Pre-Employment Drug Test

Off Topic
1

This might better go in off topic because there may be some legal issues here too.

A friend of mine had his pre-employment drug test. This friend is an occasional pot smoker, and passing the urine test is no problem.

He has taken lots of them recently while looking for a job, and has not been smoking, exe.

Well, THE JOB sent the test to a lab that bungled it, and is claiming it was a diluted sample. This is from someone who takes b-vit supps and creatine regularly. We find this claim very suspicious.

Long story short, the company now wants him to take a hair test.

The problem here of course being that ANY amount of smoking from at least the last 180 days will showup. This is no good. This was also never mentioned in their handbook, or any of the premployment documentation. He could pass another pee test today. That is not the issue.

Any advice? Is there a leg to stand on an insist that the hair test is an invasion of privacy and discriminatory since it’s not standard?

I assume “beating” a hair test is out…

Thanks

2

They need an inch and a half of hair for it to be a valid sample. That is 3 months, 90 days of detection. They won’t use the excess hair. My advise is trim all body hair and claim he swims or some BS. As for hair on his head, I suggest getting a hair cut and if he has been clean, there should be no worries.

3

And if he pees again, he should eat two cans of chicken noodle soup and some raw asparagus.

Motherfuckers.

4

Wow that sucks. Usually companies simply ask you to retake the urine test, which is extremely easy to pass with some basic research. From my understanding, all the products that are sold to help pass hair tests are even more bullshit than the urine products so I wouldn’t even go that route.

The best option here is to complain and try and get a second urine analysis. There is really no way to beat a hair test. Shaving all of the hair on your body is just going to make your friend look like an idiot and it will be obvious what he is up to. If that doesn’t work, get a hair cut and hope he has been clean long enough to where it will not be detected. Otherwise I would just decline, stay clean, and look for other job openings.

This is surprising to me, b/c I believe hair tests are relatively expensive to administer for both the “lab” and the employer. Usually the “labs” just want to do urine tests b/c they’re incredibly cheap and they can still make a huge profit off each test.

5

Reminds me of the time as kid when I got a speeding ticket. I raced home every day for a couple of weeks until I was able to snag the notice out of our mailbox and pay the ticket without my parents ever knowing. Unfortunately Mr. Murphy was working overtime and caused a snafu at the DMV, another notice arrived the next day. Damn.

6

Buy Zydot hair cleaner.

It works, and I’ve used it a number of times.

Under no circumstances should he try to talk his way out of it.

7

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
This might better go in off topic because there may be some legal issues here too.

A friend of mine had his pre-employment drug test. This friend is an occasional pot smoker, and passing the urine test is no problem.

He has taken lots of them recently while looking for a job, and has not been smoking, exe.

Well, THE JOB sent the test to a lab that bungled it, and is claiming it was a diluted sample. This is from someone who takes b-vit supps and creatine regularly. We find this claim very suspicious.

Long story short, the company now wants him to take a hair test.

The problem here of course being that ANY amount of smoking from at least the last 180 days will showup. This is no good. This was also never mentioned in their handbook, or any of the premployment documentation. He could pass another pee test today. That is not the issue.

Any advice? Is there a leg to stand on an insist that the hair test is an invasion of privacy and discriminatory since it’s not standard?

I assume “beating” a hair test is out…

Thanks[/quote]

I do this for a living, he is fucked, cause he is by your admission a pot smoker. Drug testing protocols normally do not dictate what the collection method is, can be urine/hair etc.

8

I mean, obvious answer and everything, but he could just not smoke weed.

Seems to me like that would solve all his problems related to this issue.

9

Yeah but it’s too late now.

10

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I mean, obvious answer and everything, but he could just not smoke weed.

Seems to me like that would solve all his problems related to this issue.[/quote]

11

[quote]MangoMan305 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I mean, obvious answer and everything, but he could just not smoke weed.

Seems to me like that would solve all his problems related to this issue.[/quote]

[/quote]

According to the Vulcan Science Council, time travel is impossible.

12

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
This might better go in off topic because there may be some legal issues here too.

A friend of mine had his pre-employment drug test. This friend is an occasional pot smoker, and passing the urine test is no problem.

He has taken lots of them recently while looking for a job, and has not been smoking, exe.

Well, THE JOB sent the test to a lab that bungled it, and is claiming it was a diluted sample. This is from someone who takes b-vit supps and creatine regularly. We find this claim very suspicious.

Long story short, the company now wants him to take a hair test.

The problem here of course being that ANY amount of smoking from at least the last 180 days will showup. This is no good. This was also never mentioned in their handbook, or any of the premployment documentation. He could pass another pee test today. That is not the issue.

Any advice? Is there a leg to stand on an insist that the hair test is an invasion of privacy and discriminatory since it’s not standard?

I assume “beating” a hair test is out…

Thanks[/quote]

I do this for a living, he is fucked, cause he is by your admission a pot smoker. Drug testing protocols normally do not dictate what the collection method is, can be urine/hair etc. [/quote]

I would think there would be some vulnerability to a discrimination suit if some people have to take pee tests, which have an “allowable level” of THC and really only tells them if he’s a pot head, not if he’s an occasional user, vs a test that gives a full history of everything that’s been consumed for 90 days.

Also, why do you say none of the hair products work, when there are testimonials galore to the contrary? Do you guys ever test this stuff at work?

Also, when you say you do this for a living, what do you do? Are the MD who signs on the line, or the guy who takes the sample? I’m really just curious. Other than the military and then post-military military related stuff, I’ve never had to take a drug test for a job, so I find all this pretty foreign.

I am, however, a staunch advocate of the idea that civilians/private citizens have a right to privacy, and think that if you’re not intoxicated on the job, how you chose to get intoxicated on your free time is not your employer’s business.

13

[quote]SSC wrote:
Buy Zydot hair cleaner.

It works, and I’ve used it a number of times.

Under no circumstances should he try to talk his way out of it.[/quote]

I used to have people tested when I worked for child protective services, and this hid heroin use on more than one occasion.

14

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I mean, obvious answer and everything, but he could just not smoke weed.

Seems to me like that would solve all his problems related to this issue.[/quote]

I’m not sure what the point of this comment is.

I’ve also noticed that if you google/search for questions related to drug tests online, without fail there are always lots of people responding this way, and insisting that everyone who’s ever done any kind of drug will fail a drug test.

What’s the underlying motivation for comments like this?

Just for a frame of reference, we are not talking about teenagers, or college students. We are talking about adult professionals who take a puff every so often, and we are talking about six figure jobs. This is a guy who has been fine/quite successful his entire adult life being a responsible, occasional user.

15

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I mean, obvious answer and everything, but he could just not smoke weed.

Seems to me like that would solve all his problems related to this issue.[/quote]

I’m not sure what the point of this comment is.

I’ve also noticed that if you google/search for questions related to drug tests online, without fail there are always lots of people responding this way, and insisting that everyone who’s ever done any kind of drug will fail a drug test.

What’s the underlying motivation for comments like this?[/quote]

To point out the obvious.

If you are going to be changing jobs, or in search of a job, engaging in an illegal activity that could keep you from the job you are seeking isn’t the best idea in the world.

I guess this amazing 6 figure job might have come up out of the blue, and he had to jump on it, sure. This presents two situations: 1) the company came looking for your friend, in which case, if I were him, I would have told them to go pound sand if they wanted a piss test. or 2) this just ‘came up’ out of the blue, in which case get the super shampoo SSC talked about.

Bottom line is, the comment is born from perspective.

Don’t take my comment as an insult or a judgement, it isn’t.

But one can’t be said to be responsible and then might lose out on a 6 figure job because of illegal drug use. The two situations are mutually exclusive.

Should weed be illegal? No. But it is. So an responsible individual knows this and doesn’t smoke weed if it could keep him from such a good job. This is a very preventable problem you see. Everyone knows it is illegal, so if they choose to do it anyway, so be it, but you really can’t call yourself responsible.

Just because it is illegal doesn’t make it bad or the people who do it bad. It makes it illegal, and it means people can not hire you for doing it. So you have to make a choice: a) smoke now and again and risk not getting where I want to go to get high once in awhile or b) not get high and be able to get any job I want.

16

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

I am, however, a staunch advocate of the idea that civilians/private citizens have a right to privacy, and think that if you’re not intoxicated on the job, how you chose to get intoxicated on your free time is not your employer’s business.[/quote]

FTR, I agree with this, very much so.

But the law of the land doesn’t. So you kinda have to do what you have to to.

17

Love how society promotes and accepts alcohol, but demonizes marijuana use.

/end rant

18

I don’t know, I get plenty of flak for my alcohol use and it isn’t that massive (about a bottle every month or six weeks of rum or whiskey).

19

I have a suspicion. Your “friend” is actually you. You refer to yourself as your friend becuase of the slim chance that your employer could read your post.

20

Claim a visit to Amsterdam a month and a half ago. You know, get some made up relatives there. Then once you land the job, you can kill them off as needed as an excuse for having to take some days off work to attend to their funerals.

…or get yourself a stunt double.