how drug testing situations really play out

i saw another great example yesterday of why drug testing by employers does not solve the 'problem'

i have been saying it forever. the drug testing does not work.
most people that 'pass' the tests do not pass the test. they 'get past' the tests which is far different.


so there is a setup dude at work named Pete who has been there 6 years. he is the lead guy. 1 guy under him. Pete knows the job in and out and does his job well. he needs no help.
last week he cut his hand open pretty bad and had to go to med works. they stitched him up and he had a couple days off. back to work.
well yesterday they fired Pete cause his drug test result came back positive. turns out Pete is a burner so Pete is gone.
its kind of funny cause Pete likes his alcohol man. heavy heavy drinker. everyone knows it. but thats legal so he is fine

so Pete is fired

Now Tony is the lead guy. Tony has been there just under 3 months and does not know #. he is slow. he needs help. he makes mistakes.
of course he does. he is new. not his fault.
the funny thing is Tony is a burner too. i used to work with Ton at another foundry. we go to the same guy
a few months back Tony got fired from that foundry for failing a random. word got to me he was fired so i got word to hum he could probably get a job and should apply. he did and he got the job.
Tony has carried fake piss on him since day 1 at my foundry and thats how he got past the pre employment test.

so how does anyone benefit from Pete getting fired?

The company fired a guy that has been there for years and knows the job to only have a guy that has been there for a couple months take over.
both guys are dirty.

this makes no sense to me

On the company end not only do they have a guy under 90 days taking over for a guy that has been there 6 years but now they have to hire a new guy to fill Tony's spot.
so we are going to have a new guy as the lead and an even newer guy under him.

another new guy training a new guy situation.
what could go wrong?


i just dont get it.
i think it is stupid and i think even if grass is not legalized federally we need to stop with this drug testing bull#.

what would be wrong with if a person gets hurt and pisses dirty then no workers comp?
seems fair

Pete could have got stitched up and come back to work. sure now he has a load of medical bills but at least he still has his job. he has a load of medical bills now anyway.
also the company is not left with a new guy(who is dirty too) and stuck having to hire.

i just fail to see the benefits.

i know all the arguments and how # reads on paper but in reality this is how it works out.

did he know the rules? yes
is it his fault? yes
should he have been clean? yes

should have could have would have

the reality is people are not going to stop. its just not going to happen.

companies are not benefiting themselves by getting rid of people like Pete.
i am open to changing my mind though


what do you say on this issue?

a reply to: TinySickTears

I say he'd fail my company's test. How can anyone be so incompetent to allow fake piss to be used.

Oh and what's a burner.

What people do in their own time is their own business. Companies that want to peer into private lives are not companies worth working for.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TinySickTears

I say he'd fail my company's test. How can anyone be so incompetent to allow fake piss to be used.

maybe he would.
maybe not

i dont understand what you mean by incompetent though.

they dont watch you piss like youre on probation.
the nurses and the lab do exactly what they are supposed to do so i dont really get your statement

either way i am interested in talking about peoples opinion on drug testing being done.
not your opinion on competent testers

originally posted by: Fools
What people do in their own time is their own business. Companies that want to peer into private lives are not companies worth working for.

im with you
it just makes no sense that companies still do these tests
not when you really think about it

like i said man Pete was a heavy drinker. everyone knew this and of course thats fine

company finds out he also burns a little weed and he is out
bu they replace him with a guy that burns weed too

hahahahahahah

these rules are stupid and solve/prevent nothing

im convinced of this but as i said. i am open to changing my mind

what do you think a burner is Occam?

no context clues?

its someone who smokes grass man

a reply to: TinySickTears

Happened to me, nearly.

You and i disagree on a lot, but not this.

I burn, and when i was in the ibew, someone cut my lock off a breaker, and i was electrocuted...died. Obvious resusitated, and sent to er. Got there, doctor said no pain meds until xrays, mri, etc. Told her i was f'd cause i smoke once in a while, and she then loaded me with meds so i wouldn't fail bc of that.

Drug testing is bs.

We will allow women to kill children in the name of choice, but i can't burn one after work? Wtf!!!

I went back to the theatre...with a pay cut...bc there, if you get hurt and pass a drug test, you are fired.😘

Eta....dude who committed a felony and cut my lock off, is now a general foreman.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Where I work you need to empty your pockets, can't have any baggy clothing on, no sweaters etc.

I think they should only test for anything currently affecting you not metabolites.

a reply to: TinySickTears

The obvious reason for the test is god forbid he kill someone because he was high. Then the company would be sued out of existence if they didnt require a test like that.

But in spirit I agree with you.

Surely there is a medical way to be able to determine whether trace amounts of thc in a system would impair judgement to a degree to make people unsafe, and so we can stop firing people unless they were high as a kite when an accident happened.

I dont think the average person smoking in the evening and then 10 hours later going to work is really a danger any more than someone who, say didnt get enough sleep.

Strangely, some companies, I think walmart may do this, actually wont fire people for failing a drig test, and make them go to rehab instead, which tey help pay for.

Not the best solution in my mind, but still better than firing a good worker for a lsight amount of drugs in their system.

a reply to: TinySickTears

That's what I thought but never heard the term and even Google and urban dictionary didn't give that result.

a reply to: Grambler

You can test for recent use, not just metabolites.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TinySickTears

Where I work you need to empty your pockets, can't have any baggy clothing on, no sweaters etc.

so i guess they are incompetent too then cause that little program is not going to prevent them using the fake stuff.
there are s many ways man.....

if they watch you then you have a problem.

anything shy of them actually watching you is not going to work for someone who has their method right.

can you at least tell me your opinion on companies drug testing?

a reply to: TinySickTears

I am fine when a person shows up to work wasted and gets fired, I have no problem with that. But what they do at home is their business and their business alone. If they have a problem with what they are doing it will eventually manifest itself and cause harm to them anyway. It is not the workplaces job to try to manage that.

I knew a guy that was a union head at GM. He said that he had people that didn't even do drugs take them on purpose to fail a drug test because the company would send them on a 90% paid leave for 3 months and all they had to do was show up to a rehab thing once a week for 2 hours.

How dumb is that? How does that effect the other workers who are honest? Seriously, this world is sort of broken.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: TinySickTears

The obvious reason for the test is god forbid he kill someone because he was high. Then the company would be sued out of existence if they didnt require a test like that.

But in spirit I agree with you.

Surely there is a medical way to be able to determine whether trace amounts of thc in a system would impair judgement to a degree to make people unsafe.

I dont think the average person smoking in the evening and then 10 hours later going to work is really a danger any more than someone who, say didnt get enough sleep.

Strangely, some companies, I think walmart may do this, actually wont fire people for failing a drig test, and make them go to rehab instead, which tey help pay for.

Not the best solution in my mind, but still better than firing a good worker for a lsight amount of drugs in their system.

They have instant mouth swab tests...if you smoked in the previous 6 hours, you fail...otherwise, you are clean...

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: TinySickTears

The obvious reason for the test is god forbid he kill someone because he was high. Then the company would be sued out of existence if they didnt require a test like that.

i know the reasons and i know how it plays out on paper
but i am talking reality

he could have smoked a week ago and failed that test

a reply to: TinySickTears

I already did.

originally posted by: theatreboy


They have instant mouth swab tests...if you smoked in the previous 6 hours, you fail...otherwise, you are clean...

i did not know this

this testing i would be 100% fine with

if these tests are available then why are companies not using them?
has to come down to cost right?

can you link me to one of these tests?

Drug tests are not about catching users.
The tests are about insurance and covering your butt.

A company that follows the guidelines will fair better in lawsuits.

a reply to: TinySickTears

Cost. You nailed it. But honestly it would not cost them much more if they did it right. Actually would not have any increased cost.

a reply to: TinySickTears

www.narcocheck.com...

No problem.

Actually, the ibew uses them in recreational legal states, all other places, they f the worker to kiss a$$ to the company.