Drug Screen for First Job

Off Topic
121

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

You would think that working for a fuel test lab my employer would, but the only time they test is if someone gets hurt.
[/quote]

Same at the shop I’m in. Heavy fabrication- sections and items weighing 50-60 tons per piece being moved through the shop by overhead crane and they aren’t at all interested in spending money to find out things they don’t want to know.

Everybody in there knows that their drug testing is a joke, and the only time that they test after the first one is when there is an accident. The number of positive tests is almost 100%.

Last year after 75 reportable injuries within a 300 person shop, the insurer dropped the company. It was either that or a 1.25 million dollar premium to remain insured by that company.

You’d think they would test a little more stringently, randomly, or frequently after a year like that, but they don’t.

They use that sorting process Apokalyps was talking about.
[/quote]

A pipefitting company I had worked for previously employed a similar attitude toward drug tests with great success on their part.

It should be quite obvious that the company’s focus is on money. In the case of your company it would probably (I say this because we can’t say for sure whether some of the accidents wouldn’t have happened if the guys were clean) be cheaper to implement random, intermittent drug testing. In the case of many other employers, this would not be the case.

122

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

You would think that working for a fuel test lab my employer would, but the only time they test is if someone gets hurt.
[/quote]

Same at the shop I’m in. Heavy fabrication- sections and items weighing 50-60 tons per piece being moved through the shop by overhead crane and they aren’t at all interested in spending money to find out things they don’t want to know.

Everybody in there knows that their drug testing is a joke, and the only time that they test after the first one is when there is an accident. The number of positive tests is almost 100%.

Last year after 75 reportable injuries within a 300 person shop, the insurer dropped the company. It was either that or a 1.25 million dollar premium to remain insured by that company.

You’d think they would test a little more stringently, randomly, or frequently after a year like that, but they don’t.

They use that sorting process Apokalyps was talking about.
[/quote]

It should be quite obvious that the company’s focus is on money. [/quote]
Question if you owned a business would that not be your focus also?

123

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

You would think that working for a fuel test lab my employer would, but the only time they test is if someone gets hurt.
[/quote]

Same at the shop I’m in. Heavy fabrication- sections and items weighing 50-60 tons per piece being moved through the shop by overhead crane and they aren’t at all interested in spending money to find out things they don’t want to know.

Everybody in there knows that their drug testing is a joke, and the only time that they test after the first one is when there is an accident. The number of positive tests is almost 100%.

Last year after 75 reportable injuries within a 300 person shop, the insurer dropped the company. It was either that or a 1.25 million dollar premium to remain insured by that company.

You’d think they would test a little more stringently, randomly, or frequently after a year like that, but they don’t.

They use that sorting process Apokalyps was talking about.
[/quote]
You need my company? [/quote]

They could certainly use it if there was any interest. I had to test after pinching (to a pulp) the tip of my finger and have been clean for years, but the guy testing didn’t even know what a negative test looked like. I had to retest 20 min. later for him to figure out that I wasn’t on anything.

What that whole scenario comes down to is that they are willing to compromise safety for production, but in that environment when things go wrong, they go permanently and irreparably wrong. The company is willing to make that compromise, and the large majority of employees there are willing to run with it.

124

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

You would think that working for a fuel test lab my employer would, but the only time they test is if someone gets hurt.
[/quote]

Same at the shop I’m in. Heavy fabrication- sections and items weighing 50-60 tons per piece being moved through the shop by overhead crane and they aren’t at all interested in spending money to find out things they don’t want to know.

Everybody in there knows that their drug testing is a joke, and the only time that they test after the first one is when there is an accident. The number of positive tests is almost 100%.

Last year after 75 reportable injuries within a 300 person shop, the insurer dropped the company. It was either that or a 1.25 million dollar premium to remain insured by that company.

You’d think they would test a little more stringently, randomly, or frequently after a year like that, but they don’t.

They use that sorting process Apokalyps was talking about.
[/quote]
You need my company? [/quote]

They could certainly use it if there was any interest. I had to test after pinching (to a pulp) the tip of my finger and have been clean for years, but the guy testing didn’t even know what a negative test looked like. I had to retest 20 min. later for him to figure out that I wasn’t on anything.

What that whole scenario comes down to is that they are willing to compromise safety for production, but in that environment when things go wrong, they go permanently and irreparably wrong. The company is willing to make that compromise, and the large majority of employees there are willing to run with it.
[/quote]
Also sounds like they need a safety professional who knows WTF they are doing.

125

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

Also sounds like they need a safety professional who knows WTF they are doing.[/quote]

According to what I’ve learned in this thread you mean a slave master.

126

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

You would think that working for a fuel test lab my employer would, but the only time they test is if someone gets hurt.
[/quote]

Same at the shop I’m in. Heavy fabrication- sections and items weighing 50-60 tons per piece being moved through the shop by overhead crane and they aren’t at all interested in spending money to find out things they don’t want to know.

Everybody in there knows that their drug testing is a joke, and the only time that they test after the first one is when there is an accident. The number of positive tests is almost 100%.

Last year after 75 reportable injuries within a 300 person shop, the insurer dropped the company. It was either that or a 1.25 million dollar premium to remain insured by that company.

You’d think they would test a little more stringently, randomly, or frequently after a year like that, but they don’t.

They use that sorting process Apokalyps was talking about.
[/quote]

A pipefitting company I had worked for previously employed a similar attitude toward drug tests with great success on their part.

It should be quite obvious that the company’s focus is on money. In the case of your company it would probably (I say this because we can’t say for sure whether some of the accidents wouldn’t have happened if the guys were clean) be cheaper to implement random, intermittent drug testing. In the case of many other employers, this would not be the case.[/quote]

Another company I worked at had a stringent random test on site policy and at last check was at over 170 work days and counting with 0 reportables.

So we both have opposing anecdotal evidence.

And no, you never really can say whether or not it would have happened if a guy was high or not, because it is all after the fact.

Main difference I see is that you don’t have to try to sort through or mitigate factors like drug use nearly as much in companies that have more stringent testing standards.

The shit that happens whether someone is high or not just doesn’t happen nearly as much when they are definitely not.

127

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

You would think that working for a fuel test lab my employer would, but the only time they test is if someone gets hurt.
[/quote]

Same at the shop I’m in. Heavy fabrication- sections and items weighing 50-60 tons per piece being moved through the shop by overhead crane and they aren’t at all interested in spending money to find out things they don’t want to know.

Everybody in there knows that their drug testing is a joke, and the only time that they test after the first one is when there is an accident. The number of positive tests is almost 100%.

Last year after 75 reportable injuries within a 300 person shop, the insurer dropped the company. It was either that or a 1.25 million dollar premium to remain insured by that company.

You’d think they would test a little more stringently, randomly, or frequently after a year like that, but they don’t.

They use that sorting process Apokalyps was talking about.
[/quote]
You need my company? [/quote]

They could certainly use it if there was any interest. I had to test after pinching (to a pulp) the tip of my finger and have been clean for years, but the guy testing didn’t even know what a negative test looked like. I had to retest 20 min. later for him to figure out that I wasn’t on anything.

What that whole scenario comes down to is that they are willing to compromise safety for production, but in that environment when things go wrong, they go permanently and irreparably wrong. The company is willing to make that compromise, and the large majority of employees there are willing to run with it.
[/quote]
Also sounds like they need a safety professional who knows WTF they are doing.[/quote]

They have one guy who tries, but I feel bad for him. He’s handcuffed. For what ever reason, even the upper management would rather deal with consequences than take a pro-active stance.

128

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

You would think that working for a fuel test lab my employer would, but the only time they test is if someone gets hurt.
[/quote]

Same at the shop I’m in. Heavy fabrication- sections and items weighing 50-60 tons per piece being moved through the shop by overhead crane and they aren’t at all interested in spending money to find out things they don’t want to know.

Everybody in there knows that their drug testing is a joke, and the only time that they test after the first one is when there is an accident. The number of positive tests is almost 100%.

Last year after 75 reportable injuries within a 300 person shop, the insurer dropped the company. It was either that or a 1.25 million dollar premium to remain insured by that company.

You’d think they would test a little more stringently, randomly, or frequently after a year like that, but they don’t.

They use that sorting process Apokalyps was talking about.
[/quote]

A pipefitting company I had worked for previously employed a similar attitude toward drug tests with great success on their part.

It should be quite obvious that the company’s focus is on money. In the case of your company it would probably (I say this because we can’t say for sure whether some of the accidents wouldn’t have happened if the guys were clean) be cheaper to implement random, intermittent drug testing. In the case of many other employers, this would not be the case.[/quote]

Another company I worked at had a stringent random test on site policy and at last check was at over 170 work days and counting with 0 reportables.

So we both have opposing anecdotal evidence.

And no, you never really can say whether or not it would have happened if a guy was high or not, because it is all after the fact.

Main difference I see is that you don’t have to try to sort through or mitigate factors like drug use nearly as much in companies that have more stringent testing standards.

The shit that happens whether someone is high or not just doesn’t happen nearly as much when they are definitely not.
[/quote]
Its risk taking behavior, remember there is more than one factor going into this. People who risk buying pot etc will take risk in the workplace, thus increasing injuries.

129

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

You would think that working for a fuel test lab my employer would, but the only time they test is if someone gets hurt.
[/quote]

Same at the shop I’m in. Heavy fabrication- sections and items weighing 50-60 tons per piece being moved through the shop by overhead crane and they aren’t at all interested in spending money to find out things they don’t want to know.

Everybody in there knows that their drug testing is a joke, and the only time that they test after the first one is when there is an accident. The number of positive tests is almost 100%.

Last year after 75 reportable injuries within a 300 person shop, the insurer dropped the company. It was either that or a 1.25 million dollar premium to remain insured by that company.

You’d think they would test a little more stringently, randomly, or frequently after a year like that, but they don’t.

They use that sorting process Apokalyps was talking about.
[/quote]
You need my company? [/quote]

They could certainly use it if there was any interest. I had to test after pinching (to a pulp) the tip of my finger and have been clean for years, but the guy testing didn’t even know what a negative test looked like. I had to retest 20 min. later for him to figure out that I wasn’t on anything.

What that whole scenario comes down to is that they are willing to compromise safety for production, but in that environment when things go wrong, they go permanently and irreparably wrong. The company is willing to make that compromise, and the large majority of employees there are willing to run with it.
[/quote]
Also sounds like they need a safety professional who knows WTF they are doing.[/quote]

They have one guy who tries, but I feel bad for him. He’s handcuffed. For what ever reason, even the upper management would rather deal with consequences than take a pro-active stance.
[/quote]

Our worst offender for taking dangerous shortcuts is the owner of the company.

130

Derek, you’ve definitely come up with some solid points regarding legality that have allowed me to entertain a shift in my position.

You are correct in that companies are acting in their best interests and within legal boundaries in imposing drug testing for some position. It is perhaps not this system that is primarily flawed so much as the legislation of psychoactive drugs.

For example, Derek, would you not consider designer drugs to be a big problem?

This is an industry that I consider to be detrimental to say the least. All things considered, we are talking about a very lucrative industry that produces quasi-legal psychoactive compounds with little known about their effects (both physiological and subjective), some of which are specifically designed to break down into metabolites that will not show up on any standard form of drug test. In many ways, the lack of knowledge about them and their effects places both the user and others (such as the employer) at a greater risk than standard recreational drugs because of their unpredictable nature. For a great example of this, I’m sure we’ve all heard some good horror stories about MDPV (a.k.a. “bath salts”). The scary thing is that this is an industry that is growing in popularity and directly benefits from prohibitionist legislation. And the terrible thing is, banning these substances hasn’t proven to be an effective way of dealing with the industry, as this is considered a cost of doing business, much the same way tech companies consider patent infringement to be.

Perhaps it is our approach to regulating psychoactive drugs that requires modification.

131

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

You would think that working for a fuel test lab my employer would, but the only time they test is if someone gets hurt.
[/quote]

Same at the shop I’m in. Heavy fabrication- sections and items weighing 50-60 tons per piece being moved through the shop by overhead crane and they aren’t at all interested in spending money to find out things they don’t want to know.

Everybody in there knows that their drug testing is a joke, and the only time that they test after the first one is when there is an accident. The number of positive tests is almost 100%.

Last year after 75 reportable injuries within a 300 person shop, the insurer dropped the company. It was either that or a 1.25 million dollar premium to remain insured by that company.

You’d think they would test a little more stringently, randomly, or frequently after a year like that, but they don’t.

They use that sorting process Apokalyps was talking about.
[/quote]

A pipefitting company I had worked for previously employed a similar attitude toward drug tests with great success on their part.

It should be quite obvious that the company’s focus is on money. In the case of your company it would probably (I say this because we can’t say for sure whether some of the accidents wouldn’t have happened if the guys were clean) be cheaper to implement random, intermittent drug testing. In the case of many other employers, this would not be the case.[/quote]

Another company I worked at had a stringent random test on site policy and at last check was at over 170 work days and counting with 0 reportables.

So we both have opposing anecdotal evidence.

And no, you never really can say whether or not it would have happened if a guy was high or not, because it is all after the fact.

Main difference I see is that you don’t have to try to sort through or mitigate factors like drug use nearly as much in companies that have more stringent testing standards.

The shit that happens whether someone is high or not just doesn’t happen nearly as much when they are definitely not.
[/quote]
Its risk taking behavior, remember there is more than one factor going into this. People who risk buying pot etc will take risk in the workplace, thus increasing injuries. [/quote]

Yeah, that is definitely one of the factors. I’ve read a few studies that correlate mainly amphetamine use and risk taking behavior, and others that do the same with amphetamine use and poor decision making/judgement.

Combine these in a working population, exacerbate it with heavy fabrication operations and you end up with a recipe for disaster.

132

Also, one quick question here:

In some ways, would it not be more effective to use random on-site sobriety tests rather than random drug tests in distinguishing drug abuse in the workplace?

Why I say this is because of what standard drug tests have difficulty with, including distinguishing prescription drug use from abuse (which is growing ever more common) and sussing out employees evading capture by using designer drugs intended to allow the user to pass drug tests.

What I am suggesting is the possibility of using random/directed on-site sobriety tests, and performing testing to a more comprehensive degree than would normally be seen on standard drug tests on those who give any possible reason for suspicion.

How would this work in practice?

133

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
Derek, you’ve definitely come up with some solid points regarding legality that have allowed me to entertain a shift in my position.

You are correct in that companies are acting in their best interests and within legal boundaries in imposing drug testing for some position. It is perhaps not this system that is primarily flawed so much as the legislation of psychoactive drugs.

For example, Derek, would you not consider designer drugs to be a big problem?

This is an industry that I consider to be detrimental to say the least. All things considered, we are talking about a very lucrative industry that produces quasi-legal psychoactive compounds with little known about their effects (both physiological and subjective), some of which are specifically designed to break down into metabolites that will not show up on any standard form of drug test. In many ways, the lack of knowledge about them and their effects places both the user and others (such as the employer) at a greater risk than standard recreational drugs because of their unpredictable nature. For a great example of this, I’m sure we’ve all heard some good horror stories about MDPV (a.k.a. “bath salts”). The scary thing is that this is an industry that is growing in popularity and directly benefits from prohibitionist legislation. And the terrible thing is, banning these substances hasn’t proven to be an effective way of dealing with the industry, as this is considered a cost of doing business, much the same way tech companies consider patent infringement to be.

Perhaps it is our approach to regulating psychoactive drugs that requires modification.[/quote]

How do bath salt manufacturers benefit from prohibitionist legislation?

134

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

Perhaps it is our approach to regulating psychoactive drugs that requires modification.[/quote]

Dude, really?

Talk about going to the farthest reaches of absurdity to divert from a point.

If you like to blast off, cool. By all means, knock yourself silly. But for the sake of everybody around you, don’t get all fucked up and think you can function in the same capacity as someone who doesn’t.

135

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
Derek, you’ve definitely come up with some solid points regarding legality that have allowed me to entertain a shift in my position.

You are correct in that companies are acting in their best interests and within legal boundaries in imposing drug testing for some position. It is perhaps not this system that is primarily flawed so much as the legislation of psychoactive drugs.

For example, Derek, would you not consider designer drugs to be a big problem?

This is an industry that I consider to be detrimental to say the least. All things considered, we are talking about a very lucrative industry that produces quasi-legal psychoactive compounds with little known about their effects (both physiological and subjective), some of which are specifically designed to break down into metabolites that will not show up on any standard form of drug test. In many ways, the lack of knowledge about them and their effects places both the user and others (such as the employer) at a greater risk than standard recreational drugs because of their unpredictable nature. For a great example of this, I’m sure we’ve all heard some good horror stories about MDPV (a.k.a. “bath salts”). The scary thing is that this is an industry that is growing in popularity and directly benefits from prohibitionist legislation. And the terrible thing is, banning these substances hasn’t proven to be an effective way of dealing with the industry, as this is considered a cost of doing business, much the same way tech companies consider patent infringement to be.

Perhaps it is our approach to regulating psychoactive drugs that requires modification.[/quote]

How do bath salt manufacturers benefit from prohibitionist legislation?
[/quote]

Their niche exists for the sole reason that amphetamines/MDMA are prohibited in the first place. Contrary to what you might think, many drug users do not like breaking the law and are willing to look into inferior, and more dangerous, legal alternatives.

136

Aren’t bath salts, you know, for baths?

137

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
Derek, you’ve definitely come up with some solid points regarding legality that have allowed me to entertain a shift in my position.

You are correct in that companies are acting in their best interests and within legal boundaries in imposing drug testing for some position. It is perhaps not this system that is primarily flawed so much as the legislation of psychoactive drugs.

For example, Derek, would you not consider designer drugs to be a big problem?

This is an industry that I consider to be detrimental to say the least. All things considered, we are talking about a very lucrative industry that produces quasi-legal psychoactive compounds with little known about their effects (both physiological and subjective), some of which are specifically designed to break down into metabolites that will not show up on any standard form of drug test. In many ways, the lack of knowledge about them and their effects places both the user and others (such as the employer) at a greater risk than standard recreational drugs because of their unpredictable nature. For a great example of this, I’m sure we’ve all heard some good horror stories about MDPV (a.k.a. “bath salts”). The scary thing is that this is an industry that is growing in popularity and directly benefits from prohibitionist legislation. And the terrible thing is, banning these substances hasn’t proven to be an effective way of dealing with the industry, as this is considered a cost of doing business, much the same way tech companies consider patent infringement to be.

Perhaps it is our approach to regulating psychoactive drugs that requires modification.[/quote]

How do bath salt manufacturers benefit from prohibitionist legislation?
[/quote]

Their niche exists for the sole reason that amphetamines/MDMA are prohibited in the first place. Contrary to what you might think, many drug users do not like breaking the law and are willing to look into inferior, and more dangerous, legal alternatives.[/quote]

are you suggesting that legal MDMA/amphetamines are a better alternative?

138

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Aren’t bath salts, you know, for baths?[/quote]

Either I have completely lost my mind or something doesn’t make sense.

SO far, I have been told I think employers own an employee because I stated that the employee is free to work for an employer that suits them, and can leave an employer that drug tests if they think it is unfair.

And now, we’re actually discussing people that ingest fucking bath salts to get high, as if they are rational thinkers, and somehow enlightened because they get high off of something legal rather than the “normal” shit people have been getting high off of for 1000’s of years…

139

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Aren’t bath salts, you know, for baths?[/quote]

Either I have completely lost my mind or something doesn’t make sense.

SO far, I have been told I think employers own an employee because I stated that the employee is free to work for an employer that suits them, and can leave an employer that drug tests if they think it is unfair.

And now, we’re actually discussing people that ingest fucking bath salts to get high, as if they are rational thinkers, and somehow enlightened because they get high off of something legal rather than the “normal” shit people have been getting high off of for 1000’s of years…[/quote]

I’m confused myself.

Bath salts control a niche market because other drugs are illegal? So we should I guess make them illegal or legalize other drugs?

Still doesn’t address how irresponsbile it is to get high and then go to work. Not to mention how dangerous in some cases it can be.

140

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Aren’t bath salts, you know, for baths?[/quote]

Either I have completely lost my mind or something doesn’t make sense.

SO far, I have been told I think employers own an employee because I stated that the employee is free to work for an employer that suits them, and can leave an employer that drug tests if they think it is unfair.

And now, we’re actually discussing people that ingest fucking bath salts to get high, as if they are rational thinkers, and somehow enlightened because they get high off of something legal rather than the “normal” shit people have been getting high off of for 1000’s of years…[/quote]

Your mind is present.

You know how high you have to be for that to make sense?

High enough to point at regulatory legislation as the root problem of drug use in the work place.