Have you been drug tested by your employer?

[Cant trust em]

Here's a political post that's going around on facebook.

"Florida is the first state that will require drug testing when applying for welfare (effective July 1st)! Some people are crying... this is unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional yet it's okay that every working person had to pass a drug test in order to support those on welfare? Re-post if you agree!!!"

I'm curious to know how many folks have been drug tested by their employers. I personally never have. If you have, could you please post where you work and what the nature of your job is? It would be interesting to know.

Thanks.

[Brickbat]

1. I have worked journalism jobs and some other office jobs. Never been drug tested because my unions

have bargained against them. Mr. Brickbat, as a locomotive engineer, is subject to random testing, which is why the last thing a train crew does before getting on the loco is take a long piss to empty themselves out, so if they are tested, the tester has to wait. :rofl:

ETA: I do think it's invasive and demeaning, and I object to it, even for Mr. Brickbat's job. Investigate or fire someone when there's a problem, not before. Before there's a problem, assume the person is there doing the job that you hired them to do.

[Broken_Hero]

2. I have, but only once.

It was for a job at a local hospital.

[Maru Kitteh]

3. Yes. I have no problem with it.

[Bluzmann57]

4. We have pre employment drug testing

As well as random drug testing. I work in an industry where one could do a lot of damage to one's self or others if one was drunk or high with heavy equipment and numerous trucks and rail cars all around. Except the joint I smoked yesterday should have no bearing on how I do my job today. But that's another rant for another day.

[hamsterjill]

5. Prior Job

I was tested. They did it in-house, if you can believe that. A bunch of Republican-fundies. Any employees with tests that were 'suspicious' were then taken to a lab for a confirming test.

There was one woman who had been on a major diet, lost a bunch of weight, and drank water like crazy. Her test was suspicious, she was taken to the lab for confirmation, and she was still questioned because her urine was too clear.

There was another "child of the Lord" (i.e., one of the fundie's personal favorites) who tested positive!!! They took her to the lab and took a sample of her hair.

They never tested again.

It was embarrassing having to take the cup to the bathroom and then return with the cup in a brown paper bag, etc. I mean, come on...

[wtbymark]

6. not until I moved out west

I've never had to show my birth certificate and SS card either, until I moved out west. I hadnt had an SS card since I lost it when I was 10 or something.

[TriMera]

7. I've had to pass a pre-employment drug screening

for every job I've had since the late 1990's (hotel and retail, mostly). I was also drug tested in the Army in 1984. It's really not uncommon.

[sarge43]

8. Yes

Military and drove a school bus.

[Ian David]

9. I think I needed to submit a urine sample when I was bonded as a security guard years ago.n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. 1986 thru 1998.

I worked in Addictions field.
Often at a Mental Health Center.
Drug tests were required as part of hiring process, in one place I even had a blood test, which showed a high white cell count, which got me sent to a dr. for tests to rule out leukemia ( turned out to be a minor infection).

Post hire, my jobs had policy of random tests if there was reason to suspect use and/or in cases of on the job accidents, any out of the way incidents.
I never had a test while working, never used.

I personally had to fire 4 people over the course of 6 years for various forms of drug use.It was a long process, too.

[TheKentuckian]

11. Yes and it is light year high pile of bullshit. I'd point out that the government is not a private

business.

The government has to have a reason to search you and it doesn't matter if it is okay by your personal standards.

[japple]

12. I've been tested. I work for a hospital and random drug testing

is the the norm.

[safeinOhio]

13. Cub Koda..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_lI_WEFNbM

Our new national anthem.

[Citizen Worker]

14. Having worked some 24 years in heavy industry I can say without equivocation that not once was I

involved in or knew about an on the job accident caused by drug or alcohol use. However, I can also say without equivocation that on the 30 some projects I worked on there was an average of one death per project. Those deaths were caused by lack of training, lack of proper safety equipment or willful negligence on the part of management.
The primary shortcoming of drug testing, not withstanding its invasiveness, is that it tests for use not impairment. A breathalyzer test for alcohol tests impairment.
What drug testing is really about is controlling off the job behavior because if employers were really concerned about our safety they would abide by OSHA rules and regulations instead of trying to eliminate them.

[flying rabbit]

29. Hmm...

Good point. I have seen things (in industry) you wouldn't believe...

[bbinacan]

15. Been tested.

Banking/Investments. Kinda makes sense. If one has a major problem, they may be more apt to embezzle.

[TheKentuckian]

58. The instances of embezzling to fund pot use is no more likely than embezzling for booze

or to pay for meals.

Now, a coke or a meth habit may have the pitfalls you identify but the odds are very high that testing won't pick up usage because it passes out of the system so quickly.

In all practical effect, drug tests are only to find out if folks are using pot.

[Blue_In_AK]

16. I've never been tested.

High legal secretaries don't cause too much damage. At least as much as I can remember.

[devilgrrl]

17. Tested 13 years ago when I was hired

Why? Who knows.

[Soral]

18. I was tested once years ago, cheated the test with a blocker, passed :)

[DeadEyeDyck]

19. Several times since I do a lot of contract work

[DevonRex]

20. MI and LE.

[krabigirl]

21. Nope.

[Warpy]

22. I was tested on the way into every nursing job.

I just laughed at them because I've been on serious drugs all times and I knew there would be false positives.

The funny part was that opiates always came up negative. I was living on Tylenol #3 when I wasn't working.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

23. Before I was hired, I had to pass a drug test.

And they watch for signs of drug use. I don't see what the problem is testing people on welfare for drugs. They're illegal. They should lose their kids too, if they are found to be using something harder than marijuana.

[Angleae]

24. Been tested several times, FAA requirement to work on airplanes.

[shanti]

25. pre-employment only

and that was back in 1989. i had been partying it up at a reggae show the friday before though, and failed it due to the cannabis. i had been temping there and they offered me a ft job. it was a good opportunity, but no matter. i got a better position (without ANY drug testing) several months later, a job from which i retired from after 21 years in 2010. :) so things worked out in the long run...

[Capitalocracy]

26. I have and passed despite um... stuff

so, yeah, there are apparently successful ways around it. I do consider it to be pretty fascist, not just for unemployment but for jobs as well.

[MikeMc]

27. Yes. Tested early and often. NT

[Luciferous]

28. I have been drug tested for a couple of jobs. One was a factory job,

the other was a hospital job.

[tammywammy]

30. Yes, during pre-employment and they do random testing. I work for a defense contractor. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

31. I voted no, but perhaps I have been.

In Brazil, you have to undergo a (most often cursory) medical examination when you enter a job. In one of those, which not coincidentally was for a very big company, the exam was more thorough. Stress test on a treadmill, blood, urine, everything. Maybe, just maybe, they did a little illegal substance search on the side. Probably not.

But random tests while on the job? Never.

Maybe companies here are more interested in making money than in savoring the pleasure of stomping on the inferiors' faces with a boot. I don't know.

[MikeW]

32. yep we get pop quizzes ... its a condition of my employment

they make it pretty clear when you accept the position.

[sofa king]

33. What could possibly be more invasive of one's privacy?

And, exactly as everyone at the time predicted, as soon as the Supreme Court went for it in the specific case of people like bus drivers and pilots who are responsible for the lives of others, big business drove a truck through the finger hole and now we're here to the bullshit argument that because everyone (in theory) has to submit to it for any damned reason at all, it's fine to use it against the most desperate Americans there are--to deny them the things that they need to survive.

Also exactly as predicted, the drug tests are only actually used for a few purposes: to screen out job applicants (so companies can save money by reviewing fewer qualified people); to "randomly" (they're never random) single out people a company wishes to fire with no other justification; and to absolve an employer of the responsibility that they rightfully should hold after an accident happens.

In other words, drug tests are only used for one purpose: to screw you, the little guy.

The punchline is your employer routinely lies to you about what test they are giving, how reliable those tests are, and how often they ruin lives and careers by being wrong (the most common test is so unreliable that it reads positive for alcohol use if a person used aftershave that morning).

[Lisa0825]

45. Not to screen out... costs too much money. Drug tests and background checks are usually on final

candidates.

[sofa king]

55. The threat of testing is always presented at the first interview.

I was not called back once because when they waved the possibility at me, I said, "I wish you really did do comprehensive testing on your applicants, because I'd be the only one you'd have left."

They didn't like that at all. My curse is that I hate being lied to, and have difficulty concealing my contempt after it happens.

My point at the time, which is still valid, is that the big-box companies don't actually want to spend any money on testing, so they try to scare off applicants who think they're going to fail. Then they administer the cheapest, most unreliable test there is, and further screen out people who have used disinfectants, anti-bacterial soap, hand-wipes, and aftershave, often without administering the confirmation test afterward.

[Never Stop Dancin]

34. we don't need spaced out potheads in the workplace (n/t)

[Vinee]

35. more times than I can remember.

and I never failed one nor have I ever even had to worry about failing one.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. No, unless you count my employer asking to try some of my

drugs, or offering me some of theirs. Does that count?

[Lisa0825]

37. I work at a major teaching hospital. We drug test all new employees, but

not current employees. We also do criminal background checks on all new employees and each time someone transfers. I am in HR. By the time we started drug testing about 2.5 or 3 years ago, just about every company around here was testing except us. We couldn't do it until state law allowed it since we are a state agency.

I worked briefly for another employer about a year and a half ago during a layoff from my current employer. That company is in industrial equipment and technology for mostly oil and gas and chemical companies, and they not only did pre-employment, but also random on all employees.

Around here (Texas Gulf Coast), testing seems to be the norm for all major companies, though I don't know about mom and pop shops.

edited to add: And for the record, we test ALL levels, right up to executive.

[madinmaryland]

39. So you approve of "drug" testing? And what do you test for???

[Lisa0825]

43. I say "we" because I am in HR and I send people for the testing, not because

I chose the policy.

I am undecided on the policy. I am glad we test EVERYONE if we are going to test at all, as opposed to giving special consideration to executives, which some employers do. We do not lose many people to positive tests, so that either means drug users are keeping clean long enough before testing, have a way to pass in spite of the precautions, or are not applying because they know we test.

Managers were concerned about starting testing, as they felt they had a hard time filling positions as it was, but since testing has been around a while, they now support it.

I am for decriminalization of pot, and undecided on other drugs, so I have mixed feelings. But a lot of my hires have a responsibility of direct patient care or working with hazardous chemicals, radiation, etc.... Secretaries, not so much, but then the decision was to test EVERYBODY to treat all applicants equal.

I don't think it is an easy question.

To answer your second question, I do not know the details of the test. I think it is just the 5 major categories, and then a discussion with the medical review officer about prescriptions if anything comes up.

[madinmaryland]

49. Thank you for your honest answers.

What bothers me the most about drug testing is that the results say that someone has done drugs, but when were they done? Pot for example may show up 4 weeks later for just one hit.

The other issue, is what exactly are they testing for. Is there anything stopping them from testing for diseases that might cost their insurance to go up. Do they test for nicotine or alcohol useage, or even cholesterol levels??

Is the testing driven by the safety department or the insurance companies?

[Lisa0825]

51. Speaking for us, a release form is signed specifying what is being tested for....

no alcohol or diseases, just the major classes of illegal drugs. Sure you could say "What stops them from testing for other things anyway?" But seriously, we would be ripe for lawsuits if we broke the terms of the release, so I don't see that happening.

I think the testing is driven by legal liability, so you could say insurance (but not health insurance). If someone is on drugs and harms a patient, or assaults a coworker, and we get sued for not doing our best to prevent it, then we get sued.

[LiberalAndProud]

38. If you're self employed, you don't have to.

One of my kids is also self employed, so no drug tests for her. The other two have had to look for employment often, and an successful interview will always end with a pee test. Every time.

[awoke_in_2003]

40. I think drug testing in general...

is unconstitutional.

[RandomThoughts]

41. It is using something like a social safety net for social control.

It is wrong.

It is from the argument that they are 'being given welfare' not that it is a correction to a flaw in capitalism where much money is in the wrong place.


Neither state nor some job should be able to drug test, without probable cause of some usage. And even then it should only be blood test, not a urine test.

In the work example it is saying that the place you work at owns you on your off hours time.

In the state example it is a search without probable cause.


It is for control, not for justice, nor is it constitutional in either case. Unless people are owned by a company or the state.



Not about drugs but same concept, there was a company I worked for that fired a manger for having a hobby that was a business. They said they didn't want anyone having any other type of work, even if done in off hours, I respect that guy, he would not let a business say they owned his off hours time.

[AsahinaKimi]

42. I work for a company thats headquarted in

Japan. If they want to send me a ticket to Tokyo to go get drug tested, I would gladly go!^^

[XemaSab]

44. I've never been tested but I'm surprised by that

I've worked in environmental consulting for years, including airports and hazardous waste sites.

[REP]

46. Had to piss in a cup to take billing questions over the phone. Did it because I needed the job.

Too poor to be fussy at the time but knew I was handing over my rights and it made me angry.

[The Midway Rebel]

47. Tested and failed with great pride.

Guy called me up and said, "I can't hire you, you tested positve for marijuana". I said, your loss pal. I'd have been one of the best employees you ever had. What a waste of time and money. If they would just asked I would have told them what drug might show up in my piss. Stupid assholes. That was back when I was in the security system installation racket.

I got a job for another outfit. That boss told me he would drug test but if he did he would end up firing his best office staff.

Now, I am degreed professional. I refuse to even apply for any job that wants to look to see what metabolites show up in my piss. I have two word for those employers FUCK YOU! No, make that three words, FUCK YOU FASCIST!

My current employer said he would drug test me if he found a cause to. I would just quit if they tried to force me to take a UA.

I just say no to fascism.

[Rhythm]

48. Tested at previous job years ago... food production factory (maintenence)

...and i still don't agree with the idea of drug-testing welfare recipients.

[tabbycat31]

50. yes for a big box store

It was a part of the pre-employment screening.

ETA I no longer work there.

[Rex]

52. Most jobs I've had - no.

Some, yes.

[bettyellen]

53. secretly tested for for coke use and AIDS, company lied and said it was not for drugs or AIDs, just

a general health screening. I pointed out to my boss that they had misrepresented the testing in writing, and maybe they shouldn;t do that if they didn;t want a lawsuit.
It was supposed to be a step in getting vested- higher benefits and pension plan. I am guessing the insurer put them up to it. I wanted to refuse, did in fact the first time, because thy sent someone who spoke no english and didnlt show me anything in writing and wanted to take blood. Then they came again, showed me in writing it ws for general health only- cholesterol and whatever. The guy left someone else'c cup of piss open right in front of me when he had me sit down. And when I got the result I was shocked to see the AIDS and coke results on there. What a bunch of shitheads.

[me b zola]

54. Most working class people are subjected to this

...and it is wrong

[Le Taz Hot]

56. I've neve been tested because

I refuse to work for any employer that would be that invasive. I'm a MM patient and yes, I would test positive for cannibus. I've also gone in and taken employment tests and aced every part of it including the typing test at 98 wpm, after errors, blowing all the youngins' shit in the dust -- while under the influence.

There are 65 different OTC medications that cause false positives so drug testing people WITHOUT CAUSE is nothing but fascism and it makes me sick that so many here are willing to give us OTHERS' Civil Liberties. :puke:

http://www.ipassedmydrugtest.com/false_positives.asp

[era veteran]

57. The Army did in W Germany in the '70's, it kept being

struck down Constitutionally but made its way back. The junior NCO that administered this test sold and traded my pee to another soldier. I came back positive for quaaludes. I had smoked beaucoup hashish ( they couldn't test for THC then ) but never took any pills. I made my case to my CO, who liked me and was sort of exonerated. After I beat Sgt Crawfords ass I felt totally exonerated. Drug testing is a presumption of guilt and I will never agree with it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

59. Yes, and no problem with it.

If you want to take drugs, take them and deal with the consequences.

[The Midway Rebel]

60. ...of unjust marijuana prohibtion.

There. I finished your sentence for you.

[Dreamer Tatum]

63. Unjust is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't want to work with people who insist on smoking pot.

Sorry. I know that makes me square and whatnot...don't really care.

[dembotoz]

61. i know i had to pee in a cup--not sure when and why

outside of the usual doctor thing.....

it was some time ago.

[NeedleCast]

62. Only employer that ever tested me was the Army