Restrictions on alcohol and drug testing are typically more stringent with regard to existing employees as opposed to applicants. As long as the procedure is not significantly invasive or offensive, the company can probably use whatever means of testing it wants because your friend is merely an applicant at this point.
Smoking, drinking and doing any drugs (prescriptions, steroids and all categories of depressants, anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, hallucinogens, weed or any other inhalants) is bad for.
/Thread
/Win
/Straight edge
/Awesome
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[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.[/quote]
I am a Family Nurse Practitioner and the regional manager for an occupational medicine company, we have national/international contracts with some of the major construction and energy companies in the US.
Yes there are minimum levels for all drug testing, hair or urine, normally companies follow the Department of Transportation DOT guidelines for minimal detection. Expanded panels for certain companies, like Exxon or BP you have up to 10 panels (10 different drug metabolites you are testing for) normally a DOT is just for 5 panel. The hair test still has a minimal level, the problem is it tells the history of someone who is chronic user vs someone who may have just taken a hit at a party.
Morally a company that is investing $ in trying to hire an employee so they can recoup the money in profit in my eyes has the right to know they are hiring a quality employee. Now you say you are a right to privacy okay well at this point in time pot is illegal, argue all you want about if it should be or not BUT at this point in time it is against the law. So as an employer of someone what you do off work does effect work, you get arrested then what?
Do I care if my waiter at the local pizza joint smoke dope, of course not, but a guy who is working a crane that could kill him and 15 other guys, yes I do care. Or the guy who works the nuclear reactor sorry but I do care if he has lingering effects of illegal drugs.
Yes the hair products may work this time, but sometimes we collect from the arms or legs. Two of my sons that are 21 and 19 have had issues with pot over the last few years so I understand that to many this age it is equal to alcohol. The problem is it is not in the eyes of the law, and companies will continue to drug test. So you/friend or whoever, have to make the adult decision of not smoking pot, its that simple. If someone continues to choose to smoke then in my eyes they refuse to grow up or they have addiction issues.
Although you may not like this answer it sounds as if the company doesn’t want someone who engages in this type of activity to be representing their company. It would appear that the process is working as intended.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Yes the hair products may work this time, but sometimes we collect from the arms or legs. [/quote]
What if the “friend” used the hair cleaner on his whole body?
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Yes the hair products may work this time, but sometimes we collect from the arms or legs. [/quote]
What if the “friend” used the hair cleaner on his whole body?[/quote]
I honestly think its bogus, with the hair testing if you have an adulterated sample you either recollect and if policy is written correctly you can terminate. Now this is for current employees. Like has already been stated if it is pre-employment why spend more money doing repeat samples, just move on from the candidate.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
just move on from the candidate. [/quote]
This. I just don’t understand the desire to smoke weed to the point where you are willing to throw away a 100K+ job for it, or shave/special shampoo your whole body.
I partied pretty hard in highschool and college. But at this point, it just isn’t worth the trouble.
Maybe I’m just a square, who knows.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
just move on from the candidate. [/quote]
This. I just don’t understand the desire to smoke weed to the point where you are willing to throw away a 100K+ job for it, or shave/special shampoo your whole body.
I partied pretty hard in highschool and college. But at this point, it just isn’t worth the trouble.
Maybe I’m just a square, who knows.[/quote]
Lol “a Square”
Maybe because you are an adult and a husband/father, like I said if you are willing to risk the lives of other people to smoke weed, you got issues.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
just move on from the candidate. [/quote]
This. I just don’t understand the desire to smoke weed to the point where you are willing to throw away a 100K+ job for it, or shave/special shampoo your whole body.
I partied pretty hard in highschool and college. But at this point, it just isn’t worth the trouble.
Maybe I’m just a square, who knows.[/quote]
Lol “a Square”
Maybe because you are an adult and a husband/father, like I said if you are willing to risk the lives of other people to smoke weed, you got issues. [/quote]
Some people just never move on from party stage. I know folks approaching 40 and well into their 40s whose weekly highlights still involve going out and getting hammered. We all did that, for most people that stage lasts 5-10 years, for some people it lasts 25 years. These people scramble to find babysitters and hope no one will notice they called into work Monday morning because they are too hung over. The sad thing is they will tell you how awesome it is still and in the back of your mind you can’t help thinking: “Look at this poor fucking loser.”
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
Although you may not like this answer it sounds as if the company doesn’t want someone who engages in this type of activity to be representing their company. It would appear that the process is working as intended. [/quote]
Reposted for emphasis.
As long as it doesnt effect your work, i really see no problem or reason companies should care if someone uses marijuana after work/weekends. Obviously if you go to work high or drunk, you’re an idiot, or if you know youre going to be tested dont use.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
As long as it doesnt effect your work, i really see no problem or reason companies should care if someone uses marijuana after work/weekends. Obviously if you go to work high or drunk, you’re an idiot, or if you know youre going to be tested dont use. [/quote]
What about child porn? Should a company care if their employees are engaging in that?
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
As long as it doesnt effect your work, i really see no problem or reason companies should care if someone uses marijuana after work/weekends. Obviously if you go to work high or drunk, you’re an idiot, or if you know youre going to be tested dont use. [/quote]
What about child porn? Should a company care if their employees are engaging in that? [/quote]
Sort of a slippery slope argument, don’t you think?
[quote]Aggv wrote:
As long as it doesnt effect your work, i really see no problem or reason companies should care if someone uses marijuana after work/weekends. Obviously if you go to work high or drunk, you’re an idiot, or if you know youre going to be tested dont use. [/quote]
An acquaintance of mine that was a drug and alcohol rehab counselor had quite the weekend habits of his own. He could frequently be seen getting trashed at nightclubs on a weekly basis, sometimes with the very people he was counseling.
Do you see how the nature of their vocation could make it unsuitable for some to engage in this type of behavior by using substances like these, especially if illegal? He’s now a cop and the same would apply.
Your employer has the right to discriminate again hiring someone that could damage their reputation. If the friend doesn’t get the job, that’s too bad but, as with everything else in life, there are consequences whether you see them coming ahead of time or not.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
As long as it doesnt effect your work, i really see no problem or reason companies should care if someone uses marijuana after work/weekends. [/quote]
Depending on what you do, you represent your employer 24/7.
If a client was to ever see me shit housed drunk it wouldn’t go over well. Just like if I was fired and giggling while eating fried dough on the boardwalk. Either way I’m a poor reflection of the firm in thier eyes.
[quote]Jackie_Jacked wrote:
that’s too bad but, as with everything else in life, there are consequences whether you see them coming ahead of time or not.[/quote]
Good post.
You have to deal with the consequences of your choices. Engaging in an illegal activity under your own volition should leave the reasonable person aware they may face negative consequences.
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
As long as it doesnt effect your work, i really see no problem or reason companies should care if someone uses marijuana after work/weekends. Obviously if you go to work high or drunk, you’re an idiot, or if you know youre going to be tested dont use. [/quote]
What about child porn? Should a company care if their employees are engaging in that? [/quote]
Sort of a slippery slope argument, don’t you think?[/quote]
Yep kind of my point, like I stated above argue all you want about the pros or cons of weed. I have my own personal opinion honestly. However doesnt change the fact it is ILLEGAL at this point and time and yes employers care and need to concern themselves if their employees are breaking the law.
Getting shit faced drunk, and too high to function is never a good thing in public; employed or not. Screw your company, youre an embarrassment to your family at that point.
If i want to get baked in my home, what difference does it make. Sure, it’s illegal, but so is going 5mph over the speed limit, and so are steroids, and so is jaywalking, etc…
I guess i just dont understand why it’s illegal? Maybe im just some mouth-breathing, knuckle dragging, hippy pothead.
kinda mad
/end rant
[quote]Aggv wrote:
Getting shit faced drunk, and too high to function is never a good thing in public; employed or not. Screw your company, youre an embarrassment to your family at that point.
If i want to get baked in my home, what difference does it make. Sure, it’s illegal, but so is going 5mph over the speed limit, and so are steroids, and so is jaywalking, etc…
I guess i just dont understand why it’s illegal? Maybe im just some mouth-breathing, knuckle dragging, hippy pothead.
kinda mad
/end rant[/quote]
lol
Yea if weed was legal than I would not be saying this of course.
Honestly I spend 90% of my job screening people on Prescription meds more than illicit
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
If someone continues to choose to smoke then in my eyes they refuse to grow up or they have addiction issues. [/quote]
Oh come on. You can’t be addicted to pot lol.