I would also like for a way that hr can determine my company won’t hire a coke head.
If it’s not noticeable enough that you need to look at their pee, it’s not a big deal. If it is noticeable enough that it affects their work performance, then you don’t need to even test for it.
Why not judge them based on their work and performance? The employer is entirely free to hire or fire someone for how they perform on the job, especially in at will states.
If someone has a drug problem that impacts their performance, get rid of them.
If someone has a drug addiction that doesn’t impact their work, is it really something their employer needs to police?
Cocaine is a poor example because it is out of most people’s urine and blood very quickly. Same with Meth. You probably already work with some people who use, they just know how to hide it and not let it affect their work performance.
These drug tests almost exclusively catch marijuana users. They are also very easy to bypass with synthetic urine, mouthwash, and detox. I used to work at a shop that sold these products and helped people pass drug tests every day.
Hair samples drug tests are the most reliable test method if you really are looking to not hire coke users. Hair samples can show drug use going back many months and even years, so it is way overly intrusive and often catches people who haven’t used in a long time. They also make shampoos to help people pass these, but I know they are difficult to use.
My question to you is, Why do you care what someone does drugs if it doesn’t affect their work, even harder ones? There are plenty of nice normal people who use drugs that you would never know.
Personally, I just think drug tests are mostly a waste of money and are detrimental to employee rights. I don’t think a company should get to tell their employees what they can and can’t do in their freetime. The severely addicted people with problems will make themselves known through poor work performance.
Honestly, why does it matter? If they behave inappropriately or don’t do their work, that’s cause to fire them. Who cares what drugs they may or may not use if it doesn’t effect their behavior at work?
Hopefully they get caught in the “is this guy a lunatic” phase of the interview process. If they are functional and otherwise normal and reasonable then who cares if they’ve got an eight ball in their pocket.
Related story: my ex worked at a vet clinic for a while. She said they hired a new vet tech and he got fired on day one. He’d stolen some animal tranquilizers or something and disappeared. They found him passed out in his car drooling. Called the cops/ambulance and fired him on the spot obviously.
Point is, crazies are easy to spot, who cares what otherwise normal well adjusted people do.
He could’ve easily been sober and outside the test’s sensitivity window. Pass, then still go on to steal horse tranquilizers and get his shit fucked. The test is always an invasion of privacy and only sometimes detect risky persons. Mind you, sometimes it will also give out a false positive and make you refuse a perfectly sober person.
In most cases it really has less to do with the companies or HR and more to do with their insurance rates. Remember, the absolute last thing an insurance company wants to do is pay out, so if it can find an out or a way to increase the premiums, it will. I mean, sure there might be some uptight HR or other upper level suit with a stick up their ass at some companies, but everything usually has to do with money.
I’m divided on this one. I think testing is ultimately wrong but I would also like for a way that hr can determine my company won’t hire a coke head.
What are your thoughts on this and what would you propose instead?
If it’s not noticeable enough that you need to look at their pee, it’s not a big deal. If it is noticeable enough that it affects their work performance, then you don’t need to even test for it.
But you’re happy to work with alcoholics, as it’s legal? What is about coke heads you don’t want to work with? What about stoners? Benzo heads?
Shouldn’t we judge people on their work and not their extra curricular activities.
I would hate to be so biased for no reason whatsoever.
Why not judge them based on their work and performance? The employer is entirely free to hire or fire someone for how they perform on the job, especially in at will states.
If someone has a drug problem that impacts their performance, get rid of them.
If someone has a drug addiction that doesn’t impact their work, is it really something their employer needs to police?
Cocaine is a poor example because it is out of most people’s urine and blood very quickly. Same with Meth. You probably already work with some people who use, they just know how to hide it and not let it affect their work performance.
These drug tests almost exclusively catch marijuana users. They are also very easy to bypass with synthetic urine, mouthwash, and detox. I used to work at a shop that sold these products and helped people pass drug tests every day.
Hair samples drug tests are the most reliable test method if you really are looking to not hire coke users. Hair samples can show drug use going back many months and even years, so it is way overly intrusive and often catches people who haven’t used in a long time. They also make shampoos to help people pass these, but I know they are difficult to use.
My question to you is, Why do you care what someone does drugs if it doesn’t affect their work, even harder ones? There are plenty of nice normal people who use drugs that you would never know.
Personally, I just think drug tests are mostly a waste of money and are detrimental to employee rights. I don’t think a company should get to tell their employees what they can and can’t do in their freetime. The severely addicted people with problems will make themselves known through poor work performance.
Honestly, why does it matter? If they behave inappropriately or don’t do their work, that’s cause to fire them. Who cares what drugs they may or may not use if it doesn’t effect their behavior at work?
Hopefully they get caught in the “is this guy a lunatic” phase of the interview process. If they are functional and otherwise normal and reasonable then who cares if they’ve got an eight ball in their pocket.
Related story: my ex worked at a vet clinic for a while. She said they hired a new vet tech and he got fired on day one. He’d stolen some animal tranquilizers or something and disappeared. They found him passed out in his car drooling. Called the cops/ambulance and fired him on the spot obviously.
Point is, crazies are easy to spot, who cares what otherwise normal well adjusted people do.
But wouldn’t you want to prevent that from happening ?
He could’ve easily been sober and outside the test’s sensitivity window. Pass, then still go on to steal horse tranquilizers and get his shit fucked. The test is always an invasion of privacy and only sometimes detect risky persons. Mind you, sometimes it will also give out a false positive and make you refuse a perfectly sober person.
Counterpoint:
A company should not care whether someone is a cokehead.
They should care whether they’re reliable, competent etc.
There’s established methods of figuring those things out without a drug test.
In most cases it really has less to do with the companies or HR and more to do with their insurance rates. Remember, the absolute last thing an insurance company wants to do is pay out, so if it can find an out or a way to increase the premiums, it will. I mean, sure there might be some uptight HR or other upper level suit with a stick up their ass at some companies, but everything usually has to do with money.