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.
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.
Doubtful, since the reason is rarely one based in reality.
There are a few, very few, jobs where drug screening makes sense and is an important safety issue. Anyone working with addicts sure should not be one himself, same for people working with children and youths since they not only might represent a role model, they also may introduce them to these things. I guess we can agree on these things not being very beneficial.
People who operate machinery should not be impaired at the moment of operation. Unless a drug has a lasting effect or may have unforeseeable repeat effects that may kick in at random while the person is working, I do not see a reason why he should be required not to use it. Just because I drank alcohol today doesn't mean I cannot drive safely tomorrow, even though drunk driving is a serious problem. Same goes for most other drugs.
In the end, aside of a very few cases I cannot really see why someone should not use drugs in his spare time as he sees fit. What I care about is that he is sober on my time. I pay him to be able to do his job and if he comes in drunk he's out the effin' door before he reaches his desk! Whether he's too drunk to know his own name between leaving office and coming back in the next morning I don't give a shit.
It's simply none of my business!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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."
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.
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