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.
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.
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.
I've worked 20 years in IT and never been drug tested once. Why do you "free" Americans put up with this?? It's software development not some job where you're going to hurt someone if you're impaired.
... 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.
.....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.
Yes.. of the 20 people I tested ONE came back positive! OH THE STRUGGLE!
Slashdot has gone to the dogs.
In all my time working as a software developer here in Australia I have never once been asked to do anything even resembling a drug test (or asked any questions about drugs). And that includes a stint working for a big US-based software company (that had offices in Australia at the time) and a stint working for a state government department.
I personally think that unless someone is working in an industry where drug testing is required or where drug taking can harm their ability to do their job properly, there is no reason to either test people or ask them about their drug habits.
I do wonder why the HR departments in these companies insist on the drug testing... Are they worried about legal liability? Concerned about people doing things that could get the company in trouble? Concerned about people showing up to work under the influence? Some piece of legislation that the legal department has told them means they need to do the drug tests to cover their asses in case something happens?
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.
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.
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
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?
This article is part of an excuse-building campaign for companies to hire more H-1Bs.
"We can't find any Americans! They're all too incompetent, expensive, and doped to the gills!"
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 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.
Either you've worked entirely alone that whole time, or you simply haven't knowingly met a single drug user. I'm curious, do all your coworkers also tell you when they masturbate? If not, do you assume that they don't?
Maybe people take one look at that giant stick up your ass and decide to keep mum on the subject.
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.
Not sure that's something to brag about, it implies nobody trusts you.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Another Aussie dev here with 25yrs experience, worked for IBM/EDS and currently work for a Japanese multinational. Never seen anyone in IT hit with a drug test, however when I applied for a taxi driver's license in the 80's I had to pee in a bottle.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It's like anywhere, you only catch the dumb ones.
That's why it seems that there are no druggies among your coworkers if the environment requires skills beyond the ability to ask "you want fries with that?".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In my experience intelligence has little to do whether you take recreational drugs. It sure affects which drugs you take and where you get them, but not really whether.
Looking back to my youth, the main difference between the dumb and the smart E-heads was that the smarter ones made their own and the dumber ones bought it from them...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You have. Trust me. You have.
What you have not encountered, most likely, is someone who overdoes it to the point of being unable to do his job. That is about the same difference as between someone who has a wine or two after Dinner on a Saturday and someone who needs it to get out of the smelly, messy pile of clothes that doubles as his bed.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You have never seen a meth addict breaking down boxes, have you?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Who in their sane mind spends 12+ hours 7 days a week with his coworkers?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You'd be surprised just how many security experts are smoking.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They have the more interesting interface ports.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
I like this, are you hiring?
This. When you spend 12+ hours a day, seven days a week with your coworkers, you would know if they were addicts.
Who the fuck is working 7 12 hour shifts a week? If that's you, you need a better job!
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
"...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.
Actually, we are. You're able to work in the EU and have a IT security background?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
ruby is on rails.
never do rails.
not. even. once.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
"when I applied for a taxi driver's license in the 80's I had to pee in a bottle."
That wasn't a drug test, they just wanted to be sure you could sit at a taxi stand for long periods.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
Just look at Karmashock's hategasm towards people who use drugs - or, rather, towards his idea of people who use drugs, which doesn't seem to be reflected in reality.
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.
"Just because I drank alcohol today doesn't mean I cannot drive safely tomorrow"
Not quite true; if you drink enough alcohol - and it's not that much - then you WILL still be a danger on the roads the next morning. You're logic's right - your facts are flawed.
"Whether it’s okay to drive the next morning depends on how much you’ve drunk – and if you’ve left enough time for your system to get rid of the alcohol.
“The amount of alcohol in your bloodstream depends on three things,” says Dr Paul Wallace, Drinkaware's Chief Medical Adviser. “The amount you take in, over what period of time and the speed at which your body gets rid of it.”
In general, alcohol is removed from the blood at the rate of about one unit an hour. But this varies from person to person. It can depend on your size and gender, as men tend to process alcohol quicker than women; how much food you’ve eaten; the state of your liver, and your metabolism (how quickly or slowly your body turns food into energy).
“Imagine you’re drinking until three or four in the morning and you wake up at 8am,” says Dr Wallace. “If you’ve had six or seven units, you could still have several units of alcohol in your body when you start your day. This is because your body can only process around one unit an hour. With several units of alcohol still in your body you would still be over the drink drive limit.”
https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/a...
I'm sure I could legally work in the EU, but I'm not looking to relocate and IT Security is what I want to do, but my experience is in Cisco Voice. Doesn't look too promising.
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
Thank Providence for that. I shudder to even imagine imagining what Windows would be like otherwise.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
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"
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.
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.
I worked for the post office, who drug tested. They screened out all the potheads, and ended up with a bunch of drinkers.
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.
"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.
Yeah aren't men usually better programmers, by the simple fact that more men want to be programmers? I mean if you force a guy to be a mechanic and he doesn't like cars, that doesn't quite work; if you force a girl to be a programmer and she wants to be a teacher...
Support my political activism on Patreon.
...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"
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
Testing for drug addiction, as opposed to drug use, is a whole different thing. Hell, I've known a doctor who used heroin on a regular basis. Was not addicted; knew his metabolism, knew exactly how much heroin he was taking.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thats a good one. Seriously.... you should lead with that one.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
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?
The statement is still true, regardless. Yes, the amount of alcohol you can metabolize is limited but, allow me to repeat it, just because I drank alcohol today does not mean I cannot drive safely tomorrow.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Aaaand, we're back to piss again.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I don't care if someone is using drugs in his spare time. What I care about is whether he is sober while on the clock.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Anyone forced or bribed into a job will do an inferior job than someone who chose it because he really wants to make it. Independent of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion or anything else you could invent to cry about how you're disadvantaged.
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.
He said "tomorrow". He didn't say "tomorrow morning".
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I suspect it's partly a power trip. It's partly about 'owning' your employees and controlling their behaviour both out of and in the office. Pretty pathetic.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Making your own MDMA is not for the faint hearted. Or the health-conscious. ;)
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
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.
Would you want to live next door to a heroin/cocaine/meth user? Would you move into a neighborhood full of heroin/cocaine/meth users? How about if you had children? Why/why not?
Would you want to allow a former heroin/cocaine/meth user to babysit your child? Why or why not?
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
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 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"
Citation needed. No one voluntarily leaves the labor force to go on welfare anymore. It's time-limited and means-tested, so anyone with a penny to their name in savings won't get it. Even if they do, they can't keep getting it.
I understand testing for safety-sensitive positions (pilots, transit workers, etc.) but doing this to ordinary line workers isn't justified. Factories have so many safeguards in place now that no one person can cause accidents. People are using drugs precisely because their lives suck, because they can't get better employment than factory work. Think back to the Rust Belt days -- factory workers worked their shifts, and pre-Netflix the only entertainment they had was drinking and sports.
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
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.
Western civilization is doomed. We can't find folks who can't pass drug tests - especially female programmers? It's over.
There are a few, very few, jobs where drug screening makes sense and is an important safety issue.
When has that ever stopped the Government, the "makes sense" and the "Important" part? The Federal Government has decided that every Worker deserves a safe and healthy workplace and part of their definition of "safe and healthy" is a Drug Free. That monster has been let out of its cage and it'll be a long time before anyone gets it back in.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
I've worked 20 years in IT and never been drug tested once. Why do you "free" Americans put up with this?? It's software development not some job where you're going to hurt someone if you're impaired.
I seem to remember an Airbus crashing off Brazil due to software problems, One in Spain and probably a couple more; so apparently somebody did get hurt, and if the programmers were impaired, would that make any problems less likely?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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
Actually it's way better to roll your own than to swallow what some idiot adulterated with god-knows-what.
Pure E is divine.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I suggest you reread his comments, all of them, not just the one I replied to. He's saying specifically that he doesn't want to hire drug users, and that he believes the argument he should hire people without drug tests is coming from the same people who advocate for H1Bs.
If he was arguing what you're claiming, it would render literally everything he's written as completely at odds with his own argument.
Context matters.
It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
> 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
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'
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.
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.
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.
No one has ever failed. In other words, it's very easy to cheat on the test.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
What is the difference between a good male and a good female programmer, except that the latter makes the diversity freaks happier?
Boobs. Hand in your geek cred and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Nigerian dollars don't count.
Fuck off, you misandrist piece of shit. Programmers rate programmers, not testicles. If you're good enough, you're part of the team. If you're not, fuck off.
Only if you had totally shit processes, a complete lack of QA and an utter failure in generic software engineering.
Given that most programmers are measurably shit at their job, you need proper controls whether someone's flying high as a kite or not. So put those proper controls in place and if someone is consistently failing to pass them address that specific individual issue.
Drugs? Completely fucking irrelevant.
All good software engineers are lazy.
Why do you think they automate the fuck out of the entire process?
In Colorada pot is legal.
So a MS or Amazon employee could fly to Colorado for the weekend, happily puff on the world's fattest spliff, get named in the Guiness Book of Records, fly back home and fail a drugs test without breaking the law - or being impaired in their work.
So just as a record, you're a lying piece of shit and the world would be improved if you'd admit this and promise to give some money to the next crack whore you meet without asking her for anything in return.
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.
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?
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.
I'd also like to see their boss watching it (with shit eating grin).
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?
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.
The reason they do drug testing is it lowers the amount of insurance premium they have to carry for employee fuck-up liability. Esepcailly when a company starts operating in two states or more, this kind of stuff helps their bottom line. Insurance companies know drug users are objectively more likely to fuck up
So if your up to your waist in shit, it's OK if they keep dumping untill your up to your armpits?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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"
I have met a lot of users of various legal and illegal drugs. And in both cases there are two kinds: Those that can handle it responsibly and those that cannot. I would not want to live next to a crack junkie any more than I'd want to live next to a constantly drunk wino. And I'd have exactly the same problem with living next to someone who pops an E or two during the weekends as I have with someone who enjoys a glass of wine or two for dinner: None.
And I think I said before that there are a select few occupations where people who use drugs of ANY kind (yes, including the legal stuff like alcohol and cigarettes) are in my opinion off limit. This is any occupation that deals with former or current addicts and any occupation that deals with children and youths. The former because they might get a hold of their drug and be tempted to relapse, the latter because authority figures are by default also always in some way role models. The very least I would expect here is that they reserve their smoking and drinking to times and areas where the people they work with will not get into contact with them.
And I think that I have posted before that I require people to be sober while on the clock, no matter what occupation. Personally I think that should be a given, but it seems it has to be said.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have never had a drug screening. And we're not dealing with a burger flipper job here, I am in a highly security conscious and risk-averse business. I had background checks that makes the Rassenhygieneamt of the SS look lenient. I had jobs with gate checks where I had to undress nearly completely every time going in or out the building. I had jobs where cameras were recording every movement I made. And I never held a job where they didn't want to see my police record, and $deity help me if there's anything worse than a parking ticket on it!
Not ONCE anyone wanted me to piss in a cup. Not one single time.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
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"
marijuana use in the last week ?
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.
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.
Not to worry, they will get better at cheating the new test and the rate will drop back to 1 in 20.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The new welfare is SS disability.
Sense 'welfare reform' SS disability has been growing by 1 million/year.
Does anybody believe their are another million actually disabled people every year? Obvious nonsense, scammers.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Biggest boobs I've ever seen on a programmer were moobs.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
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.
What is your suggested alternative? The people who didn't take the FOOD must not have lived very long......