Slashdot Mirror
Employers Struggle To Find Workers Who Can Pass A Drug Test
HughPickens.com writes: Jackie Calmes writes in the NYT that all over the country, employers say they see a disturbing downside of tighter labor markets as they try to rebuild from the worst recession since the Depression: the struggle to find workers who can pass a pre-employment drug test. The hurdle partly stems from the growing ubiquity of drug testing, at corporations with big human resources departments, in industries like trucking where testing is mandated by federal law for safety reasons, and increasingly at smaller companies. But data suggests employers' difficulties also reflect an increase in the use of drugs, especially marijuana -- employers' main gripe -- and also heroin and other opioid drugs much in the news. Data on the scope of the problem is sketchy because figures on job applicants who test positive for drugs miss the many people who simply skip tests they cannot pass. But Quest Diagnostics, which has compiled employer-testing data since 1988, documented a 10% increase in one year in the percentage of American workers who tested positive for illicit drugs -- up to 4.7 percent in 2014 from 4.3 percent in 2013.
With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers, some software companies think now would be the wrong time to institute drug testing for new employees, a move that would further limit the available talent pool. "The acceptability of at least marijuana has shifted dramatically over the last 20 years," says Carl Erickson. "If the standard limits those that have used marijuana in the last week, you're surely going to be limiting your pool of applicants." Erickson's decision not to drug test stems from a low risk of workplace injury for his workers combined with an unwillingness to pry into the personal lives of his employees. "My perspective on this is if they want to share their recreational habits with me, that's their prerogative, but I'm sure as hell not going to put them in a position to have to do it."
With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers, some software companies think now would be the wrong time to institute drug testing for new employees, a move that would further limit the available talent pool. "The acceptability of at least marijuana has shifted dramatically over the last 20 years," says Carl Erickson. "If the standard limits those that have used marijuana in the last week, you're surely going to be limiting your pool of applicants." Erickson's decision not to drug test stems from a low risk of workplace injury for his workers combined with an unwillingness to pry into the personal lives of his employees. "My perspective on this is if they want to share their recreational habits with me, that's their prerogative, but I'm sure as hell not going to put them in a position to have to do it."
Drop the test. Duh.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
... pretty much every company knows better than to try.
Hopefully, this will be a wake-up call for these business to critically re-examine _why_ they care about drug testing.
With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers
The shortage of female programmers is an illusion created by SJWs and feminists who have pulled an acceptable ratio out of their asses/vaginas.
Exactly. Why would anyone with an IQ above sea level ***submit*** to an invasive bodily fluids test?
Yes, they must be taking the piss ... oh wait!
... should see a business opportunity in this.
If they want my piss, they can have it, but it won't be in a bottle when I give it to them.
After thirty-six years in IT, I don't know for sure of anyone I know that has done drugs, and I live in the Seattle area! I can see a pot store on Main St, Bellevue, WA from my office window, and as far as I know, no one in our office has been in the store. We do bi-yearly drug tests, and no one has ever failed. I have a lot of friends in the industry, and I have never heard any of them mention using illegal drugs like pot. The article is complete BS.
Yeah, from outside the US this really sounds like some kind of dystonian nightmare.
... how can they afford drugs????
// TODO: Add comments
Some of us prefer to eat and are not traumatized by pissing unto a cup. Sure, I'd rather not do it. But there's never been the choice of two equal offers with the only thing differing between them being a drug test.
There are lots of job postings, but postings aren't actual jobs. When you don't have a job, then finding one is difficult, no matter how many openings there are.
It probably doesn't help employers that these companies have a tendency towards disproportionately high false positives, or will even invent results go get the ratios they wish.
.....that I don't have to study for!!! I need all my brains cell I can muster to keep up with everything.
I always thought drug tests only considered chemistry, not the legal aspects.
But many are... Given a choice between hiring someone with a positive drug screens and someone with negative drug screens, it's an easy decision.
Also, if you think that crappy code written by someone high at work can't result in injury or damage, you must not have written anything important...
Unfortunately, standard drug screening doesn't distinguish between addicts and recreational users and it doesn't help when people are addicted to prescription medications when they have a prescription.
Yes.. of the 20 people I tested ONE came back positive! OH THE STRUGGLE!
Slashdot has gone to the dogs.
Sorry, I read the article, Roofers are known for chronic pain for which the treatment of is... opiates. IT, POT!
I wasn't aware skeletons had asses, let alone vaginas. You should brush up on basic physiology
And besides which, what evidence is there that being on psychoactive drugs is a detriment to IT productivity? If one hopes to become one with modern programming tools and environments I should think a bit of booze, grass, or smack would probably be more of a help than a hinderance.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
I've hold a well paying professional job, show up on time, hit the gym, pay my bills on time, and have a very active social life. I smoke a few bowls every night before bed (just look at my user name). I have no hangover from this.
This past week, I went out for drinks with a colleague who was moving back to Russia. In a typical Russian fashion, he broke out the vodka shots and we all proceeded to get righteously wasted.
The next day, I was a complete mess with a throbbing head ache. Thankfully it was a Friday. Took a sick day. That malaise went well into Saturday.
I even have smoked blunts to myself driving down i95 through the Bronx during rush hour. Did this in Los Angeles too. The difference between some herb and alcohol is immense. Driving drunk is far more dangerous than driving stoned.
It's time we let this obsession with sobriety go especially when alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous.
Employers struggle to find robots who solely live to serve.
Workers Struggle to Find Employers Who Don't Require Drug Tests
Fixed that for you.
Seriously speaking, the war on drugs has made our society sick. Personally I don't use any recreational drugs, and I'm fortunate enough to already have a job, but the notion of submitting to a drug test if I want to eat based on my own honest efforts is just wrong.
There are a couple of exceptional cases where routine-and-with-no-cause-for-suspicion drug testing might be justified, but they should be extremely rare exceptions in a healthy society.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
You only need to know the employee are not under drug during work. You do not need a drug test which will almost certainly tells you that the employee took drug in the last weeks. it does not tell you if he took it when off the job.
I've hold a well paying professional job, show up on time, hit the gym, pay my bills on time, and have a very active social life.
So do people who drink heavily, snort coke, or trip balls.
I even have smoked blunts to myself driving down i95 through the Bronx during rush hour.
You're a fucking cunt who should be locked away.
Culturally some drugs are in common use like weed and alcohol and regardless of legality they are in casual weekly/daily use and you no what? nothing special happens. In fact this has been the case for a very long time and things have chugged along.
What is the reason for drug screening? -once upon a time any "drug use" was immediately associated with the severe hard drug addiction junkies often have. On that basis drug using people are thought to be dishonest, capable of violent acts, thefts etc.
I believe that the law must accept that people that use drugs like ecstasy, weed and other mild types make up society. It does not reflect upon them badly in any way.
So many studies have found that alcohol is far more harmful to the individual and to society (via violent crimes/drink driving) and yet we do not consider people that have had alcohol in their systems from the night before to be unemployable.
It's time to legalize certain drugs that are clinically proven or the vast majority of the evidence base supports are less harmful than alcohol in order to put things into perspective.
A person injecting heroin is not the same "drug user" as a person smoking a joint. Much like a person drinking 10 cups of coffee a day is not like an alcoholic.
While I would like people in general to prefer not to alter their perception of consciousness via drugs it's a personal decision and a preference. Why should my view infringe upon the freedom of someone else if their chosen activity is non-impacting to others?
It's as if we discovered that although some 70% of Americans are catholic most do not attend church and certainly do not live pious lives.
Most workplaces do not benefit from drug testing. There are enough people that embezzle, lie, abuse their positions, discriminate and generally break the law that have not used drugs. Time to move on.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
IF - everyone from the board down were subject to them, results were public and penalties uniform.
I mean, if I turned up at work stoned, probably a few k damage tops. One of the board members on Peruvian marching powder could take the whole company down.
Otherwise - you can stick your drug tests where the sun does not shine.
shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers
What's the worry about drugs when sober people still fall for third wave feminism?
especially female programmers
what the fuck
The U.S. never stops amazing me with massive breaches of privacy being both allowed and (apparently) accepted by people.
"With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers, some software companies think now would be the wrong time to institute drug testing for new employees, a move that would further limit the available talent pool. "
So we're basically saying here that women can't, as a group, pass a drug test. So lets suspend the drug testing standard entirely, for everyone, because feminism.
Unbelievable.
Feminism is giving women additional rights and privileges without giving them additional duties and responsibilities. We gave women universal suffrage because teachers across the country pushed it in the late 1800's, we gave 18 year old men the same right to vote because they were going to war in WW1. Only now, in 2016, over a hundred years later, after 3 full generations of people have come and gone, are we discussing some kind of added duty like mandatory conscription for women. For a hundred years women can, and have, voted men into wars of aggression.
And it's come full circle to the kind of insane entitlement this article's author is pushing; women should be able to hold a job even if they are on illicit drugs. Their coworkers should bear the burden of their literally crack-addled behavior.
It does not matter what group you do it to, entitlement destroys people and families. Go look up the Soviet Unions cold-war strategy of Ideological subjugation for some perspective.
The title says it all. There's no reason to assume that the employer is clean and you don't want to work for someone who is sniffing cocaine instead of taking care of the company.
I work for a top 500 company and I had a fellow employee say "why can't our environment be more like google, like having free lunch, snacks , etc.... " . Kids these days are looking for perks and not long term employment. That's the biggest problem with our workforce! everyone want to work for google, but isnt smart enough to get a job there. And to be quite honest, if you can't stop doing drugs long enough to pass a drug test, then I don't want you working for me. Are people that stupid these days?
It's the hunt for the cheap complaint single use disposable worker. Someone who will get booted out before they qualify for any long term benefits like the 401K plan or longer vacation. Typically this means less then 5 years on the job. Someone gets a shot at three of these positions and then they are "too old" to be hired. It's easy when when there is an entire new generation of suckers in the pipeline.
And then there is the zero training requirement. The most job training that any company thinks they need is how to run a cash register. Anything beyond that is considered a waste of resources. Since the plan is always to flush the workers down the toilet why spend anything on training?
It's not like people over 35 use no drugs at all, but as the article makes clear the younger someone is the more likely it is that they at least smoke pot. So looking at an older demographic would help with the so called shortage, except that it would subject business to real life market forces, which they hate. Remember that businesses avoid actual competition at all costs. They would much rather be monopolistic big fish in a small pond while rigging the game for guaranteed profit and screaming about the "ebil govment herting free enterprize".
Why is Snark Required?
You must not have to worry about eating. Would you sell your principles if that was the only way to eat?
Been in trucking for decades. Used to be you have new hires come in and probably one in the group of maybe 20 failed the screening. Now days almost half fail the drug screening. Even some try cheating to get passed it. Yet we have places like Colorado who think making money off sales of marijuana is helping the state.
Doesn't matter that many companies require you don't be under the influence to work there. I think we have a problem in the US on what is addiction and what is recreational in terms of a drug problem. But it's no different than ignoring the alcohol dependency that's been happening for a long time.
There was an article on this a few years ago. The issue was not that more people were using drugs. It was that commercial industry was diving right into the drug-testing and using tests/standards far beyond even that of the military and the FBI.
It can be harder to pass a drug test to be a mail room clerk than an agent.
... I see what you did there...
What a joke 'Climatedot' has become. Pushing the anti-male, anti-white, genocidal Bolshevik agenda at every possible turn...
Why is there something special about "female programmers"?
I have had problems in the past where I have had a failed drug test in the past for Amphetamines, and was not told this until I kept challenging why I failed. It was only later this was a false positive for Methylphenidate, while being an illegal drug in the UK without prescription, I have one.
If I hadn't have chased down why I failed it, it would have been upheld that I failed.
I had even stated in the pre-test form that I take it, so something broke down in the chain. I did resent having to declare this however, as my ADHD management is my own business, not my employers if my management strategies mean I can perform.
It's a refusal.
Even though I never use any illegal drugs, I don't see this as any of my employer's business. If they want an employee to pee on demand, then they can get a dog.
I'll find an employer that respects my dignity.
Big corporations with nothing better to do than nose in your business. Truckers, train engineers, and a hand full of other occupations, this matters. The receptionist at my broker? I don't care what she does in the off hours. Heck, she could probably be high on the job and it wouldn't matter. It'd be a bad public image if she was obviously laughing at everything else and stuffing her face with twinkies; but that's beside the point. If you've got residual THC in your system from the weekend and you're not acting like an idiot, IT MAKES NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE TO MOST JOBS SO PISS ON CORPORATIONS THAT WANT OUR PISS.
What kind of options does that buy you for the funeral arrangements, when a typical heavy truck hits you and kills you in traffic because the driver was stoned?
I'm pretty sure you have to be on some sort of stuff to willingly code in Python to begin with.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No, I'd sell your kidneys.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Are we talking about people who are impaired ON the job or OFF the job?
You're conflating the two. I made it very simple for our guys here: If you're drunk ON the job, you're fired. If you're drunk OFF the job, I don't give a fuck.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The whole problem is going to become far worse as more states legalize marijuana.
While pretty much every study shows that marijuana does not impact a persons health, cognative abilities, nor is the cost to society in general anywhere near as high as alachol, employers where it is legal still screen and refuse to hire workers who have smoked a single time in the last month. Compare that to alachol where the health costs and cognative performance decline while under the influence is much higher yet is not tested for. It pretty much undermines the entire premise of the test.
Companies need to pull the stick out of thier ass and hire people who legally enjoy themselves on their own time instead of adopting the corporate slave attitude where every minute of a persons life is controlled by the company. If you show up on time and are responsible that is what is important. Maybe France is onto something by considering a law to make it illegal to require workers to respond to emails and social media 24/7/365. Perhaps it's time for some legal reform in the USA to end the war on common sense since it seems companies are moving in the opposite direction.
What kind of options does that buy you for the funeral arrangements, when a typical heavy truck hits you and kills you in traffic because the driver was stoned?
Since you were probably stoned as well (or you wouldn't be screwed up enough to be walking in traffic), it's probably not that big a deal. That said, states still operate pauper's graveyards all the time -- it's where most people who die in prison end up.
wasn't there an article on slashdot a while back that pointed out that drug-usage is *not* addictive - it's the *circumstances* that people find themselves in which *drives* them towards attempting to "find happiness" in drugs. both that study of rats as well as the study of veterans from the vietnam war showed that the subjects were quotes totally addicted quotes to opiates when they were subjected to horrible conditions, but that the *moment* they were transported to a happier environment, then with a little bit of withdrawal symptoms they kicked the "habit".
in other words, this study is telling us - through correlation NOT causation - that the number of unhappy americans is dramatically increasing. and that we're only just finding this out because of drug-testing.
Yeah, invasive drug tests are stupid and counter-productive in many industries. I put up with it as a consequence of my career choice. Being a chronic tinkerer, I like to work in industrial automation and machine programming. I work for a global manufacturer, and we have to drug screen. Our insurance underwriters don't require it per se, but the rates for not doing so are prohibitive. Likewise .gov, where OSHA does not mandate screening, but god help you you if there's a lost-time accident involving an impaired employee. Lawyers can build whole careers on just this.
Only an idiot would show up stoned for a job in a building full of lethal machinery, but the universe is constantly refining and expanding the idiot supply. Factories can't afford the risk.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
What kind of options does that buy you for the funeral arrangements, when a typical heavy truck hits you and kills you in traffic because the driver was stoned?
Since you were probably stoned as well (or you wouldn't be screwed up enough to be walking in traffic), it's probably not that big a deal. That said, states still operate pauper's graveyards all the time -- it's where most people who die in prison end up.
He didn't say walking. If a 40-ton truck hits your car doing 60mph, pretty good chance it's going to kill you.
Struggle to find them AT THAT PAY SCALE.
Dear business owners, stop being greedy fucks and start paying higher wages, you will start attracting more people to apply and have a larger pool to choose from.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"...a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers..."
What's the ideal, desired, non-sexist/non-misogynist percentage now that it's 2016 - 51%? Shall no woman be left behind?
I'll just go quietly to the correction booth for re-grooving myself; no need for the taser and handcuffs...
Given a choice between hiring someone with a positive drug screens and someone with negative drug screens, it's an easy decision.
What if your guy with the positive result has a full portfolio, good references and is generally an all round nice guy, just has a couple joints on the weekend or whatever. Yet your negative result is a guy barely qualified, no experience and is one of those tee totallers that make sure everyone knows about it? Are you going to go by the arbitrary drug test that tells you very little or just get the one you genuinely think is better for the job?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Do you test your heart surgeon for legal drugs?
I know several surgeons personally who have themselves routinely tested at an independent laboratory to protect themselves from legal claims of impairment. Then when a lawyer tries to imply that they were impaired they can present a long string of clean drug tests as evidence in their defense. Obviously they can't test for everything but it is a way to establish that they were not impaired in certain ways.
niggr
In my tech world, and I can't speak for anyone else's, everyone has their fix. For me, it's booze and mj. But I can't tell you how many of my contemporaries are popping pills, doing blow. And at the barest minimum they are chain smokers and drink 10 cups of coffee a day. Not saying they're junkies, because if you pull in 150k a year and develop some of the most widely used software, you really can't say you're dysfunctional.
The problem is illegal drugs.
If I know you take illegal drugs and you work for someone that competes with my business, maybe I will say to you "Give me that confidential project documentation you're working on or I'll tell the police (or your employer) that you smoke dope/crack/whatever." - i.e. a drug test is a gauge of risk to blackmail/extortion.
It's not the drug per se that is the problem but that the behaviour is illegal and attractive to prosecution meaning there is a potential risk to an employer about what someone will do to retain their job.
Credit reports run by employers are for a similar reason: to see how susceptible you are to their competitors offering you $100,000 in cash for confidential information that they wouldn't otherwise be able to obtain - i.e. a credit report is a gauge of risk to bribery.
You test doctors for legal drugs that effect their performance as surgeons.
Good luck with that. Do you have the foggiest idea how many tens of thousands of drugs and chemicals there are out there that can affect performance? Both in positive and negative ways. You literally cannot test for all of them. It's not possible. The cost alone would be astronomical even if it were technologically possible - which it isn't since we don't have tests for everything. Even if you could somehow test for all the possible forms of impairment, you cannot test often enough to actually ensure that the physician was not impaired at any time. Drugs leave the system after a time so unless you are going to test all physicians unrealistically often, you simply cannot hope to prevent the possibility of them ever being impaired.
Furthermore, who do you think is going to know the most about how to ensure a negative result on a drug test? That's right, physicians. They know better than anyone what the limitations of the drug tests are and how to get around them. You think Lance Armstrong figured out how to evade all those doping controls by himself? No, he had physicians telling him what to do and when to do it. Physicians are actually one of the highest risk groups for drug abuse precisely because they have access and they know better than anyone how to administer the drugs.
A doctor on a heavy dose of legally proscribed opiates should not be doing operations.
It's nice that the world is so simple for you. Those of us who live in the real world understand that sometimes life is more complicated than that. While I'd agree as a general proposition that a doctor who is receiving a treatment that is likely to significantly affect cognitive performance should ideally not be operating, it isn't always that simple. Corner cases abound. First off, drugs have different effects on different people and not all drugs that are prohibited cause impairment. You can develop standards for what dosages are acceptable, but ultimately it will be up to the physician to recuse himself if he thinks it will be a problem. Second, there are circumstances where even an impaired doctor is a better option than no doctor. Doctors routinely are needed to work under less than ideal circumstances - while sick, while injured, etc. Most of the time it's not a problem but sometimes circumstances are less than ideal. Third, you should be FAR more concerned about things like lack of sleep or inexperience - you know, like a resident that is at the tail end of a 36 hour shift or a first year resident who has just started their training. Honest mistakes by well intentioned medical staff are much more likely to kill you than the unlikely chance that a doctor is chemically impaired.
That said, I make $500,000.000/year.
$500,000 is a lot of money. Even without the three decimals...
-- Make America hate again!
With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers....
Bull fucking shit. There is no shortage of highly skilled programmers. There is a shortage of highly skilled programmers willing to work for the peanuts being offered by employers.
To simply mind your own business. As long as it doesn't effect on job performance it is none of your employers business what you do off the clock. You don't see employers firing people for getting caught speeding, or even shoplifting (most of the time), so why are drugs (especially one that is quickly being removed from the "illicit" list) such a dire thing?
ruby is on rails.
never do rails.
not. even. once.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Every drug user thinks they are fine or better while under the influence. Its the nature of addiction.
You don't know any actual drug users do you? I do - mostly reformed ones anyway. I have a guy who works for me who is an alcoholic. He's been sober for many years but once upon a time he did prison time related to his addiction and he still isn't allowed to have a driver's license. He would be the first to tell you that very few people who are addicts actually believe they do better under the influence or are "fine" while using. They know better and they have no illusions. Oh there are a deluded few I'm sure but they are the exception. Most understand perfectly well that the negative impact of their use of drugs or alcohol. The reasons why they take them have nothing to do with their job performance or any delusion that they perform better while using.
I'm not condoning getting impaired by any means. We test for drugs as a condition of employment at my company. We work with dangerous equipment and impairment could get somebody hurt badly. So I'm on board with reasonable measures to ensure safety. But you seem to have a very poor understanding of the realities surrounding drug use. Honestly if someone smoked pot a month ago, they would probably test positive but wouldn't be impaired today. Do I care? Probably not as long as they aren't high while on the job. If someone has a drink (alcohol is a drug) at home, that isn't really any concern of mine as a boss. If they show up to work smelling of alcohol though, now we have a problem. Blanket statements about wanting nothing to do with anyone who has ever used a drug simply don't make any sense in the real world. You have to apply a bit of common sense and rationality.
It's almost uniformly bad and misinformed. Am I supposed to believe that "journalists" have no first hand experience with recreational drugs? Are they just lazy hypocrites? Or is it the editors fault?
It is one thing to be impaired on the job. It is a completely different thing to ingest psycho active substances in your free time. This distinction is rarely made in the news or the actual drug tests. And then there's the irony of testing employees for drugs which they require (due to employer pressure) to do their job safely (think truck drivers and speed...)
Don't even get me started on the blatantly ignorant and one sided stories about the risks of various drugs.
I suppose this goes way beyond just drug reporting and is more about generally scaring people for advertising dollars.
Thanks journalism.
It often takes 30 days for THC to get out of your system so you can pass a test.
Unless you bring a sample from a friend which also happens.
Lacking better tests,
A pre-employment test for THC is not about coming to the screening high.
It is about do you have the ability to abstain for 30 days to pass the entrance exam.
Actually, not a bad screening criteria.
Once you get in, the odds of another test are low.
For some jobs, having a safe workplace would require continuous, or at least high probability random screening.
It would require screening for Alcohol and other legal stuff as well.
Doing this in general would cause an interesting disruption in the US labor system.
An entrance exam, not so much.
Aside from the legal issues, the effects of Alcohol seem a lot worse than THC.
I've never understood why the children of the 60's who are now the old farts in Congress haven't legalized it.
But that's a whole nuther subject than having a reasonable workplace.
And yet you feel the need to post such a rejoinder as Anonymous. Such dignity and self-respect.
I suspect this isn't an issue in Portugal (whose drug decriminalization successes you NEVER hear about in US corporate-controlled MSM).
There is a crap-ton of money being made by the testing industry (and Quest is a big one), and is closely allied to the 'Law and Order' political whores owned by the Prison-Industrial complex (another massive money-making leach sucking the US dry).
Cui bono; always Cui bono.
That's funny, there's no mention of the number one driving fatality drug.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Employees Struggle To Find Workers Who Want to Take A Drug Test
There, fixed that headline for you.
Thats so cis bro. Why are not all inter sex, trans sex, attack helicopters, LGBTXQPIFNSABCG7, included? Are you some transphobic cisnormative shitlord?
This has gotten out of hand. Some people can have a snub of weed on a Saturday night then by Monday be sober enough to drive yet fail a roadside drug test.
This goes right into wtf territory.
Right now people who take small doses of weed for pain relief can have their license revoked.
At what point do we shut down random drug testing because unlike alcohol an accurate reading is not currently possible
Only neckbeards would complain about women being included into their exclusive "club". You guys can keep your smug sausage fest. In fact you most likely have behavior and etiquette issues that scare women away. Hence your anger.
""My perspective on this is if they want to share their recreational habits with me, that's their prerogative, but I'm sure as hell not going to put them in a position to have to do it.""
All it takes is one person doing something stupid on company time, the company gets sued because an employee was impaired, and loses everything.
I'm sorry - but people's personal lives are just that - personal lives. I'm fine if they dope themselves up on their own time. However, someone having pot, coke, meth, whatever, in their systems, is also a warning to be considered before hiring them where YOU then become partially responsible for anything that happens involving them on company time.
Just wondering. I don't remember taking any medical test for H1B. Something was needed for F1 visa, but that is general infectious disease test done for all people. Then there was a medical test for citizenship or green card, not sure. Lots of fingerprinting and photographing, but not really sure there was a drug test.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Lets assume that since drug testing costs money, employers would only bother testing applicants they are interested in.
And after the drug testing, the employer is rejecting 4.7% of the applicants.
Which would mean that 95.3% of the applicants pass the testing - the vast majority.
Regardless of how you feel about the usefulness of this type of testing, simple math tells us that the impact of drug testing is very small.
You know what makes a productive employee? Having a healthy dose of personal time followed by 8 hours or more of sleep. How many employers are concerned about these basic requirements for their employees? Lack of sleep is certainly more performance affecting during the week than the blunt smoked on the weekend.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I don't care whether it is on or off of the job. I have worked around people who got drunk at night or on weekends and they very had bad attitudes and also caused discord in the workplace I don't care whether it is alcohol or pot i simply don't want workers who are getting over a high or who use these items at times. If a test can reach back for months then so be it. I would not hire or even employ such a person.
This is one of the issues with drug testing. With alcohol, you drink it, it is in your system and impaired, and then it leaves your system. It makes it very easy to test for since if it is in your system, you have taken it recently and it is currently effecting you. With other drugs (pot being the most obvious) there is no simple way to test for it. It stays in your system so long there isn't a way to tell whether you just smoked a joint and are impaired or you smoked a joint last night and are fine now.
This is one of the things that is being skipped over in the rush to legalize pot (I'm not saying legalization is a bad thing, but not everything is being handled). There needs to be a way to tell if people are currently impaired as we don't want people driving/operating crane/whatever while they are high. Currently there isn't a good, standard, scientific way to do that (and yes, I know breathalyzers have plenty of problems as well). Until that happens, the best we have is either blood tests which show how much THC is in the blood, but not if it is actually affecting people or sobriety tests which can be highly subjective.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Nope. Won't happen.
They want to not hire people so they use drug tests as an excuse.
Oh, and for the rest of you lazy bums at work, you will be getting more assignments, so no vacation days or paid over time.
I take it you've never had to debug something done by someone who was high. It's horrid.. The writer thinks their work was the best thing the have ever done but the reality ends up being a mess. If drunk it's a lazy unmotivated mess with everything done the easy way, if high it's a massively overcomplicated mess (everything is connected!).
It's not as if were talking about the arts here, both systems admin and programming are a logical process and require a clear head.
This attitude, right here, is why capitalism is so goddamned sociopathic. "just sell out. we'll feed you. Lower your standard. be treated like shit. HAVE FOOD.. FOOD FOOD FOOD. WORK WORK WORK."
How many of these surgeons simply get 8 hours of sleep a night like people are supposed to?
More than you'd think unless they are on call. The majority of the practicing surgeons I know have busy but not insane schedules and they usually get reasonable amounts of sleep except for the nights they have to be on call. The ones who get screwed on sleep are the residents for the most part. A residency is tantamount to a state sponsored hazing program.
>The hurdle partly stems from the growing ubiquity of drug testing, at corporations with big human resources departments, in industries like trucking where testing is mandated by federal law for safety reasons, and increasingly at smaller companies.
>With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers, some software companies think now would be the wrong time to institute drug testing for new employees, a move that would further limit the available talent pool.
I guess the number of female truckers is A-OK.
and my job applications. Not that it matters, I don't use any recreational pharmaceuticals.
They are not willing to hire experienced people or train from within.
Fuck 'em all.
...eh, not so much. They can claim it is a dependency and therefore a disability and a protected medical condition. Then they can threaten to sue. Considering the short period of time alcohol stays in your system, it is surprisingly hard to catch if the guy can hold his liquor.
I'm not going to argue with this, I'm going to move it in a different direction. Drugs in most cases along with booze can help the creative process. But not the coding process. We only have to look at the advertising of the 50's and 60's to see how different they were to now.
Beside's coding needs to be done while running on mountain dew, dr pepper, and jolt.... Doritos and noodles for breakfast, anything else is just immoral and wrong ( well maybe curry for breakfast )
if you see me, smile and say hello.
You I don't even take drugs or even drink, but if a company asked me to take a drug test to work there I would laugh in their faces and then immediately go interview at one of the other 50 opportunities I had available at a moments notice. Granted it's great to have a skill that's in demand, I do feel sorry for people that don't have that opportunity and are forced to deal with this nonsense. And of course drug testing should be required for occupations involving transport and other situations impairment could be dangerous. Thankfully this all this is a moot point for me since I'm happily self employed.
I hope the number that can't pass climbs much higher.
That will make me more in demand and raise my salary!
I have no problems submitting to a test if it means more money!
"But Quest Diagnostics, which has compiled employer-testing data since 1988, documented a 10% increase in one year in the percentage of American workers who tested positive for illicit drugs -- up to 4.7 percent in 2014 from 4.3 percent in 2013."
It's written to make it sound at first glance that it's 10%. But it's actually 0.4%.
But then again, the scare headlines proudly exclaiming "0.4% more Druggies in the US Workforce, are YOU at risk?" wouldn't be as impactful.
...Normal.
And 4.7% is just a lower bound for the real number because they did not check those who never took part in a drug test. The share of the total population is probably closer to 10%.
With these sorts of numbers, it's just ludicrous to keep up prohibition.
I wonder how we managed this before breathalyzers.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
You are absolutely right!
We were at diner the other night, and a friend of ours just went through a drug test, we were talking about it.... someone asked for clarification what he was doing that we were talking about... my response is exactly as I see it
"He pissed in a cup for someone else's amusement"
People who take drug tests for their job are people who piss in a cup because someone dangled a dollar in front of them.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> especially female programmers
Why worry about gender here? Is there something female programmers have that other programmers don't, other than what gender they identify as?
Principles are overrated. But a good steak... yum!
In other news - there is no shortage of skilled talent. There is a shortage of skilled slave labor.
Also, if you break the law and fry yourself with drugs then quit whining to the rest of us. You made your bed of parasites and pointy things - go sleep in it.
My area is a huge manufacturing hub, but it is also the methamphetamine capitol of the South East. The relative ease of finding secluded real estate, the tight law enforcement budgets, and proximity to jobs and money, all make for a ripe atmosphere for cooking meth.
We have a VERY hard time finding people who can pass a drug test, and when we do, we have to pay them a mint to stay. The fact that so many people are leaving the labor force to get on welfare and do drugs is driving up the cost of labor very fast, and making offshoring all that more attractive. In fact my company is outsourcing as much manufacturing as they can because our factory capacity is down 35% in the last 5 years on lack of available labor.
People who take drug tests for their job are people who piss in a cup because someone dangled a dollar in front of them.
A lot of dollars. For a non-invasive procedure, even if sexualized. Are you disparaging all people who do sexual things because someone dangled a large reward in front of them? Then you're disparaging a lot of people.
arm... why did you penalize this fellow? He obviously referring to snorting out of ass of hookers cocaine CEO's of big companies. For all I care - it's funny.
I wonder how we managed this before breathalyzers.
If you're drunk and smell like a stunk (i.e., "drunk as a stunk"), you're fired from the job. That doesn't apply to the guys who go out for a three-martini lunch every afternoon.
But instead of using alcohol, I exercise a lot (a little under an hour on working days as a rule). I have very little trouble sleeping any more, and I have energy all day and pretty much never feel tired at work. No chemical enhancement at all, not even caffeine, and no need for alcohol either.
Not to mention all the other health benefits I get from regular exercise. And yes, I have a demanding job and I'm a parent.
--PM
> especially marijuana -- employers' main gripe
Really?
You fucks allow highly addictive drugs like alcohol or nicotine, and yet ignore science and frown upon cannabis, which has proven to be tremendously beneficial to one's health and impairment is equivalent to only 1.5 to 2.5 drinks?
Are you insane?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It is a common belief that blacks and Hispanics take drugs at a higher clip than whites. So sometime a corporation start drug testing when management wants to decrease diversity.
One big problem I can see, across the spectrum of jobs, is that an employer can instantly run any kind of report on you for a very low fee, or even do their own digging. Anyone who has had any interaction with the police has a criminal record, and that person will always be passed over for the person who doesn't. People wonder why recidivism exists, and I think the inability to get a straight legitimate job of any kind is one of the major causes.
The other thing is that this kind of thing follows you forever and anywhere you go. In the past, you were able to move across the country or to another part of the world and start your life over. If you were in real trouble and needed to disappear permanently into a completely new identity, the French Foreign Legion would even take you. Having easy access to everyone's criminal history means even people who've paid for their crimes will never get work again. Getting arrested is now equivalent to a permanent lifetime employment ban.
That said, drugs should be legal, and this is coming from someone who's never had any experience with them. Reducing the product price to nearly zero reduces the crime that users resort to. Imagine being able to walk into a pharmacy and just buy stuff like OxyContin at the generic prescription price rather than risk your life with an unknown-quality product from a drug dealer.
No pot smokers there... nope everybody smokes meth at the ford plant. Because with meth you can pass a drug test the next day.
Funny coincidence, the big factories all started drug testing in the late 70s & early 80s... right about the same time all the American car manufacturers started cranking out garbage cars.
Its almost like potheads make better factory workers than meth heads.
Randy: I can't get stoned, Ricky. Ricky: What do you mean? It's shitty work. Everybody does that, all right? Carpenters, electricians, dishwashers, floor cleaners, lawyers, doctors, fuckin' politicians, CBC employees, principals, people who paint the lines on the fuckin' roads, get stoned, it'll be fun, get to work! Oh, and this is the most important, go down to the Shit-Mart. I need a bag of chicken chips. If they don't have chicken, get me dill pickle. And I want a chocolate milk.
For the record, I am an airline pilot (previously military), subject to DOT regulations governing safety sensitive public positions. I think truck drivers, rail, public transit, etc are subject to these regulations: https://www.transportation.gov/odapc/
I can understand the policy to which I'm subject. As for other types of employers, they might be trying to "weed" out (sorry for the pun) candidates that actuarially could represent greater risk of health care or reliability issues, but I wouldn't really know. Might be justifiable for hiring, but not retention in my view.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
Aaaand, we're back to piss again.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I make $500,000.000/year
It's your attention to detail that sets you apart from the average man.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
If Barney didn't think you were driving safely he'd throw you in the drunk tank. Complain? That's a nightstick. Try to get a court hearing? That's a nightstick and maybe some stairs.
That's unless you were in a position where you could control Barney's rise or fall. Governors and mayors would never be able to get so drunk or high as to actually face repercussions. People with a few hundred bucks in their pocket would go on their way after donating to the police fund, etc.
That's why civilized societies include courts and evidence as part of the legal system. Otherwise Barney Fife *is* the law.
This post uses Barney Fife as the quintessential clueless cop, but Barney was well meaning and mostly honest, which is a far cry from the bad cops that we should worry about. Also, RIP Don Knotts, and thanks for the memories.
It does. I do expect you to be sober in the afternoon.
Again: Don't care whether you're too drunk to find your way out of the office after you clock out, but until you do, you are sober!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Something overlooked is that drug testing technology has advanced; in the wrong direction, but it has advanced.
They have made the tests more accurate, which sounds like a good thing until you realize that they sacrificed precision to do so. Yea, on average, the tests get good results, but at the cost of many "outliers," i.e. false positives and negatives.
Supposedly this is corrected by verification through a GC test at a lab, but more and more labs are getting caught confirming initial results without actually doing the test.
And I caught one last year: Knowing that I hadn't used anything in years, and knowing that I could pass (using home kits, afterwards), I gave a sample that tested positive and the lab confirmed. Ah, but I'm a chemist, so I asked them for the numbers, and they hung up on me.
Lost the job, anyway, but now I know: Clean or not, ALWAYS CHEAT!
Maybe in the US. In sane countries, dependencies and disabilities you caused yourself deliberately are not grounds for protection but for termination.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have had to take drug tests for numerous clients that I have worked with and I always wondered about this. What if you live in a state where it is legal to use pot (Washington State for example) for recreational purposes. You work in a state where that is not the case. The test comes up positive. Can you still be denied employment because of that?
I've been told the answer is yes. The whole thing is messed up. The federal government says its illegal, some states say it is legal and employers have their own independent rules.
Personally I think that alcohol is a far bigger problem that pot. From an employers standpoint, how many man hours are lost to people calling in sick because they are hungover? Or people dragging their ass into work hungover and working at half speed? Or making business decisions in that state? Not to mention drunk driving and alcohol fueled assaults.
At the end of the day employers should be free to choose the employees they want. I just wonder if they are missing some of the bad ones.
This is one of the things that is being skipped over in the rush to legalize pot
This isn't being skipped over at all. Here in Colorado there are a huge number of researchers and startups working on tests. The reason why there's just now active research into tests is that federal law effectively prohibited conducting any research prior to legalization, especially if human subjects were involved.
There's even THC metabolite detection research going on at federal labs here, though the whole process needs to be laundered through university and companies to keep the feds happy.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
that surgeons arent usually subject to recurring drug testing. Nobody in that pay grade is. Doctors, surgeons, nurses, police, pilots, all the professions that people regularly cite as "you wouldnt want these people on drugs" are not subject to regular drug tests. Pilots & police are usually tested at hire, and then again every three years (on a scheduled routine) but these people arent subject to NEAR the scrutiny that say, a tow truck driver or an assembly-line worker is.
Theres a -very- good chance that your heart surgeon couldn't pass a drug test.
And I'm fine with that, if it helps him keep a cool head and a steady hand when the pressure is on, more power to him.
Aren't they dealing with the most urgent/critical cases when they are on call?
Not necessarily. Being on call just means you are available for cases that come in. It doesn't necessarily mean a given patient's case will be more serious than normal. Probably a higher percentage of cases are of the urgent/severe type but not all of them. Frequently on-call is just for monitoring in case an issue crops up, managing staff or to be available just in case something urgent crops up.
It's kind of like holding the off hours pager when you do IT support. Most of the stuff you'll deal with is fairly routine stuff that just as easily could have popped up during the day. Sometimes it's of the more severe variety.
That strategy worked great for Lance Armstrong
Yes it did. For a long time. It probably would have continued to work if Lance hadn't been such a dick to so many people. Lots of other people from his era got caught doping and few of them were punished anywhere near as hard. Lance got greedy and arrogant and seemed to think he could never get caught.
Anyway he was tested and he tested clean. All that means is that there was no evidence of the drug in his system at the time he was tested. It doesn't mean he wasn't using some PED that they weren't testing for or something the didn't have a test for or that had been flushed from his system prior to the test. Basically doping controls mostly catch the athletes who don't know what they are doing or who get sloppy or just unlucky.
Just means us law-abiding citizens get paid more.
That said, I have never used an illegal substance in my life, have never smoked (probably the reason for the first statement) and probably haven't been drunk and legless since I was a student,
If my employer, a hospital, thought that I had been abusing, I would let them test me only if they signed an undertaking to make a substantial charity donation on my coming up clean. If they think that I have broken the law, they should tell the police.
If I showed up under the influence(s), the police should be involved. If someone is tested and fail, HR can deal with it after the courts.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Should apply to employers too. If I don't have a drug conviction, I don't need a drug test, end of story. Excepting professions where drug testing is required by law (which I also disagree with, but I recognize it's not going to change overnight).
Unfortunately, chronic drinkers suffer judgment impairing effects after the alcohol is gone as their body gets more desperate for the addictive substance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A. The development of multiple cognitive deficits manifested by both:
Memory impairment (impaired ability to learn new information or to recall previously learned information)
One (or more) of the following cognitive disturbances:
a) Aphasia (language disturbance)
b) Apraxia (impaired ability to carry out motor activities despite intact motor function)
c) Agnosia (failure to recognize or identify objects despite intact sensory function)
d) Disturbance in executive functioning (i.e. planning, organizing, sequencing, abstracting)
B. The cognitive deficits in criteria A1 and A2 each cause significant impairment in social or occupational functioning and represent a significant decline from a previous level of functioning.
C. The deficits do not occur exclusively during the course of a delirium and persist beyond the usual duration of substance intoxication or withdrawal.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
If you are drunk or stoned and no one can tell based on your work, then you aren't impaired. This is no better than Christians not wanting to hire gays because they don't fit the Christian sense of morality.
Being drunk/high while *at work* is unacceptable, but after I got home from work last night, I drank a six pack. I was pretty buzzed by the time I went to bed. Woke up this morning with a clear head, even got to work a little early. A drug test would show that I'd recently consumed alcohol to excess (I think it would, anyway -- I don't know a lot about the chemistry involved) but it had no detrimental impact on my work. If someone in your office is staggering or slurring their speech or is otherwise clearly impaired, a drug test may be warranted, so that you can fire the person for cause, or attempt to compel treatment, or some kind of other remedy to your "impaired employee" problem. Pre-emptive testing is just an exercise in humiliation and control, though.
To be fair, if you're too stoned to walk in public.................
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Actually, there is already a way to measure one's impairment at the time of measurement and is an alternative to substance screening. It is more effective than drug screening and also indicates when one is too fatigued to be performing their job safely.
http://www.industryweek.com/public-policy/impairment-tests-drug-screen-alternative
Seriously, move on.
Freedom, it's what's for dinner.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The only reason to even make an account here is just to feed your stupid ego.
The craziest drug testing policy I ever saw was at PetSmart. A sign proclaim they were proud to have a drug free workplace. My immediate first thought was I don't care if the guy selling me dog food was high. I would rather they test my plane's piolet or my surgeon if they test anyone at all.
I take it you've never had to debug something done by someone who was high. It's horrid.. The writer thinks their work was the best thing the have ever done but the reality ends up being a mess. If drunk it's a lazy unmotivated mess with everything done the easy way, if high it's a massively overcomplicated mess (everything is connected!).
It's not as if were talking about the arts here, both systems admin and programming are a logical process and require a clear head.
Maybe, but in my experience, programming while incompetent is a much, much bigger problem than programming while high. I've seen plenty of programming fails by well meaning, sober people that just made my head spin - and I've never (knowingly) seen an example of what could be labeled "high coding". That said, in the end you need both competent programmers and competent code reviewers. If they are incompetent, they need to go. Presumably competent coders will will also keep their "recreational activities" at home. If they don't do that and it shows, they are incompetent and need to go. Drug testing won't really help determine who is competent and who is not - at least for coders.
Problem is, in most IT positions (including programming) you are never really *off* the job. Employers believe they have an option over your entire life that entitles them to call you at any hour and expect you to eagerly and with sobriety jump right into the crises du jour. There is no such thing as being drunk "off the job" as you are never "off the job".
That's why we are all on salary with no overtime pay. The marginal cost of our time to the employer is zero. They like it that way.
The original poster was saying that the same people who want more H1B workers, will also use the drug screening failures as another reason to import workers. They will say since American workers are "high" we need foreign workers to do these jobs.
One could argue if you were not so high, the reading skills on this forum would be better, too.
Western civilization is doomed. We can't find folks who can't pass drug tests - especially female programmers? It's over.
So if I understand this article correctly, companies are having trouble finding workers who can pass a drug test in a pre-hire investigation. Yet lots of people complain about how unfair it is to drug test welfare recipients, and almost none are caught. So if both these facts are correct, people who want to work are a lot more likely to smoke marijuana than those who want to go on welfare. Yessssss, makes perfect sense to me. Maybe, just maybe, the people wanting to go on welfare who know they are going to fail the drug test simply don't take the test.
What about second-hand weed smoke? Your downstairs neighbor is a huge pothead, and you live right above him, and smoke tends to rise, (I'm operating on the assumption that the smoke from marijuana is lighter than air...) and you enjoy the warm, sunny afternoons, and quietly and unknowingly absorb a bunch of THC, a tiny bit at a time, naturally, and then shockingly piss hot?
There's not really any plausible secondhand smoke scenario that would result in you testing positive for cannabis. Especially if you're suggesting small amounts over a long period; it doesn't bioaccumulate in that sense. Also, false positives aren't really an issue: any positive results are re-tested using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. That will reveal whether you've had muffins or something harder.
You might want to revisit your point.
The reason why there's just now active research into tests is that federal law effectively prohibited conducting any research prior to legalization, especially if human subjects were involved.
Indeed. Research was allowed, even encouraged, but only if it fit into the Fed's party line. You were free to conduct studies into how bad marijuana use is, how to detect it's use over longer periods of time, etc... You weren't generally allowed to look into possible benefits, or things that the feds felt weren't necessary, like this.
I don't read AC A human right
> Are you disparaging all people who do sexual things because someone dangled a large reward in front of them?
Not at all. I have nothing at all against a person who honestly works in entertainment. I have a problem with people who consider themselves something else allowing themselves to be used for little more than entertainment of some executive on a power trip, who often couldn't pass his own drug test.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Exactly! You know those unicorn rockstar productivity programmers who are 100x more productive than the average programmer? All abuse stimulants, the best of which are total meth heads. Not something I would enjoy working around, but if that's what you're looking for, hire the anorexic, jittery, spaced-out, word vomit guy, he's what you're looking for.
The real path to male liberation
You must not have to worry about eating.
You're right, I don't worry about eating. Or rent, utilities, etc etc.
I collect welfare and federal food assistance and sit at home playing video games and enjoying other recreational activities all day while stoned as fuck and all paid for (including my weed) with your tax dollars, because you and those like you are such bags of dicks I wouldn't piss in your collective ears if your brains were on fire, never mind work for you.
Be sure to plan to pay even more in taxes, as I'm due for another 'cost of living adjustment' raise in my benefits soon and I plan on upgrading my gaming rig yet again.
Read the article.
If HR ever gives you an apparently meaningless 'follow the bouncing ball' test, sandbag or drink some beers before your baseline test. You want to be just a little over your Ballmer peak, like you would be coming back from lunch and ready to kick ass.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Yes, clearly they're trying to promote dysentery among the masses.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
In the US a sober alcoholic is protected. A drunk one is no more protected than a normal drunk.
Drinking with your immediate supervisor is your best bet.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Lies. How's that $700 a month treating you?
Jump up and down until, at least, one of your balls drops.
Learn to say 'thanks for letting me know, I'll be on it first thing .' Then hangup. Better still, just turn your ringer off, at least for the PHB.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
For (you) it's not a matter of trust; it's a matter of arbitrary stupidity imposed by legislators with no respect whatsoever for personal and consensual choice, exacerbated by the financial benefits of kowtowing to the law-enforcement cabal and the re-election benefits of frightening low-functioning voters. The industry (you) work in is heavily regulated by the Feds and drug tests are mandatory.
FTFY
To paraphrase what someone smart said above: impaired on the job or when driving, etc.? That's other-person-relevant and reasonably subject to scrutiny and so forth. Impaired outside of the job, on your own time, for instance safe at home in front of the TV? That should be entirely your business.
The drug laws as currently written are batshit, and the legislators, law enforcement, and sycophantic corporations, are acting wrongfully and harmfully. Period.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
He runs a charity that funds research and treatment for OCD.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
do people not realize there's fake piss you can buy at pretty much any 'head' shop that sells pipes, tobacco, etc.? I've used these to pass several pre-employment drug tests (weed) without issue. I work for a fairly progressive employer that doesn't test again after pre-employment, but has to do it for insurance reasons or some nonsense like that. It's like $40 for fake pee and it works every single time, if you can't figure out how to pass a drug test then you're an idiot probably wouldn't get the job anyways. (if you're doubting the effectiveness of the fake piss, clearly you've never used it or seen how they test the piss.)
Sleep deprivation should be in that list. As should emotional condition, financial pressure, etc.
The whole thing is bullshit designed to enrich law enforcement and the alcohol industry, while skimming votes from the vast pool of low-functioners terrified by every bogyman the media throws in their faces.
But hey, when the majority elects the rich and allows them to be guided by money and "consideration", this is what they inevitably get.
When they keep electing them, then I know the majority is just a bunch of idiots.
Which is where we are today.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Maybe he programs gas pump displays?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
This obsession with drug testing has concerned me for a long time.
1). Does it occur to anyone else that drug testing means that companies don't trust their managers? Once upon a time (and not in fantasy land) companies trusted their managers. If an employee was high, acting inappropriately, or in any way problematic, the manager would step in and manage that situation. It seems that companies don't trust their managers to do that anymore;
2). The drug tests create a poor workplace/hiring dynamic. It can be characterized as 'beat the test'. Is that what we want? If you can beat the test you are fit to work, and if you fail you are unfit? Regardless of any other factor?
3). Our drug tests now are sensitive to the point they can be unhelpful. There are lots of (often apocryphal) stories of people eating something containing poppy seeds and then failing a drug test for opioids. This could be managed through threshold cutoffs, but again, common sense gets trumped by fear and an unwillingness to take any chances at all.
4). Personal experience. I was informed, years ago, about a co-worker (not in my department, not my responsibility, don't want to leave that impression). Apparently they had a habit of smoking a joint over lunch! From what I heard it didn't seriously affect their performance although their co-workers weren't too impressed. It caused me to reflect on the whole subjects of: Does This Really Matter, and Shouldn't Business Limit Concerns To Workplace Issues.
I'm willing to accept that some can use illicit drugs recreationally and not suffer too much from it. After all most of us indulge in alcohol from time to time. Once it affects your work performance, then I'm willing to accept than an employer must intercede. Without that... what business is it of the employer?
Many companies test because they are required to by law because they do business with the Government.
That isn't true, but often company HR departments think it is true, citing the "Drug-Free Workplace Act". This is a quote from the Department of Labor FAQ about that:
Is drug testing required or authorized under these regulations?
The Act and these rules neither require nor authorize drug testing. The legislative history of the Drug-Free Workplace Act indicates that Congress did not intend to impose any additional requirements beyond those set forth in the Act. Specifically, the legislative history precludes the imposition of drug testing of employees as part of the implementation of the Act. At the same time, these rules in no way preclude employers from conducting drug testing programs in response to government requirements (e.g., Department of Transportation or Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules) or on their own independent legal authority.
I have found that trying to explain that no it isn't "required by law" to an HR drone is a pointless exercise.
> With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers
What is the difference between a good male and a good female programmer, except that the latter makes the diversity freaks happier?
Actually it's easier to tell if you've smoked in the past 5 hours than it is to tell conclusively if you've been smoking in the past week. Drug testing for pot is very bad and easily fooled.
Why don't you know this?
Because the only literature that discusses this is meant for doctors trying to make sense of drug testing for treatment purposes. The rest meant for your employer or for law enforcement glosses over the intricacies of the testing because they're too dumb to ask hard questions and training them to make sense of accurate testing would be way way too difficult.
My doctor gives me a qualitative drug screen and a calibrated quantitative gas chromatography test for pot every week as part of a deal that I would stop smoking pot in order to get adderall. I've almost completely stopped smoking pot because it was indeed leaving me clouded but started experimenting with the test results. This is the most sensitive testing available with an expert to read the results.
Now days I know enough that I can smoke weed a few times a week if I want and she can't tell.
Drug testing is a complete scam.
There is a mouth swab test that can detect if pot was used in the last 8 hours or so.
Duck out early on Friday, turn your ringer off, and you should be home free.
eye rolls right out of head and keeps on rollin out the door and down to the pub
Alcohol is completely legal and won't appear on a drug test, which is for "illicit" substances, nevermind the reality.
Nigerian dollars don't count.
I second this sentiment.
Oh come on. That 700$ is just what's on the books. Having grown up in the ghetto, most everyone has some kind of side job that's paid in cash. It may not be regular work, but when that game rig/ghetto sled needs upgrading, you'll be amazed at how quickly they can scrounge up money.
Not been tested lately have you? You get to pee in a cup and blow a breathalyzer where I work. The breathalyzer is especially rushed to completion if a workplace injury is involved. You don't know as much as you think you do.
I don't know if you're joking or not but you're right. You'll get a power coder from hell. Just don't piss them off and don't short them on pay or they'll steal your shit for meth money. Gotta take the good with the bad.
Skunk. The term is skunk. Skunk cause you stunk.
There's no immediate test for someone who is wasted on hydros or xannies yet people routinely get arrested for that. It's called DWI - driving while intoxicated. The whole people driving around high excuse is just that. You want another reason to keep it banned and keep grasping at straws.
Well come on man! Drop us link or at least describe what you're doing. I'm a schmoker but I just play it Russian roulette style.
What about when you obey the law and are still denied jobs? I live in Oregon where marijuana is legal, and my brother just failed a drug test for a job application. He hadn't smoked in two weeks, which as a college student actually showed remarkable restraint.
There are real problems with employee drug tests as currently practiced, problems that go way beyond identifying drug-free employees. As things stand now, when someone applies for a job - just applies, mind you, this process occurs well before anyone is actually offered a position - the prospective employee is routinely told to go get a drug test, usually at a local testing lab. Now, regardless of whether or not that person has in fact used any illegal drugs, the report that goes to the employer lists ALL the medication found in that person's system at the time of the test, pretty much every medication taken during the last few weeks. That's right, they get a full report on every prescription drug you are taking. Including, for example, antidepressants, or birth control... And they get this info BEFORE they decide to hire you. It's the equivalent of giving them full access to your medical records. Few people realize this glaring hole in our right to privacy exists, that potential employers will see this information before deciding whether or not to hire you. Just one more example of a seemingly sacred privacy right, now blown to the four winds, gone forever while no one was paying attention.
Oh come on. That 700$ is just what's on the books. Having grown up in the ghetto, most everyone has some kind of side job that's paid in cash. It may not be regular work, but when that game rig/ghetto sled needs upgrading, you'll be amazed at how quickly they can scrounge up money.
Exactly. I'm the freeloading stoner AC.
It's even better than that. I play guitar in a gigging band and get paid off the books And, to top even that, the state bought me the guitars and amps I use and paid for my lessons for "rehabilitation", LOL!
At this point the best option is to "go Galt" by simply refusing to be productive and only take all that you can from the system like I do until the whole thing crashes, and only then can it be fixed.
All because of self-righteous and ignorant bags of dicks like the one I originally replied to above that are in industry and government.
Not on the rug though. It ties the whole room together.
Alcohol is not completely legal everywhere in the US. There are definitely positions that test for alcohol consumption. I worked in one before I realized that since the employer is making more profit from me they need to accommodate me more than I do them.
I've never had to take one in over 30 years of tech employment. I was *supposed* take one at my first job for a defense contractor, and I really didn't want to do it but I was down to double digits in my bank account. But the guy who did the drug testing was not in the day that I started so we skipped it, and they never called me back to do it later. I've never seen any non-defense hi tech job require a drug test, but I have had background checks done.
As long as they don't scotchguard their pantlegs it should be OK.
There was a story in the Denver Post a few days ago about how tech employers in the area were having trouble finding employees in an environment where unemployment is sitting around 2.9%. Then they go on to name all the companies in the area that have reputations for being the worst companies to work for. And one of them had just had a case go to the Colorado supreme court recently because they fired some guy who had spinal injury after he tested positive for marijuana use (He had a medical card.) So yeah, shitty employers have trouble finding employees. News at 11.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If they really want to stop drug taking then they need to have people pass drug and alcohol tests before they can claim social benefits (aka. The Dole).
Why test on past use, that has little to nothing to do with intoxication (which is the problem). Some of these tests fail if the person has eaten poppy seeds, that's hardly useful to the prospective employer. And, as others have pointed out, legal drug use, such as caffeine, nicotine, prescription drugs, alcohol, etc
You know, it's usually actuaries that determine a drug testing policy must be in place. Being a business with no workers comp insurance because the rates are tripled in the absence of such a policy is a recipe for not being able to hire anyone at all.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
If they have not laid off everyone at the first chance in order to keep their share prices high. Maybe if they showed a bit of loyalty to their employees then they wouldn't have such a problem getting people once things started getting better.
Hey, Bro, if that's really what you're doing then I'm OK paying for it through my taxes. Accepting a 2% welfare fraud rate is easy when I know that 98% of the people really need and deserve it, you cunt.
Our system of constraining debate to within the bounds permissible to the authorities is working perfectly once again. There seems to be almost no discussion of the fact that:
Drug tests, besides being an invasion of privacy and likely to produce data which will be abused, do not correlate well with *impairment*.
Whereas *impairment* correlates 100% with *impairment*.
I'm supposed to believe that drug testing, when there are about 100x more substances than tests, is the only thing we can possibly think of to do in order to evaluate impairment? When there are also countless causes of impairment besides drugs?
Or do we really not give a fuck about impairment at all, but just want more reasons to probe people up the ass until the common citizen is totally conditioned to accept random blood draws, anal probes, piss tests, by their employers, the cops, etc.? Then what? Cameras in our bedrooms to be sure we sleep enough, etc.?
Why aren't we talking about how to test for actual impairment, which would raise a lot less fuss, and actually have a chance of giving much more reliable information in cases where it actually matters?
Thousands of people every year die because a bunch of fuckwits think they need to get stoned. Personally, I think prison is too good for people who get caught buying drugs. They should be flogged, caned, and then doused with salt water. If they get caught more than 3 times a year, they deserve a bullet in the head for being so fucking stupid, selfish, and an overall worthless human being. The amount of misery that these jackasses cause is immense. May they rot in Hell.
fuck off with this sexism bait, you want to program, learn to program and or get a degree in programming, be willing to move around for jobs and no one fucking cares if you are female, there is no seixsm in programing women just don't self select for it in big numbers and that is fine.
also fuck off druggies, it's objective fact you make worse employees, stop watching Seth Rogen movies, pot smoking isn't cool.
Actually, I'm trolling you. Hard.
Actually I've worked hard my entire life and am retired reasonably well.
But universal workplace drug screening and disqualification because your own tests can't tell if someone smoked a joint 20 minutes ago at lunch break or last week on vacation is idiotic and self-defeating to the extreme.
Because that's the kind of thing you end up with (seen plenty of those types here in a college town) when you make demands that people give up freedom, privacy, and common dignity just to be allowed to work to eat at a completely.banal and safe job where a paper-cut is the biggest danger and nothing you could reasonably be able to screw up has any real chance of harming anyone or causing any damage.
It's insane, self-defeating, unnecessarily authoritarian, and just plain cruel & inhumane.
tbh I don't give a shit who decided that it was ok to pressure people to let you violate their medical privacy. Drug tests show activities that happen during non-work hours and pre-employment ones show activities that happened before one was even being paid.
If you don't intend to comensate someone for the full 100% of their time 24 hours a day, then why should you be putting restrictions on 100% of that time?
There are lots of things actuaries would like to use to make decisions. Hell, they would probably tell you not to hire pregnant people too. They deserve to be put in their place.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
misguided drug policy
Misguided? The word is oppressive. The only thing drug prohibitionists are guiding is the money into their own pockets.
Having had to piss in a bottle occasionally since the late '70s, I've never found it humiliating, disturbing, etc., as some of the posters here claim. I take comfort in knowing that the other people I work closely with have all had to do the same, and that I can trust that they're most likely not high while doing essential tasking that I and our customers rely upon. And yes, I'm aware that this doesn't catch alcoholic behavior, which I've had the unpleasant opportunity to deal with in a couple of employees.
So, if you don't mind working with peers who are high, than go have fun. Just don't expect that others wish to, or should have to in order to have a safe, and productive, work environment.
Just another day in Paradise
I'm drug free. Sponsor me for a green card and I'll come down to work, no problem.
Before Scotland dropped it's blood-alcohol-while-driving limit by about a third last year, the rule of thumb was that for each pint you'd drunk the night before, it'd take an hour of sleep (possibly including breakfast/ shower time) to clear out of your blood stream. That's for typical British beer of about 4-5% by volume. If your beer is stronger or weaker, scale appropriately ; also we have 8 pints to the gallon, and a gallon weighs ten pounds. So you'd need to scale for whatever size of bottle you were drinking from.
And it's nly a rule of thumb. Allow 50% each way for individual variation.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Does not everyone know that you need to abstinence for a month
marijuana use in the last week ?
Reality's a RUSH!
Ok, so if this happens regularly, then the employee gets a negative review and if it doesn't stop, he's canned.. Drug test not needed. All you should care about is his performance at work.
With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers,
Give the melodrama a rest will you?
Strawman! What she was pointing out was your racist-like attitude towards drug users. And it IS racist. I have read your loud mouthed posts for years now. The statement she quoted -unknowingly I'm sure- is a statement you take to heart is every aspect of your life. There is no context for this statement to be taken out of. You saw what I saw and quickly tried to take the thread elsewhere. However you aren't as smart as you think you are. The fact you made an "Indian" strawman by bitching about "furriners takin our jerbs" only makes my conclusion stronger. I've told you this for years and I don't mind posting it for 237,821st time:
You are a despicable person with little to no feelings for your fellow man outside your small "loyal" circle. I am happy, as I'm sure you are, that we don't know each other in real life. Because I am not like you, I WOULD piss on you if you were on fire, but because your type values punishment and retribution, and I am always open to compromise, I would make sure to take my time doing it, and I would make sure that you had a healthy dose of your favorite medicine- SHAME. You would walk that walk of shame as you make my kind do, and you'll like it just enough to do it because you survived. Then you'll skulk off to your cave somewhere to plan your retribution for my retribution and the circle of life and mankind will come full circle.
Well yes, add to that programming while tired. I only objected to the poster's assertion that drug use does not affect productivity. What people do in their own time is their own problem.
Since Karma likes some good ol anecdotes, it's been my experience that the conclusions you just pulled from your ass, are, in fact, true, The guilty dog barks the loudest. I cannot recall how many times I've came across those who were just throwing zealous shit fits about some subject, like homosexuality, drugs, or prostitution, have been seen on the 6 o'clock news being arrested for that very same thing they're going all nazi over. And I use nazi here in an applicable non-godwin-like usage. To be so hardcore set on the idea of the aryan nation, his hair sure was awfully brown.....
I see a lot of people advocating to drop the drugs test. Keep testing, I say! When you can't find an applicant who will pass a drug test, hire me. I have 10 years of experience in software development, including Objective-C, Java, .NET, Oracle and SQL Server, Windows, most IDEs, source control and continuous integration like Jenkins (etc), clearable, US citizen, no problem passing a background check, willing to relocate, particularly overseas. I have two apps in the app store, I maintain a medium-sized website, and I've worked on projects ranging from inventory tracking to realtime RF collection and analysis. Projects relating to high-frequency trading (with profit sharing) and/or machine learning preferred. My base salary requirement is $250k ($300k for NYC, San Francisco, or other area with comparable-cost-of-living), with medical, dental, and 1:1 401k matching with no vesting period, 40-hour workweek with overtime, flextime (not pre-scheduled), one or more telework days per work week, and at least 10 paid holidays (floating preferred). Also a company-provided Audi RS7. Interested employers can submit your job description and contact information to slashdot.job.seeker@[Google Mail].com.
Man I wish that were true where I have worked.. In once case the programmer called me "Code Nazi" and then took advantage of his higher but lower quality output to suck up to the boss.
He knew, but it's not the same for everybody so he thought he might be able to get away with it. He really waited about 2 and a half, so he wasn't that far off.
I've heard plenty of stories about a friend's friend who ran on a treadmill for 2 hours a day and passed a test after a week, or who drank a liter of grapefruit juice and passed a test after smoking the previous day. I'm not saying they're true, but it's easy to get impatient, especially if you're the impulsive type anyway.
Oh fuck man I know. Weed ruined my life. It ended up causing me to get married, get a better paying job with a great promotion 3 years later....shit man, I even lost my junky ass trailer and 3 broken down piece of shit cars. Luckily I managed to stop sucking dick long enough in the alley to look up and see this wonderful little house that I bought with what little bit of cocksucking money I didn't spend on weed. I even had to resort to stealing a new car for me AND my wife. At least that's what the dealer kept repeating. "What a steal! This is highway robbery!" I simply can't agree with you more. Weed is bad. It ruins lives. Take a look at me. Don't be like me.
They could try looking for someone OVER 30!
People OVER 30! Have the required 10+ years of work experience PLUS a good work ethic PLUS they've pretty much done all the drugs they're going to do until arthritis starts hitting their knees.
http://verdantdetox.squarespace.com/ best way to pass naturally
after asking me if I was on them, to which I replied "No". They didn't care, they just wanted 175% productivity no matter if it was done right or wrong. I don't work there anymore. I feel sorry for anyone getting their car fixed at that worldwide auto center. It's a tweakers paradise.
How do we test people behind the wheel who are fucked up on prescription drugs?
How does having a vagina make you a better software engineer?
What is your suggested alternative? The people who didn't take the FOOD must not have lived very long......
I would argue that there is a shortage of programmers
If there is a shortage of programmers, why are salaries for programmers not climbing? If an industry is in a labor shortage, the price of labor should increase as well to attract more workers to the field. This "shortage" is only one created by employers failing to raise wages.
If programmers made on average $1M/yr, you would see the field saturated with new programmers. As far as the "skilled" programmers - that's another discussion entirely,
There would be a shitload more wantabe programmers, and among them some real programmers.
But the PHBs and HR still couldn't tell know the difference...
I've been hearing it for decades:
illicit drugs/alcohol/caffeine enhances "the process."
What I do on my own time doesn't affect what I do at work.
During my youth (I'm 60 now), I've indulged from time to time. For the most of the past 30 years or so, I've abstained from such "recreation" and found a great increase in quality and quantity of my work.
Recreational use of drugs ended over 35 years ago. Alcohol is now limited to less than a six-pack per month. Caffeine: coffee six times a YEAR, carbonated sources (soda/pop, whatever word your region uses) about the same. My present downfall is Arizona Ice Tea, but it's diluted 3:1. No more poppy seeds either. That small change eliminates opioids from a drug test. Go with sesame seed, onion or garlic.
The problem with "Augmented Reality" is that it isn't. Try to tone it down over a yeoar or two, then look back to see the results. You might be surprised. Your concentration and intellectual output will increase almost exponentially.
Been there, done that. Have the tee shirt, coffee mug, hat and that little crystal trophy. Sometimes experience trumps knowledge.