Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Preemptive Drug Screening for Employment.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


Screening people ahead of time is much easier than having to deal with people on an individual basis later on. Also, your rant is pretty general. Here's just one of many examples... what about school bus drivers? Shouldn't they be screened prior to being trusted with the lives of innocent kids everyday? I understand what your point is.. I think that people should be free to do whatever they want as long as what they do does not infringe upon someone else. I would say that people who limit their vices to alcohol and marijuana can probably keep that separate from their professional lives, but those who do the "hard stuff" rarely do. I don't want a person who uses coke or heroin, even recreationally, driving my kids to school, or building my house, or flying the plane that I'm on, etc.
edit on 6-7-2013 by OptimusSubprime because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Hey man, at least you got warnings given to your posters.

My thread about the recent "zombie attacks" in texas this june went straight to 404.

Why do employers DT?

It makes sense, I think, for certain professions like medicine, litigation, etc but for low level entry positions I don't see much of a point due to the high turnover rate a lot of those types of positions will rotate staf so often that if anything the company or corporation doing the DTs will end up spending more money on them in the long run. Unless they are asking applicants to pay for the DTs.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


I fully agree that public transportation drivers, pilots, military, police,fire fighters,nurses and doctors etc, should be drug tested, and subject to random drug testing as well.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Because we have embraced a new paradigm...

You are guilty until you are proven innocent

...



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Testing for use of substances is hit and miss.

What if I'd been in a room full of (funny) smoke? I'd test positive!

Also, testing positive does NOT mean you are under the influence as some of these tests can detect use of a drug that was taken THREE MONTHS AGO!
I worked in construction for a while and there was a machine driver who regularly arrived for work whilst drunk, but drug testing would not have picked him out as being dangerous!

A much better and safer test would be a test that measures a persons capabilities, that IS what the employer is concerned with, right?
So, arrive for work, sit at a computer for five minutes and take a test on coordination and ability to think clearly. That could easily be achieved and would be cheaper than constant testing, and less invasive of a persons PRIVATE life.

How often are the EMPLOYERS tested!



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 


I understand that. it just seems to me that if you don't have a record you should get the benefit of the doubt.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I remember a few years ago in Canada this procedure for testing was not acceptable under the human rights act. If someone had an addiction they were considered to have a disability. Any tests prior to a job interview could be in violation to a persons privacy. If they found a woman was pregnant they might not employe her. If you have a disease like cancer they might not employe you.
Times are changing here. In the west coast any job that is safety sensitive may require a drug test. This is not a bad thing. Working in a place that has many risks is not a good place for someone that is not sober.
Unfortunately some of the people working these jobs are finding ways around the tests. I know people that work in camps at oil fields or mines that get drug tests randomly so they change there drug of choice from ones that stay in there system for weeks to ones that stay in there system for days. The addiction of the drug is more and they work longer hours. In the end they waist all the big money they are making and have a far bigger problem to deal with and the job site is less safe than ever.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Simple answer...liability. So YOUR employee crashes a company vehicle, brings a gun to work, gets pissed and threatens a customer (no matter how much they deserve it), etc. Someone sues and shows that you, as the employer, had someone working that was known to be impaired or that you didn't even check. Anyone can sue for any reason, and YOU look bad. And it could cost you your business and livelihood. So...you test.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkblade71
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


I fully agree that public transportation drivers, pilots, military, police,fire fighters,nurses and doctors etc, should be drug tested, and subject to random drug testing as well.
Yes i agree with this, also people who work with food.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
It's especially nice when you go to do the drug test in a list of time-sensitive chores, like taking your kid to school, then finding out that you can't pee.

This happened to me... and I didn't have time to drink water and wait. As I was walking out, the 'nurse' told me that that would be considered a failed drug test..... Very nice of them.

Needless to say, I didn't get that job.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


Unfortunately trial lawyers have made it impossible for companies to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

Also drug testing does not just show what drugs are in someone system at the time of testing, it can also determine past use and amount/frequency.

As the situation in Philly shows it is not just a matter of infringing on someones privacy, there are several jobs where a person using drugs can and will get people killed. Would you want a police officer high? A paramedic, Fireman, Semi-Truck driver? *Crane Operator*!

I don't care if the waitress at Hooters was tested prior to employment, but I sure as hell expect anyone with a serious responsibility to be tested prior and during employment.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by liverlad
 


I was kind of split on the food one though the thought did occur to me.

Can you explain more about your comment?

I worked in the fast food industry for years and saw quite a bit of drug usage in it, as that is why a lot of people work fast food.
edit on 7-7-2013 by Darkblade71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
To keep dirt bags from becoming employees in a decent company. It is the companies money and cost to drug test people, I think it's fair to give the job to non-druggies. Drug money is used in many evil ways including murder of innocent people. People who find drug use more important than having a job are in denial, I wouldn't want a pilot, doctor or police officer high.

Just my opinion.
edit on 7-7-2013 by maxzen2004 because: forgot a word



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave_welch
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?


So what you are saying is that you deserve the benefit of the doubt as to whether you will cause an injury to yourself or others while at work under the influence? Do the people whose safety you might threaten not deserve some additional chance at being safe? What about hiring people with a history of violence and an arrest record? Are we violating their rights when we run a background check?

If you are looking for a job and you are doing drugs, then your judgement is suspect at best. Anyone with half a brain knows that they may be tested as part of the hiring process.

Reminds me of those showing up for a job interview for an outside B2B sales position dressed in urban ghetto attire. WTF? do you honestly think you would be hired or even considered??? I see this every month or so when we posted job openings...some people have no sense whatsoever.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarkJS
It's especially nice when you go to do the drug test in a list of time-sensitive chores, like taking your kid to school, then finding out that you can't pee.

This happened to me... and I didn't have time to drink water and wait. As I was walking out, the 'nurse' told me that that would be considered a failed drug test..... Very nice of them.

Needless to say, I didn't get that job.


Yeah, that definitely doesn't make sense to me. Sure, there are things you can do that can cause you to pass the test. But, don't you think that a person would do that before even coming in? It's like these places think that people don't have other things going on in their lives.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
It is like "give me safety", and they bend over willingly.
Americans talk about liability... And getting sued. ( ...And they wounder how come there is no revolution with all the scandals exposed...Their founding fathers should be spinning in their grave.) Come on!
Unbelievable.

You need not drug tests.
You need freedom. You need to take care of your buddies.
And to hell with those control freaks.

...let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
If I am hiring someone to do something like drive a truck for me or something where people can get hurt, I would want to know what is in this persons system. I mean, if you know you will be taking a drug test and you can't keep yourself from doing drugs or drinking right before the test, I wouldn't want you anywhere near my business. It has to do with liability. Testing for drugs at an office job seems a little much though.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


Depends of the job. If you are using any sort of heavy machinery I am all for hair follicle test. UA just catch the weed smokers. Not the dope fiends.



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


Guilty until proven innocent. That's the bottom line. We are all guilty until proven innocent, and it seems like the only ones we do not have to prove our innocence (of something) to are other individual citizens like ourselves. Want a job? Prove you're innocent of abusing drugs. Wanna drive? Prove you're not doing something illegal when you're stopped at a random checkpoint when there's no suspicion of you doing anything wrong. Blah blah blah. Where does it stop?



posted on Jul, 7 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by lovizall
It is like "give me safety", and they bend over willingly.
Americans talk about liability... And getting sued. ( ...And they wounder how come there is no revolution with all the scandals exposed...Their founding fathers should be spinning in their grave.) Come on!
Unbelievable.

You need not drug tests.
You need freedom. You need to take care of your buddies.
And to hell with those control freaks.

...let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.


There is freedom, there are rights, and there is common sense.

To advocate the elimination of drug testing for jobs in the name of freedom is disingenuous at best. You do not have to apply for jobs that require a drug free employee....you are quite welcome to apply at McDonald's.

To advocate allowing drug impaired users in positions, such as manufacturing etc, where a lapse of judgement or attention can result in your own injury or in the injury of co-workers or, perhaps, consumers is not only stupid, but is absolute effing lunacy and only a drug addled mind would not believe so.

As I stated earlier...anyone looking for a job and doing illegal drugs shows a distinct lack of good judgement which makes that individual suspect as a potential hire to begin with. Anyone looking for a job who is using recreational drugs is, by definition, a loser anyway. As such, he will not be hired by me, unless his responsibilities do not extend beyond that of cleaning toilets.

You talk of freedom? I have the freedom to hire individuals who will represent my company's ideals and ethics. Recreational drug use and poor judgement are not the ideals and ethics exemplified by my company. Therefore I will exercise my right, my freedom, to not hire losers.



edit on 7-7-2013 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join