|
I worked for a bank for a year. I got drug tested twice: once on hire and once "randomly." Now I've work in a lab and handled controlled substances for ten years. They haven't tested me once.
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
I worked for a public school district for over seven years and not once did I ever hear of anyone being drug tested.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I worked for a public school district for over seven years and not once did I ever hear of anyone being drug tested. I know the school district in my hometown does do screenings for bus drivers, but that's it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
Even my friend who works for a military contractor and has a security clearance says their "random drug test" is the same day every year so it would be super easy to avoid. The only person I've talked to with a restrictive drug testing schedule was a truck driver.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Civil Servants in NYC are randomly drug tested as well, no idea how "random " it is but my FDNY friends dont chance it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Even my friend who works for a military contractor and has a security clearance says their "random drug test" is the same day every year so it would be super easy to avoid. The only person I've talked to with a restrictive drug testing schedule was a truck driver. I hear the TSA tests pretty often. An old coworker of mine used to work there and she told me someone there got 'randomly' selected 3 times in one month.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
I've been told that they often test after work accidents to provide grounds for denying workmans' comp. Can anyone verify this?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
MixMasterMalaria posted:I've been told that they often test after work accidents to provide grounds for denying workmans' comp. Can anyone verify this? Just about everywhere does that, you're not supposed to be on any kind of anything in situations that can lead to accidents.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
MixMasterMalaria posted:I've been told that they often test after work accidents to provide grounds for denying workmans' comp. Can anyone verify this? Absolutely. Mandated by their insurance in most retail chains. Install Windows posted:Just about everywhere does that, you're not supposed to be on any kind of anything in situations that can lead to accidents. Right, because the pot I smoked last weekend is affecting my performance.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Right, because the pot I smoked last weekend is affecting my performance. It shows about the same in those tests as if you'd smoked it the morning of the accident dude.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:It shows about the same in those tests as if you'd smoked it the morning of the accident dude. Yes? I'm aware of that. That was my entire point. 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Yes? I'm aware of that. That was my entire point. So your point is "you can't prove I smoked weed right then"? That doesn't matter for legal liability.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:So your point is "you can't prove I smoked weed right then"? That doesn't matter for legal liability. I'm not really aware of all of the technicalities of these laws but in any given office there's probably a large chunk of people taking prescription drugs that could impair a lot more than some residual THC in the blood. If some random office worker on a legal, correctly taken prescription gets in an accident will they be held legally liable due to the possible impairment?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I'm not really aware of all of the technicalities of these laws but in any given office there's probably a large chunk of people taking prescription drugs that could impair a lot more than some residual THC in the blood. Uh yeah dude if you're taking a prescription drug that has to carry a "do not operate heavy machinery" warning and you get in an accident involving heavy machinery? You're likely to get partial or no workman's comp. Like do you think having a presciption for vicodin gets you to take it while operating a crane over a city street free and clear?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
I think a lot of places consider "is willing to take a drug test" as good as actually passing a drug test so they don't actually bother testing on hire. At the very least, everywhere I've worked required me to agree to a drug test but never actually had me take a drug test.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
Everyone at every oil refinery in the country is an alcoholic at the very least, and the proliferation and increased use of drugs like meth amphetamines can probably, in part, be attributed to the quick metabolism speeds. I have never spoken to anyone who worked in an industry job who wouldn't love to ditch the alcoholism for a nightcap spliff on the weekends. I think if we were to look a little deeper we'd see that the policy to drug test is more about keeping the workers in a position of subordination than anything to do with the price of insurance. I also think if we keep the conversation going about drug testing and whether or not Home Depot should be allowed to require a person submit before even considering their application, it'll be a media talking point sometime in the next couple years.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:So your point is "you can't prove I smoked weed right then"? That doesn't matter for legal liability. It does matter, it calls into question the validity of the test. At my last job I'd be drug tested for any injury to myself or company property-- if I was bitten by a dog or someone backed into my van while it was parked, drug test. It's not okay to fire someone for being bitten by a dog a week after smoking weed. No one here is arguing against drug testing in all circumstances, just that marijuana screening as it stands doesn't work.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Uh yeah dude if you're taking a prescription drug that has to carry a "do not operate heavy machinery" warning and you get in an accident involving heavy machinery? You're likely to get partial or no workman's comp. I don't operate heavy machinery or anything like that but we often have office workers who wander out into the production area where there are potential hazards. If I go out there and something happens and I test positive for pot I'd be in trouble, if I tested positive for vicodin (if I were prescribed) I highly doubt I would. That's the point I'm trying to make. Edit: Like the poster above I would be drug tested in the case of any injury, so even if it were caused by someone else entirely or by somethibg falling on me I would still be forced to take the test. I basically just have to avoid injury at all costs or never ever use pot. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 18:07 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I don't operate heavy machinery or anything like that but we often have office workers who wander out into the production area where there are potential hazards. If I go out there and something happens and I test positive for pot I'd be in trouble, if I tested positive for vicodin (if I were prescribed) I highly doubt I would. That's the point I'm trying to make. You would get in trouble for the Vicodin in most companies and jurisdictions. You'd basically get in trouble for anything besides over the counter meds, and even some of those can put you at risk. Inspector Hound posted:It does matter, it calls into question the validity of the test. At my last job I'd be drug tested for any injury to myself or company property-- if I was bitten by a dog or someone backed into my van while it was parked, drug test. It's not okay to fire someone for being bitten by a dog a week after smoking weed. No one here is arguing against drug testing in all circumstances, just that marijuana screening as it stands doesn't work. What? It works perfectly in this case, as they want to know if you did it anytime recently. Because your terms of employment in such situations usually states you can't be using it ever. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 18:05 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
So you see nothing at all problematic with an office worker on vicodin being injured in their normal workplace through no fault of their own losing their job because of it? What's the point of pot legalization if any mishap at work will result in losing your job? That's a far greater threat than small amount possession charges will ever be. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 18:25 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:You would get in trouble for the Vicodin in most companies and jurisdictions. You'd basically get in trouble for anything besides over the counter meds, and even some of those can put you at risk. Okay, but now I'm in a state where it's legal to use marijuana, and there are still enormous amounts of employees under the threat of being fired for smoking pot after work. These are not people in positions where they are responsible for anyone's safety-- most of the big call centers will test on employment and randomly. Yes, it's against their "terms of employment," but I hope I don't have top point out how ridiculous it is to defend abominable incidents like this one where Dish fired a quadriplegic customer service rep for using medical marijuana. If it's not legal, I disagree with the idea of employers as law enforcement, but that's another can of worms. If it's legal in the state, the most an employer can fairly ask is an employee not be high at work, and then you need to have a reliable way to differentiate recent use from last weekend. Inspector Hound fucked around with this message at 18:33 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:So you see nothing at all problematic with an office worker on vicodin being injured in their normal workplace through no fault of their own losing their job because of it? An office worker who "wandered" into a dangerous area by your own admission. Why the hell are they wandering into the dangerous area in the first place? Also how were they getting to and from work that day, because driving under the influence of a prescription drug like that can also get you a DWI? Pot legalization has nothing to do with what a job might require. Alcohol's as legal as the day is long but tons of companies will fire you for drinking on the job, and not even just for getting full on drunk. Inspector Hound posted:Okay, but now I'm in a state where it's legal to use marijuana, and there are still enormous amounts of employees under the threat of being fired for smoking pot after work. These are not people in positions where they are responsible for anyone's safety-- most of the big call centers will test on employment and randomly. Yes, it's against their "terms of employment," but I hope I don't have top point out how ridiculous it is to defend abominable incidents like this one where Dish fired a quadriplegic customer service rep for using medical marijuana. I'm specifically talking about having accidents and getting tested afterwards. This is not the same as random drug testing by a long shot. In cases like that, the terms of insurance most companies have include provisions that the employees shouldn't have been using anything while around dangerous things, and as a result of that the employees can end up with reduced or no compensation from the accident. Random drug tests are just pointless and shouldn't be done; but tests done after there's been people injured are another thing altogether.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:An office worker who "wandered" into a dangerous area by your own admission. Why the hell are they wandering into the dangerous area in the first place? Also how were they getting to and from work that day, because driving under the influence of a prescription drug like that can also get you a DWI? I didn't say dangerous area I said an area with potential hazards, as compared to the office where there are very few. If you're really asking me why someone from the office might go into the production area I don't know what to tell you, do you think the production area manages and sets itself up? For the record my workplace has very few accidents, but I've worked at very unsafe places before where there's a very real threat of being injured through no fault of your own, in that situation any pot use by employees would mean a high risk of them losing their job. None of us were talking about smoking on the job, getting tested for pot can show use from as far as a month back. There's no test like this for alcohol or if there is it's not given, so that is a terrible comparison. Getting tested for pot after any accident basically means you have to choose between employment and pot use. For the average person this is a bigger threat than trouble with the police, so pot legalization is essentially meaningless. Is your argument seriously that people should be able to completely avoid all accidents ever? If any accident results in a drug test and subsequent firing, how is that not as bad as a random drug test? MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 19:12 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I didn't say dangerous area I said an area with potential hazards, as compared to the office where there are very few. If you're really asking me why someone from the office might go into the production area I don't know what to tell you, do you think the production area manages and sets itself up? You should avoid being on anything at places you can describe as "unsafe" because insurers and laws will definitely gently caress you over if they can find any way to not have to pay out full workman's comp and similar things. And you should definitely avoid being on anything if you're operating heavy equipment because you will definitely get in trouble over that. This stuff holds true even when using 100% legal substances, it's not just weed. And no place is going to put in laws specifically granting protection to users of anything in case of accidents any time soon. And yeah tests show you were using as far as a month back - so you were violating company policy potentially as far as a month back - so you can be fired over it because it's in the contract you signed to work there that you wouldn't be using. In cases of injury where the medical system has to get involved, yeah that's a way more fair time to test for drugs of any sort than when someone's just sitting at a desk not getting involved in anything. There are changes in liability for various insurers and companies if it turns out some or all of the people involved in an incident may have been on something, so testing's usually a must.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:You should avoid being on anything at places you can describe as "unsafe" because insurers and laws will definitely gently caress you over if they can find any way to not have to pay out full workman's comp and similar things. And you should definitely avoid being on anything if you're operating heavy equipment because you will definitely get in trouble over that. This is all great advise in the context of avoiding legal issues or losing your job, luckily I'm in a position where I spend most of the time in the office and where the potentially dangerous areas have been exhaustively checked for potential safety hazards. Many people aren't so lucky and work in conditions with serious and persistent risks that are unavoidable. Yes I am violating company policy, just like most of us are violating state laws. The point of this thread is that those laws are ridiculous and should be repealed. Considering that my employer will never, ever care about how much alcohol I drank 30 days ago, I would argue that they shouldn't care about my pot use 30 days ago either. Especially considering that we have mid-upper level management types coming in on Mondays with hangovers sometimes by their own admission, which might actually cause some degree of impairment. All I am arguing for is consistent treatment among different substances. It's perfectly logical to be concerned that I am under the influence of a substance if I have an accident. It's absolutely illogical to be concerned about me being impaired days or weeks ago as long as my work performance is adequate and I'm not using at work.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:
And honestly, I don't think most businesses really care what you do in your free time, but there's not an easy way to distinguish between 'high at work' and 'last used 3 and a half weeks ago' in a drug test. That's not fair, obviously, but it matters. I wouldn't be surprised if some way to distinguish crops up in the next few years as legalization continues. My sense is that the big impact on this isn't with getting drug tested for your job, it's getting potentially arrested for a DUI even if you haven't gotten high recently. Xandu fucked around with this message at 19:59 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:This is all great advise in the context of avoiding legal issues or losing your job, luckily I'm in a position where I spend most of the time in the office and where the potentially dangerous areas have been exhaustively checked for potential safety hazards. Many people aren't so lucky and work in conditions with serious and persistent risks that are unavoidable. And if you work in conditions where there's serious risks, you should avoid being on anything, because you will more likely than not be hosed over whether the thing you were on was 100% illegal or 100% legal. The laws aren't involved with why you'd get hosed over though, other than that it's illegal to operate a lot of things while "intoxicated" on anything for good reason. Company policies are free to be much more restrictive than the law in most cases, and this is usually tied to various insurance agreements the company has. There is consistent treatment in these cases. Look, when people get tested after accidents it's usually in the form of blood tests. Blood tests for weed usage in particular can determine whether you used it within the past 24-36 hours or so, similar to the results that can be gotten for testing for amphetamines or most other drugs legal or not. Xandu posted:And honestly, I don't think most businesses really care what you do in your free time, but there's not an easy way to distinguish between 'high at work' and 'last used 3 and a half weeks ago' in a drug test. That's not fair, obviously, but it matters. I wouldn't be surprised if some way to distinguish crops up in the next few years as legalization continues. Blood tests do this. While hair tests can just tell you someone used as far back as months in the past, and urine tests can at the outside catch people using several weeks ago, blood tests will look for THC that hasn't been metabolized and that's only good in normal cases for catching usage up to 36 hours ago. In some rare cases where someone was using a lot and then suddenly stopped, it can at the absolute edge catch someone who was using heavily for like a month straight and then stayed off for a week; but they still would have results that wouldn't look the same as being tested a few hours after using.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Xandu posted:And honestly, I don't think most businesses really care what you do in your free time, but there's not an easy way to distinguish between 'high at work' and 'last used 3 and a half weeks ago' in a drug test. http://www.narcocheck.com/en/saliva-drug-tests/thc-marijuana-saliva-test.html
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Blood test thing is interesting, the metabolites thing makes sense. Aren't saliva tests extremely unreliable?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:
Do employers use the blood test method instead of urine test though? I only have experience with this at one company, a co-worker slipped and fell on some desiccant balls that had spilled out of a ripped bag and was sent to the lab for the same urine test we took upon hiring. He passed, so I don't know what the result would have been otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Blood test thing is interesting, the metabolites thing makes sense. Saliva tests aren't quite "trusted" yet but they're looking like they might be promising. Anyway the reason urine tests tend to get used for "random" screenings and job hirings is that they're much simpler to have done, they can be done with an untrained worker, a bathroom, and some automatic test equipment. Blood tests don't tend to get done unless there's an accident or liability involved, because getting blood samples is both pretty invasive and requires good medical conditions to do it safely, and a lot more money. Saliva tests have the potential to have time-specificity and relation to actual intoxication that blood tests can do, combined with the cheapness and minimal invasiveness of urine tests, if we can ever get them to a state of firm reliability. dphi posted:Do employers use the blood test method instead of urine test though? I only have experience with this at one company, a co-worker slipped and fell on some desiccant balls that had spilled out of a ripped bag and was sent to the lab for the same urine test we took upon hiring. He passed, so I don't know what the result would have been otherwise. They tend to get used when someone's already going to hospital out of the incident, and other companies just require them for all incidents. Blood tests are also often able to detect things that urine tests might not necessarily pick up.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:And if you work in conditions where there's serious risks, you should avoid being on anything, because you will more likely than not be hosed over whether the thing you were on was 100% illegal or 100% legal. Again that's good advise for avoiding risk bit let's be honest here, what percentage of people working dangerous lovely jobs are going to enjoy some alcohol after work? Probably a strong majority of them. It seems inconsistent that no one seems to care about that but they're plenty concerned about someone smoking pot the previous day. That saliva test with the 25ng/ml cutoff if accurate seems reasonable because from what I have seen because that would reflect use in the past several hours, which is infinitely better than a test that would go back multiple days.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Again that's good advise for avoiding risk bit let's be honest here, what percentage of people working dangerous lovely jobs are going to enjoy some alcohol after work? Probably a strong majority of them. It seems inconsistent that no one seems to care about that but they're plenty concerned about someone smoking pot the previous day. Lots of places care if the workers are getting hammered, even though the managers and executives are free to get away with it dude. I don't understand why you're so hung up on the idea that the only people getting hit couldn't possibly have smoked the day of or even at work - if someone truly only used a day ago their blood results are going to come out quite low, same as with alcohol or other things.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Again that's good advise for avoiding risk bit let's be honest here, what percentage of people working dangerous lovely jobs are going to enjoy some alcohol after work? Probably a strong majority of them. It seems inconsistent that no one seems to care about that but they're plenty concerned about someone smoking pot the previous day. Heck, a gentleman I'm working with vastly prefers total potheads as employees over habitual drinkers, because as long as they're not visibly stoned when dealing with a customer a guy with a residual weed high is far and away more productive than some dude nursing a hangover.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Lots of places care if the workers are getting hammered, even though the managers and executives are free to get away with it dude. I don't understand why you're so hung up on the idea that the only people getting hit couldn't possibly have smoked the day of or even at work - if someone truly only used a day ago their blood results are going to come out quite low, same as with alcohol or other things. If the employer would look at that low but present THC concentration in the blood and conclude that the use wasn't that day and as a result didn't punish the employee that would be great. In reality you'd have to be quite lucky for that to be the case. You know as well as I do how different the attitudes of a typical employer are towards alcohol vs marijuana. If people were as cool with pot as you seem to think they are this thread wouldn't need to exist.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:If the employer would look at that low but present THC concentration in the blood and conclude that the use wasn't that day and as a result didn't punish the employee that would be great. In reality you'd have to be quite lucky for that to be the case. You know as well as I do how different the attitudes of a typical employer are towards alcohol vs marijuana. If people were as cool with pot as you seem to think they are this thread wouldn't need to exist. Dude, the THC only stays detectable in the blood for a day in the first place, unless you used a tremendous amount of weed immediately prior to that day. And with light usage it'll stay detectable for under 12 hours. I don't see why you think it's unfair that people might get fired for being involved in an accident and provably having used weed extremely recently, in a place where you are told you couldn't be using it. It's not like having to do a hair test where having been around someone else who smoked a year ago could return a positive.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Dude, the THC only stays detectable in the blood for a day in the first place, unless you used a tremendous amount of weed immediately prior to that day. And with light usage it'll stay detectable for under 12 hours. If I can't enjoy a joint after work like I would enjoy a beer without living in constant terror of losing my job legalization is basically meaningless. If people were getting fired from their jobs for having said beer they would absolutely flip their poo poo. You're bringing up employer policy again, as I said before that's like saying I shouldn't complain about being busted by the cops for pot because it's illegal in this state. Virtually every employer doesn't want you smoking pot, unfortunately my line if work isn't working at a marijuana dispensory so if I want to not be homeless my only option is to work at a job that doesn't allow marijuana use.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:If I can't enjoy a joint after work like I would enjoy a beer without living in constant terror of losing my job legalization is basically meaningless. If people were getting fired from their jobs for having said beer they would absolutely flip their poo poo. If you get caught with a measurable blood alcohol level after a work accident you'd be in trouble too. If you were truly just having a joint after work it wouldn't show up on a blood test taken after you've been sent off to get blood done at work the next day after an accident. So don't smoke pot. None of those businesses are likely to start being ok with you smoking pot even if it gets legalized federally. They're not testing you for smoking pot because of its illegality.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:If you get caught with a measurable blood alcohol level after a work accident you'd be in trouble too. If you were truly just having a joint after work it wouldn't show up on a blood test taken after you've been sent off to get blood done at work the next day after an accident. Earlier in the thread you said it could show up for 36 hours, so it could show up especially if I smoked a few joints, even though I certainly wouldn't be impaired the day after. After legalization and changing attitudes I expect they will make a distinction between THC levels that would reflect smoking at work vs ones that would reflect smoking the night before. Right now many employers have an attitude that anyone who uses illegal drugs ever is human garbage, if you haven't encountered this attitude tell me where you live because I want to move. If you really don't think employers will change their attitudes, note how even the loving FBI had admitted how hard it can be to find qualified people who don't smoke. I've also seen many anecdotal stories about software companies who no longer do any testing for marijuana. Why do you think this thread even exists? Do you think the people in here wanting to smoke pot are all unemployed? There are many millions of people who want to smoke and be employed.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:44 |
|
Install Windows posted:So don't smoke pot. None of those businesses are likely to start being ok with you smoking pot even if it gets legalized federally. They're not testing you for smoking pot because of its illegality. This is an absolutely asinine sentiment. As long as an employee is able to adequately perform his or her job, it shouldn't matter what they choose to do in their free time. Advocating that people not do a given activity because businesses don't like it only further enhances the excessive amounts of power those business already have.
|
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 03:35
|
|
