Drug Screen for First Job

Off Topic
61

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
What do you do?

I run occ-med company for some of the largest contractors, petrochemical and energy companies nation wide. That includes drug screening.

So all your points about testing are bro-science because unless you work for a lab, which you obviously don’t with your points, are just talking out your ass[/quote]

Whoa, now we’re playing the call out game are we? Shit just got REAL…

Once again, why are you attacking me personally, instead of addressing my arguments? Is that how the big boys argue?

And I don’t see what working in a lab has to do with anything. Were I you, I wouldn’t presume to know anything about my scientific background. However, if you want a hint, consider this: I would be more than glad to engage in an AMICABLE scientific discussion.

62

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
Drug tests are an invasion of privacy. Period. [/quote]

Not when you privacy may hurt other people.
[/quote]

The word you are looking for is “might”.

Plenty of our constitutional rights, might increase the risk of injury.

[/quote]

And you have the right to not be drug tested for a job, same as the person giving the drug test has the right to not hire you if you don’t. [/quote]

First off, I don’t do drugs and have passed numerous drug screenings.

Secondly, what people do during their own time is just that their’s. It is a serious infringement of personal liberties telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

I’m sure these comments will bring out the nanny state.

[/quote]

I didn’t drug test at my company for years. An employee lost a finger 2 years ago because he was high. He also received a 6 figure settlement. I drug test now. And I should have been then.

You’re living up to your screen name if you don’t see a need in many industries to drug test. This was a minor injury, as compared to what can happen. But since you’ll never be in an employer’s position, I guess it doesn’t really matter to you.[/quote]

I work for a school district. All of our bus drivers are drug tested regularly. Can you imagine the shit storm that would descend upon us if we didn’t do that and a high bus driver had a wreck injuring or killing children?? Not only would the bus driver be in trouble but we would also be liable for not assuring the safety of children. Are you trying to say that the drivers right to use drugs supersedes our right to protect ourselves from litigation and children from potential harm?? [/quote]

You said the key word: liability. That’s why drug tests are performed. They are well aware that anyone with half a brain can beat it, and keep costs down with low quality tests for only the NIDA 5. In most cases, they don’t actually care if you do drugs, the company just doesn’t want to be liable if you fuck up while you’re on drugs. It shifts responsibility to the individual.

The problem I see with drug tests is this: they don’t discriminate between the guy who gets high at home on weekends and the guy who uses at work. While I agree that an employee absolutely shouldn’t be using at work under any circumstance, there is no reason for most jobs to exert such authority over employees’ personal lives. They also fail to discriminate between stoners and cokeheads. In fact, they punish people for weed more than anything, since it has the longest detection time.

Sure, the accidents people get into while high may be publicized a lot, but how often do they actually occur, considering the high number of people who work while drunk/high? Having worked in construction, I can honestly say that if you started firing guys for operating machinery while drunk/high, you wouldn’t get anything done. It’s not drug users’ rights that supersede safety, but practicality that sometimes must.[/quote]

With weed this doesn’t matter as much, but I want to know if a guy is using something stronger like meth or crack even at home. That is going to speak to their reliability and honesty as an employee because you absolutely cannot trust a tweeker.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with you. It’s not really possible to be a part-time heroin addict. However, employers often treat them all the same.

63

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
What do you do?

I run occ-med company for some of the largest contractors, petrochemical and energy companies nation wide. That includes drug screening.

So all your points about testing are bro-science because unless you work for a lab, which you obviously don’t with your points, are just talking out your ass[/quote]

Whoa, now we’re playing the call out game are we? Shit just got REAL…

Once again, why are you attacking me personally, instead of addressing my arguments? Is that how the big boys argue?

And I don’t see what working in a lab has to do with anything. Were I you, I wouldn’t presume to know anything about my scientific background. However, if you want a hint, consider this: I would be more than glad to engage in an AMICABLE scientific discussion.[/quote]
Sigh and I’m typing on an iPad and not my laptop so too fucking hard to go in long discussions…

I have real world experience, busting guys with urine and hair testing all over the nation.

The moral issues aside, again real business people don’t want unhealthy workers if they can screen them. At least in the industries I deal with.

Killing people with work related accidents is not good for business.

64

I will say that a rapid 5 panel that is not sent out for confirmation is inaccurate and can be beat, however testing has gotten cheaper with demand so reputable companies that I deal with do not even bother with just doing those anymore.

65

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
I will say that a rapid 5 panel that is not sent out for confirmation is inaccurate and can be beat, however testing has gotten cheaper with demand so reputable companies that I deal with do not even bother with just doing those anymore. [/quote]

Fair enough. Where I’m at, the NIDA5 is still pretty standard, except for certain jobs.

But I kind of LOL’d at the morality thing. There’s little room for morality in big business, just opportunism.

66

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
I will say that a rapid 5 panel that is not sent out for confirmation is inaccurate and can be beat, however testing has gotten cheaper with demand so reputable companies that I deal with do not even bother with just doing those anymore. [/quote]

Fair enough. Where I’m at, the NIDA5 is still pretty standard, except for certain jobs.

But I kind of LOL’d at the morality thing. There’s little room for morality in big business, just opportunism.[/quote]
No you are right to a point but again killing employees is bad for business.

ExxonMobil of the world don’t play around, believe me

67

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
there is no reason for most jobs to exert such authority over employees’ personal lives. [/quote]

The employee is free to seek employment elsewhere. There is no control, no authority, one does not have to provide their services to an employer they feel treats them unfair.

68

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
there is no reason for most jobs to exert such authority over employees’ personal lives. [/quote]

The employee is free to seek employment elsewhere. There is no control, no authority, one does not have to provide their services to an employer they feel treats them unfair.

[/quote]
Are you talking about Aaron Hernandez cause man it’s his right to live thug life.

Hater

69

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
there is no reason for most jobs to exert such authority over employees’ personal lives. [/quote]

The employee is free to seek employment elsewhere. There is no control, no authority, one does not have to provide their services to an employer they feel treats them unfair.

[/quote]
Are you talking about Aaron Hernandez cause man it’s his right to live thug life.

Hater[/quote]

Some people are bright, some aren’t. What can I say?

70

THUGLIFE BRO YOU TALKING BOUT MY PRIORS DAWG BLAM HOW YOU LIKE ME NOW. HERNANDEZING AS I TYPE WITH MY NOSE BROOO. sarcasm

71

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
I will say that a rapid 5 panel that is not sent out for confirmation is inaccurate and can be beat, however testing has gotten cheaper with demand so reputable companies that I deal with do not even bother with just doing those anymore. [/quote]

Fair enough. Where I’m at, the NIDA5 is still pretty standard, except for certain jobs.

But I kind of LOL’d at the morality thing. There’s little room for morality in big business, just opportunism.[/quote]
No you are right to a point but again killing employees is bad for business.

ExxonMobil of the world don’t play around, believe me[/quote]

In business you mean covering their own ass?

I’ve been on quite a few exxon sites, and you’re a 100% right they don’t play.

72

In regards to a private business being fully autonomous, I disagree. Most businesses only exist due to federal and state infrastructure. This ain’t the wild west. I would argue one of the very very very few things that the federal government does right is employee protection from predatory and exploitative business practices. In the sense of invasive and prying business practices in the lives of american citizens, yes there needs to be some protection. And foul you may cry, nanny state, big government. Just remember when you advocate violating someone’s personal privacy, what ever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

73

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
In regards to a private business being fully autonomous, I disagree. Most businesses only exist due to federal and state infrastructure. [/quote]

I promise you, if the government didn’t facilitate infrastructure, it would still be there.

And this has nothing, at all to do with being free to choose who you work for.

This isn’t 1896. It is 2013. You, him and everyone is FREE to CHOOSE whom you work for.

If someone doesn’t like the way an employer handles the employees, they can go work else where.

Weren’t you the one that posted the nanny state picture? Let me get this straight:

You: You people saying people are free to work where ever they choose are nanny state goons, and the government should regulate employers actions.

Me: If you don’t like the practices of your employer, go work somewhere else. You don’t need the nanny government to wipe your ass for you. Make the call yourself and do something about it.

[quote] And foul you may cry, nanny state, big government. Just remember when you advocate violating someone’s personal privacy, what ever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
[/quote]

How on Earth is saying that people take personal responsibility for themselves and actively choose the employer that is the best fit for them “advocating violating privacy”. I’m actually advocating freedom, you on the other hand are advocating bigger, more invasive government.

74

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
In regards to a private business being fully autonomous, I disagree. Most businesses only exist due to federal and state infrastructure. [/quote]

I promise you, if the government didn’t facilitate infrastructure, it would still be there.

And this has nothing, at all to do with being free to choose who you work for.

This isn’t 1896. It is 2013. You, him and everyone is FREE to CHOOSE whom you work for.

If someone doesn’t like the way an employer handles the employees, they can go work else where.

Weren’t you the one that posted the nanny state picture? Let me get this straight:

You: You people saying people are free to work where ever they choose are nanny state goons, and the government should regulate employers actions.

Me: If you don’t like the practices of your employer, go work somewhere else. You don’t need the nanny government to wipe your ass for you. Make the call yourself and do something about it.

[quote] And foul you may cry, nanny state, big government. Just remember when you advocate violating someone’s personal privacy, what ever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
[/quote]

How on Earth is saying that people take personal responsibility for themselves and actively choose the employer that is the best fit for them “advocating violating privacy”. I’m actually advocating freedom, you on the other hand are advocating bigger, more invasive government. [/quote]

Are you stating that infrastructure would be similar or just developed?

And your point is what, it is 2013?

The central premise of your argument is that there is a choice. There is no choice because every employer tests. The 800lb gorilla in the room is insurance and liability Which drive workplace testing. I am advocating that government work for the protection of individual rights and privacy.

The best compromise to this whole debate would be testing that would indicate intoxication and altered states while on the jobsite.

75

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

Are you stating that infrastructure would be similar or just developed?[/quote]

We’ll never know, because the government will never give up that cash cow.

[quote]
The central premise of your argument is that there is a choice. There is no choice because every employer tests. The 800lb gorilla in the room is insurance and liability Which drive workplace testing. [/quote]

I’m 33 years old, been working now for 19 years and have taken exactly zero piss tests, blood tests (for drugs) or hair samples in my life.

By altering the individual rights and privacy of the employee.

So in essence you are stepping on Shaq’s toes to dunk the ball for Spud Webb.

So you want daily testing of employees rather than one time or otherwise intermittent testing?

76

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
Drug tests are an invasion of privacy. Period. [/quote]

Not when you privacy may hurt other people.
[/quote]

The word you are looking for is “might”.

Plenty of our constitutional rights, might increase the risk of injury.

[/quote]

And you have the right to not be drug tested for a job, same as the person giving the drug test has the right to not hire you if you don’t. [/quote]

First off, I don’t do drugs and have passed numerous drug screenings.

Secondly, what people do during their own time is just that their’s. It is a serious infringement of personal liberties telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

I’m sure these comments will bring out the nanny state.

[/quote]

I didn’t drug test at my company for years. An employee lost a finger 2 years ago because he was high. He also received a 6 figure settlement. I drug test now. And I should have been then.

You’re living up to your screen name if you don’t see a need in many industries to drug test. This was a minor injury, as compared to what can happen. But since you’ll never be in an employer’s position, I guess it doesn’t really matter to you.[/quote]

I work for a school district. All of our bus drivers are drug tested regularly. Can you imagine the shit storm that would descend upon us if we didn’t do that and a high bus driver had a wreck injuring or killing children?? Not only would the bus driver be in trouble but we would also be liable for not assuring the safety of children. Are you trying to say that the drivers right to use drugs supersedes our right to protect ourselves from litigation and children from potential harm?? [/quote]

You said the key word: liability. That’s why drug tests are performed. They are well aware that anyone with half a brain can beat it, and keep costs down with low quality tests for only the NIDA 5. In most cases, they don’t actually care if you do drugs, the company just doesn’t want to be liable if you fuck up while you’re on drugs. It shifts responsibility to the individual.

The problem I see with drug tests is this: they don’t discriminate between the guy who gets high at home on weekends and the guy who uses at work. While I agree that an employee absolutely shouldn’t be using at work under any circumstance, there is no reason for most jobs to exert such authority over employees’ personal lives. They also fail to discriminate between stoners and cokeheads. In fact, they punish people for weed more than anything, since it has the longest detection time.

Sure, the accidents people get into while high may be publicized a lot, but how often do they actually occur, considering the high number of people who work while drunk/high? Having worked in construction, I can honestly say that if you started firing guys for operating machinery while drunk/high, you wouldn’t get anything done. It’s not drug users’ rights that supersede safety, but practicality that sometimes must.[/quote]

With weed this doesn’t matter as much, but I want to know if a guy is using something stronger like meth or crack even at home. That is going to speak to their reliability and honesty as an employee because you absolutely cannot trust a tweeker.[/quote]

I’m with you on the hard drug thing. Personally I have to do a lot of the hiring and firing a lot of times it’s for drugs and alcohol. The potheads are usually not the ones stealing and being shady to coworkers. I would also trust a pothead in a safety sensitive position over a crack user anyday. Alcohol can be just as bad but I have found that when you have a functioning alchoholic working for you they will eventually choose to work elsewhere by getting caught.

I am all for drug testing. I do not wish to put my people or myself into a position where their safety could be jeoprodized by a drug user. I’m also all about developing people and from experience it is hard to develope a crackhead or tweeker, it’s a waste of time and energy.

77

edit that employee to employer in the 3rd section.

78

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

Are you stating that infrastructure would be similar or just developed?[/quote]

We’ll never know, because the government will never give up that cash cow.

[quote]
The central premise of your argument is that there is a choice. There is no choice because every employer tests. The 800lb gorilla in the room is insurance and liability Which drive workplace testing. [/quote]

I’m 33 years old, been working now for 19 years and have taken exactly zero piss tests, blood tests (for drugs) or hair samples in my life.

By altering the individual rights and privacy of the employee.

So in essence you are stepping on Shaq’s toes to dunk the ball for Spud Webb.

So you want daily testing of employees rather than one time or otherwise intermittent testing? [/quote]

No, I am advocating onsite, real time drug testing, that tests for any potential level of impairment during hours of employment. Instead of putting the employee’s personal life and privacy in the crosshairs.

(I’m not sure if the technology is there for real time impairment testing)

79

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

Are you stating that infrastructure would be similar or just developed?[/quote]

We’ll never know, because the government will never give up that cash cow.

See, this is what I would advocate as the ideal solution, however I don’t think it would be feasible at the moment.

The beauty about drug tests is who they catch most of: the average dude who smokes some pot once in a while and doesn’t know a damn thing about passing drug tests. Any truly dedicated druggie already knows by heart how to beat a drug test (except for maybe the military one). Anybody else see the problem in this? Most true addicts will get caught at work at some point anyway, so in some ways the system selects them out automatically.

80

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:
What do you do?

I run occ-med company for some of the largest contractors, petrochemical and energy companies nation wide. That includes drug screening.

So all your points about testing are bro-science because unless you work for a lab, which you obviously don’t with your points, are just talking out your ass[/quote]

Whoa, now we’re playing the call out game are we? Shit just got REAL…

Once again, why are you attacking me personally, instead of addressing my arguments? Is that how the big boys argue?

And I don’t see what working in a lab has to do with anything. Were I you, I wouldn’t presume to know anything about my scientific background. However, if you want a hint, consider this: I would be more than glad to engage in an AMICABLE scientific discussion.[/quote]

Bud, trust me Derek knows more than anybody on this site and perhaps most of the U.S. on this subject…His multi-multi million dollar company specializes in this VERY thing. You have brought a knife to a gunfight here.

Back slowly away.

Not hating, just advising.