Preemptive Drug Screening for Employment.

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Why is it that employers feel it's necessary to make someone do an urinalysis before hiring them? It just seems a bit invasive to me. I can understand doing it if someone is showing up to work obviously under the influence or if someone is injured at work. That makes sense to me. However, don't we all deserve the benefit of the doubt? What should it matter to an employer what an employee does on his own time? If a person has no criminal record, why should it be assumed that they may be doing illegal drugs?

I just felt like a rant, honestly. I don't understand why they spend the money to drug test people without any probably cause.

If somebody is caught using drugs at work, or shows up to work under the influence then, by all means, fire them, just as you would if they were drinking at work. You don't make someone do a breathalyzer as part of the application process, why make someone do a urinalysis?




posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Sometimes its not the company itself that requires the testing but their insurance company. It's the same reason you may be required to take a drug test after you get hurt at work.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


I understand that, it just seems a bit invasive with to do so preemptively.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
It is a very costly process to hire and train a new employee. I can understand why an employer would want to make sure that a potential employee is as suitable as possible. It is the same reason why they check your Internet presence and run a credit report on you. Hedging their odds.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


Employers do medical screenings frequently to find out how healthy or unhealthy their employees really are. This is nothing new.

edit on 5-7-2013 by caladonea because: edit

edit on 5-7-2013 by caladonea because: edit



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


If it's invasive to you, then you can try another employer that doesn't do pre-employment drug testing. However, most do nowadays. They don't want people operating machinery, equipment, or vehicles and be under the influence of anything.

And I personally wouldn't want to work with anyone operating any of the above while being under the influence either.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I'm surprised how accepting of this the responses are so far.

It's really just a method of control and ownership of the employee if you ask me. There is no decent reason to check online presence, blood content and so forth for the vast, vast majority of available jobs - the interview and application in their "traditional" forms are vetting proceedres anyway, and i see this expansion of vetting as a way of making sure they get people who ask "how high" when told to jump.

My personal life is no freaking business of an employer, provide i dont turn up to work high or start talking to pink fairies when i should be shuffling paperwork or beating metal.

Work and personal life are different. If i'm professional between 9-5, it's all good, so keep your nose out.

We are not owned by our employers, it's a mutual agreement and i wont work for any group that seeks to own my butt. Grrrrrrrrr



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Here's a scenario:

A construction company hires a crane operator without a pre-employment drug test. Then the person has an accident on a site, say an old building in Philadelphia and the building collapses and kills 3 people. THEN the company does a by law required drug test and the employee test positive.

Now the families of the dead sue the company for negligence because they didn't do everything in their power to ensure all employees were drug free. And any jury in the country will award a 7 figure settlement to the victims.

So that is 1 reason for pre employment drug testing.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
*** REMINDER ***

NO discussion of Illegal Substances, drug use or legalization of such.
edit on 5-7-2013 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


Well, as this thread is not about drugs but about privacy invasion, I'd say we're okay there.

My point is that there should be no pre-employment drug testing, just as I don't think that checking somebody's internet presence or their credit score should have anything to do with their employment.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


That's my point, it's your quality of work that should be judged, not what you may or may not do while not at work.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


A reminder as "some" can't avoid the subject.

Carry On.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


I understand, I was a little leery to post it.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I've never been affected by this, but I have friends that have been.
There's some-sort-of "Drug Free Workplace" law I've heard of that "justifies" the pre-employment screening.
Whether or not that is the case in all states I am unaware - but there's lots of precedent for it in any event.
When it comes to being hurt on the job, the "workers Compensation" laws take into effect and drug screening becomes mandatory - this could be a law or an administrative regulation I'm not sure but it DOES happen.

A friend of mine was walking with her supervisor through a warehouse when a forklift operator knocked a crate over and injured her lower leg. The first thing they did was drug test her in the hospital, found positive for MJ and then: 1) refused all payment for medical treatment, 2) refused all workers compensation benefits, and 3) fired her.

ganjoa
edit on 5-7-2013 by ganjoa because: changed any to all



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   
In a world of fascism and economic scarsity, I feel its everyones responsiblity to start their own businesses and refuse to work as slaves for them. That ends a lot of problems. And to have community groups pooling up and boosting up the kids who graduate and helping each other get going and supporting one another, especially clean energy, people's newspapers and ethical businesses. Boycott the rest.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


That's all well and good, but unfortunately you need capital to take part in such an endeavor. Believe me, If I could start my own business, I would, but right now, I need a job just to get out of debt and then maybe down the road start my own business.

Plus, if everybody started their own business, the competition would be so bad that most likely there'd be some sort of bubble that would eventually pop. Then the same old businesses would still be around, and all the new once would go belly up.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


I tend to agree that it is invasive and invasion of ones privacy.

I was surprised up in Alaska where ALL employers that I knew of did the urinalysis drug testing,
but that is just the way it is. In the long run I can see how it saves on lost work days and work accidents etc, however, my personal opinion is that one shouldn't be drug tested unless there is reasonable cause.

*shrug*



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


Id say just goathead and piss in the cup dave. Its STUPID AS HELL but its there and they probably wont hire you without it. Or dont, but you know, god honest truth; Ive said in interviews when asked about urine alalysis on whether or not it would be an issue? That I'd gladly take any drug test they throw at me, at any time and PASS IT every frikkin time. Still didnt land the damn jobs.
edit on 6-7-2013 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join