Drug tests for employees
Do you screen new hires for drug use? Why or why not? Share your thoughts.
From Pasquale Santoro Manhattan N.Y. Drug testing is a complete violation of human rights, an invasion of privacy, degrading and undignified. The interviewing process is degrading enough. You are made to feel small even though your interest in working for them may be genuine. Your made out to feel you need them more then they need you. To throw a drug test on top of it confirms there position.' We own you". Your relationship with your employer should stop when you hit that punch out clock. If they are not allowed to dig in your pockets or show up at your home and check your closets and draws then I can't see how they can force you to submit to a urine test or D.N.A. test. As an equal opportunity employer I can't see why they would want to. There are exception though. Working in law enforcement as well as being a politician. In theses area's your job is 24/7. How you carry yourself here is under constant scrutiny as a public servant of the people on and off the clock. Also if there is a noticeable problem with an employee I believe its the right of the company to enforce a drug test, but only then. Walking through the door and getting hired should be based on your qualifications and the presentation of ones self. In these area's you should be treated fair and with trust just the way an employer should never lie to you about your salary or quality of a job being applied for. Employers must understand they do not own you and that you should not be judged on your skin color,race,religion,creed,personal beliefs,personal life style as well as your urine and especially your D.N.A. as it is the social security number or code to your heritage past and future, your traits and geography, your brain power, your complete total make up, even diseases that have been past along from generation to generation, sorry that belongs to you and you alone and no one and I mean no one has the right to force you to give that up because you showed an interest in providing services to a specific employer. Hands down!
P.S. The companies that provide these testings have no interest in human rights but they do have an interest in the almighty dollar. Keep that in mind.
From Anon The fact of the matter is, the only drugs that are fat soluble (the ones most likely to be caught by a urine test) are nicotine, marijuana, and some prescription painkillers and anti depressants(because pharmaceutical companies have made them that way for this explicit purpose). A person who uses water soluble drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, barbituates, speed, etc (pretty much every other drug you can imagine) is able to pass a drug test solely by drinking a bunch of water and working out for an hour(like vitamins and other minerals these drugs are water soluble).
Not to mention these test are not accurate assessments of alcohol, prescription drug use, or over the counter drug use, which also have a huge effect on worker productivity. People who take sleep aids like tylenol pm, and other over the counter medicines, are just as likely to be causing those accidents, as a person who smokes pot.
Also, because a lot of companies don't pay for the more expensive gc/ms tests, they do a more standard dot test, they aren't going to catch drug users who know their way around the system. So in that effect, they are totally inefficient.
I am also amazed at these figures of 7,0004 per user. Where exactly did you get that study, and what is it sourced from (for my own edification)? Drug statistics like that have a tendancy to be completely false (seeing as to make a study on a banned substance you need to jump through an unbelievable amount of red tape). I assume that most of these figures come from "after the fact" drug testing, where people who already screwed up get drug tested and then the blame falls squarely on the drugs not the ineptitude of the person.
The fact of the matter is, most companies don't care whether you are a drug user or not. All they care about is your productivity, a drug free workplace, with entrance testing, is usually a "don't ask don't tell unless I want to fire you because you screwed up" workplace. If your most productive person smokes pot on his time off, you think that he should be fired. And if so, if all your productive workers would fail a drug tet, would you make them take it. few companies face this problem down, as a matter of fact, I've had experiences with companies who realized how many people of theirs smoked, and realized that it would be far LESS profitable for them to do random drug tests. How many dollars per user does being an idiot cost a company a year anyway? I'd wager far more than drug users.
From Larsen Petty Terry Box quoted;"The national average estimate for the cost of substance abuse to a company per user is $7,000 in lost productivity, accidents, absenteeism and replacing fired and suspended employees."Unquote I know many people who work beyond thier means and are stoners so to say.
What about the average person who doesnt miss work, & provides great quality in work such as exceeding production levels and maintains good work attitude? Don't get me wrong, Im opposed for the person who wants to come in to a work place stoned or drunk. I don't think that a person should be persecuted for what he/she does outside the workplace,as long as it's not a danger to anyone and it doesnt take control of life. Why should it be posed as a threat if you get sent down for a random test,it comes back positive and it's only because of what you do recreationally away from the work place after hours???
From Mr. T, bismarck,nd 100% agree as with probably 60% of america he have little rights left and everything we do is critisized. i should not be judged by the quality of my piss but buy the quality of my caracter, cause i may smoke a little harmless pot on sat. doesnt have a thing to do with what happens on wed.
From krack hore It all depend on the type of job that is being performed. How much will it effect a writer if he goes to work stoned compared to a school right.
From Ivan Vodenlic Invasion of privacy? what? I hire, I own the company, and employees are compensated well. What you do on your own time is your business but don't tell me how to run my business. Pre employment requires passing a drug test. Don't like it then hit the road. Oh you say it has no impact on your work, well I know a few former employees looking for jobs so if you need you kids watched I'd be happy to help both of you out and send them your way. Have a nice day.
From Terry Box, Columbus, Ohio Every employer should test for drug use in the workplace. Why?
The national average estimate for the cost of substance abuse to a company per user is $7,000 in lost productivity, accidents, absenteeism and replacing fired and suspended employees.
Use the following formula to estimate the cost of employee substance abuse in your business:
1. Estimate the percentage of your total number of employees that use drugs. The national average is 17 percent.
2. Multiply the number of employees you have by this percentage.
3. Multiply that by the national average cost per substance abuser ($7,000).
4. The result is the annual cost of substance abuse within your company.
National Chamber of Commerce quote.
We use a company at http://www.1mdllc.com.
From Darcy, Amsterdam NY I think that drug testing in the workplace is a violation of a person's right to privacy. I believe that the best plan of action is to use "probable cause". If an employee comes to work with obvious signs of intoxication or other drug use, then the workplace should have to right request a drug test. Otherwise, what a person does on their own time should not be of anyone elses concern.
From Chris, Belfast, Ireland I dont own a business, though I would just like to point out that, according to Kevin (below, apparently the "President and Founder of Cal-Test Drug Testing Services", although I'd beg to differ as he has made enough spelling mistakes to prove he may be on drugs himself!), you can actually get fired for not taking drugs. Especially if the tests are as innaccurate as he claims. Taking drugs doesn't make you less of a person/employee, but abusing them can.
From M Rose. Portland, OR What's missing here are examples of very successful companies that don't drug test their employees upon hiring.
For example?
Microsoft and Nike.
These are successful companies by anyone's standards. Why don't they drug test? Certainly the drug testing companies have pitched their product to them.
The mainstream media has missed this very salient point in the debate over drug testing in the workplace.
From Simon Peter Alciere, Greenfield, Massachusetts If one of my employees smokes marijuana on the weekend, or while on vacation in Mexico, I'm supposed to fire them? That's the premise of the drug testers. Ridiculous! Is there no such thing as respect for privacy and personal responsibility?
Alcohol, cold remedies, and other "legal" drugs, are not detected by these tests. Yet they cause thousands of accidents, injuries, deaths and liability. I guess we're not worried about drinking on the job, as long as we get rid of all those "bad" people.
From Jacob, Santa Barbara, CA You know the very best of your employees tend to do drugs from time to time. The drugs are not the cause of bad things, abuse is. I am not sure if you ever done drugs with the owner of a company who screens thier employees? I have…and its not right.
From Anonymous Drug testing in the work place is hypocrisy. I worked as an IT consultant for a telephone firm and was treated more like a factory worker. Having to carry cups of pee through the work place every few months was degrading enough. I have two BA's and spent my life working as a professional only to be treated like a crack smoking junkie.
The policy states that all employees should be random tested…yea right. Management does not get tested. Friends and relatives don’t get tested. Even a secretary whose husband is a known meth dealer does not get tested.
I have no problems with drug testing. I do with hypocrisy of management to discriminate on who gets tested.
From Kevin Odenbaugh CAL-TEST, Inc. I'm the President and Founder of Cal-Test Drug Testing Services (www.caltest.cc). We have been providing urine, hair, fingernail, saliva and breath testing for over 16 years, to both public and private employers.
After reading your article I was compelled to tell you the real story about these inferour "Instnat" testing devices.
The down side with POC-T (Point of Collection Tests), such as the device you covered, is the lack of specificity (accuracy at precise levels). These "Instant" tests have a magin of error of, AT BEST, 25% at the cut-off.
For example, if the Donor used illegal drugs two days ago and currently has 1,250 ng/ml (A POSITIVE LAB TEST), the "Instant" may miss it due to the instant tests poor performance. Now the employer has hired a known drug abuser. This will cause additonal liability for the hiring Company due to neglagent hiring practices…the employer dio not use the best test avaiable and failed to research the instant tesst true ability to accuratley idenify drug absuers before hiring them or before placing them in a hazardous work environments. This is why the Federal Department of Transportation restricts the use of these tests!
Additonally, these Instant test devises are EASILY BEATEN by drug abusers. Most of these tests do not test for adulatration or diaredic products that drug abusers commonley use to "Dilute" or defeat the urine testing process. LAB BASED urine drug tests do idenitfy these tactics and the employer is well protected.
Finally, these POC-T tests are EASILY misused by employers. For example, if the instant test shows a "Pending", "Inconclusive", "Non-Negative" or "Suspect Positive" result, the hasty employer will ASSUME that this reading is a true "Positive" for illegal drug use WITHOUT sending the sample to a REAL Forensic Lab for GC/MS Confirmation and Medical Review Officer (MRO) review. This temptation will falsly accuse applicant/employee as being illegal drug users, when indeed they are NOT!
Simple over the counter cold and flu medications and some foods can trigger a "Positive" reading on these instant tests and MUST be confirmed via GC/MS and those results reviewed by a certifed Medical Review Officer PRIOR to taking any negative action against an employee/applicant.
The famous saying "if it sounds to good to be true…it probabley is". In the case of instant test devices it is NOT worth the risk!
Kevin Odenbaugh, C-SAPA/CPC-T/MRO-A
President
From William Schraeder Great, nice to know you are looking out for us, Jason. In your police state, do we get free food and shelter too? I mean, after all, we all want a big brother looking out for us that tells us what we can and cannot do, and drug testing is a natural extension to that. While I am not a drug user, it is comforting to know that there are so many caring people out there who know better than I what I should and should not be doing. In fact, can anyone chime in here to tell me whether I should be reading CNNFn at 6:30am in the morning….certainly there are other things I should be doing?
-
Wireless electricity and invisible speakers -- see what's coming from entrepreneurs in 2010. More -
These 6 businesses took advantage of crashed real estate prices to trade up. More -
These 7 entrepreneurs are bringing tech, medical research and design jobs to the Detroit metro area. More -
Arson. Scrappers. Blackouts. It's part of business for the last tenant in Detroit's Packard Plant. More -
Inventing is the easy part. Marketing? Trickier. Experts tell how they'd advertise 5 hard-to-tout products. More
wow! out of the whole country there are people that have everything against marijuana even if they do not use it or have relations with. Then there are people like the simon who get it. let us be.