrained).

Personally, I'm glad to be working at a place that drug tests randomly, and frequently.

[kodaka]

To respond to the 'what I do on my own time is my business' comments above...

I actually worked in a drug-testing laboratory one summer in college. What an eye-opening experience that was! I could wax on, but suffice it to say, it would be rare for someone to see any disciplinary action from legal prescription use. Most prescriptions that can appear in tests as recreational drugs only appear on the more expensive tests that private employers don't pay for. And they don't appear in concentrations high enough to suggest recreational use. And most employers who do testing are well schooled by their legal counsel to know that a positive for a single drug is most likely not an indication of recreational drug use, but rather of legal prescription drug use and that they would be stupid to discipline or fire any employee for such a result.

[MissNM]

At my job, if you cause an accident - you get a test. If you hurt yourself at work - you get a test. If you act more goofy than usual - you might get a test. If there were a spike in positives of those they tested - they might follow through on random tests.

Legally prescribed drugs are not a violation - but you better be able to have it validated by your doctor.