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."
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 know a physician who at the same time is an engineer (and was professor for medical engineering at an university until he retired) who as a young man was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and got extensive treatment with lithium. Lithium is not only a mind affecting drug, it is actually a mind altering drug. It got him rid of his bipolar disorder. Your imagination of purity would have him disqualified. Other people were wiser.
Dude, affect...
See, I have this prejudice against people who can't handle their grammar just as much as you have your prejudices against people using substances.
Also, I've met enough people not on drugs whom I wouldn't want to have cleaning my house much less in charge of something important.
If someone is able to hold a job for years while using... something has already proven that he or she is capable of self-control. More so than somebody who needs abstinence in order to function.
As someone who usually drinks very little alcohol, I've started using the substance for my benefit. I seldom go into the cinema without a beer or two in my hands. That way, I can get my brain out of overdrive and much more importantly out of nag-mode. It allows me to actually enjoy the damn things instead of constantly finding flaws in them.
The wife and I also use it to unwind on particularly stressful days with the twins instead of lying in bed awake for hours on end because our brains just wont shut up.
If that makes us unreliable in your eyes, then I guess it's a good thing we don't work for you. On the other hand, if you keep that grammar up, I'd probably strangle you after half a year at the latest.
I hope you screen for alcohol consumption, since it's one of the drugs that most impair mental health, impulse control, and thinking in general. It is also one of the most physically addictive drugs. It also gives a misplaced sense of self-confidence.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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.
Only problem is: people can test positive for a few weeks after having used drugs. And while no one wants to hire an addict, many of those people are just recreational users who take something in the weekend, i.e. when it's no one's business what they get up to. I don't care what my heart surgeon drops in the weekend as long as he is sober come Monday.
I had a chat with a colleague from the US about this, when I admitted I smoke pot (a couple times a year). He asked if I wasn't afraid to test positive in a random drug test, and he was surprised to hear we have no drug testing at all; in the Netherlands, it is unheard of in an office environment. Medical tests in general may only be used to look for conditions that impair your ability to carry out your assigned duties. Testing positive once is not considered proof that you have a condition preventing you from working well, and cannot be considered proof that you are more likely to report to work under the influence. Tests in the workplace are rare, and pre-hiring drug screens are not allowed at all (you can't pose a safety risk if they haven't hired you yet). On-the-job testing is allowed, but only in the context of safety, and testing positive might result in being sent home, not in being fired straightaway. Only in a few exceptional cases like pilots or air traffic controllers are employers allowed (or even obliged) to keep to a zero-drugs policy. Alcohol tests are treated slightly different, because they are much more accurate in measuring actual influence at the time of the test (i.e. during work).
In most cases of recreational drug users, you'll never know if they took anything during the weekend if you don't test... so what is the problem? If they take too much, or use on the job, you will notice it... and you can take action in those cases. The law here does allow for disciplinary action in such cases, and allows for on-the-job drug testing of that employee if he is noticeably impaired, or during a rehabilitation course.
You could argue that in some cases it is critical to check the mental well-being of workers, for example we wouldn't want intoxicated software engineers developing code for pacemakers or heart monitors. My arguments against drug screens in such cases: 1) drug screens only tell you that someone has used drugs in the past days / weeks, but say nothing about how fucked up they are right this minute, nor how often they take them. 2) if your software quality control cannot catch errors introduced by intoxicated (tired, worried, overworked, momentarily dense, distracted, malicious) employees, then maybe you shouldn't be developing software for medical devices.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Riddle me this... do you want your heart surgeon on mind effecting drugs?
Boom.
Riddle me this... do you want your heart surgeon to enjoy themselves while on vacation or their day off, having a drink every now and then? This is perfectly legal and acceptable even the night before surgery.
And yet if that same surgeon were to fly to Colorado and enjoy themselves legally smoking grass while there, that is likely considered illegal activity by their employer and they can be still considered "under the influence" even days later when they are 100% sober, according to current law. Does that shit make sense?
It's not the fact that we want these individuals high on the job any more than we would accept them drunk on the job. However, our laws allow for people to get completely smashed on alcohol 24-48 hours prior to performing critical tasks, and we still arrest people for wanting to do the same thing with marijuana. It does not make sense at all. Not to mention how much more damaging the legal alternative is today in comparison. Either even out the laws, or bring back Prohibition. One or the other, because the current law is so damn confusing it's ridiculous and only ends up filling prisons.
I don't take any illegal drugs, but if a company asked me to take a drug test then that would be my cue to leave. That level of trust implies that it's not a place that I'd want to work, or be able to work efficiently.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
I had to take a federally mandated drug test once when I was taking opiods occasionally for kidney stones. When I was filling out the paper work I noticed there was no area to list prescriptions. I asked the person administering the test where to note this just in case it showed up in the test, and she said they didn't collect that information. This told me one of two things, either they were only testing for a narrow subset of drugs which didn't include opiods, or they can't be bothered to try and filter out positives from prescriptions.
I would think the second to be more likely but I haven't heard anything from HR asking me to explain the results of the test. The second is looking more and more likely but it seems incredible to me that they wouldn't check for opiods seeing as how heroin has been on the rise, and opiod abuse is a real issue in the US.