• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Welfare drug testing, maybe I was wrong

The Man said:
Mine have all been pre-employment drug screens, usually during the physical exam process, so I knew in advance, and there was no way to cheat.

BTW, not all drug screens are urine specimen tests. I've had a few where they clipped hair to test.
Click to expand...

His were urine specimen. He passed eveyone of them but not in such a fair way.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
His were urine specimen. He passed eveyone of them but not in such a fair way.
Click to expand...

Well then the people doing the testing were grossly incompetent. Or maybe he was clean? Urine drug screens only detect drug usage up to two weeks back. Hair tests check back 90 days.
 
Last edited:
rabbitcaebannog said:
No, he was not clean but maybe yes on the first one.
Click to expand...

Like I added above, urine tests only check for drug usage up to two weeks back, hair tests check back 90 days. Are you sure he wasn't clean? If not, then like I said, the technicians doing the test were grossly incompetent. Every urine screen I've taken, they make you pee right then and there, you don't pee in a cup at home and take it in with you. So if your thinking of having someone else pee for you, not going to work. And they test it right there in front of you.
 
The Man said:
Like I added above, urine tests only check for drug usage up to two weeks back, hair tests check back 90 days. Are you sure he wasn't clean? If not, then like I said, the technicians doing the test were grossly incompetent. Every urine screen I've taken, they make you pee right then and there, you don't pee in a cup at home and take it in with you. And they test it right there in front of you.
Click to expand...

Let's just say he didn't have to pee in front of a technician, I'm sure you can guess the rest.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Let's just say he didn't have to pee in front of a technician, I'm sure you can guess the rest.
Click to expand...

Well then I assume he had someone else pee for him. That is gross incompetence by the testing facility. That would never work for any of the drug screens that I've ever taken.
 
The Man said:
Well then I assume he had someone else pee for him. That is gross incompetence by the testing facility. That would never work for any of the drug screens that I've ever taken.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think it's all over the top (wow, cutting hair now) because at the end of the day, don't you think an employer can tell if his employee is incompetent regardless of knowing what he may do on his own time? If someone goes to a party and smokes a joint, does it mean a person should automatically be terminated and then the possiblity of not being able to collect so you are sent to life on the fridge of society:( Truely, it is way to harsh for my liking even though I don't do drugs myself. People have a right to privacy on their own time. JMHO
 
tererun said:
The argument is similar, and yes it would filter a lot of drug user applicants from the stack. OTOH it does depend on the job and certain jobs I do not see being a problem doing stoned or high. Some of us actually improved our performance on helpdesks greatly when we started doing drugs. I did not tell my boss at the time, but there was a little chuckle in my head when she asked me to tell her how I was able to improve so much in such a short amount of time. Of course, my biggest concern was crashing my rolling chair into another person.
Click to expand...

What is lacking in you that you can't do a good job without drugs?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Personally, I think it's all over the top (wow, cutting hair now) because at the end of the day, don't you think an employer can tell if his employee is incompetent regardless of knowing what he may do on his own time? If someone goes to a party and smokes a joint, does it mean a person should automatically be terminated and then the possiblity of not being able to collect so you are sent to life on the fridge of society:( Truely, it is way to harsh for my liking even though I don't do drugs myself. People have a right to privacy on their own time. JMHO
Click to expand...

It may seem over the top to you, but with liability and litigation these days, companies HAVE TO do it. There is no more personal responsibility in today's society, so companies have to protect themselves.
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
It makes a difference because someone who chooses to break the law in one regard is reasonably considered to break the law in other ways as well. I certainly wouldn't hire a drunk or a druggie to do my clients bookkeeping because if they screwed stuff up it takes me more time to fix it or, worst case scenario, they get into a situation where they are aiding in embezzlement. My E&O carrier would not be impressed.
Click to expand...

And if you knew, as an employeer, about their drug taking, you are responsable for all their actions while on the job.

Who wants to take responsibility for a drug addict?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I can see why some industry would do it but to say they all do it and/or it is necessary in all industries is absolutely not true.
Click to expand...

It is necessary if the company wants to protect themself from other peoples' stupidity and the frivolous lawsuits that arise from their stupidity.
 
code1211 said:
This is very apparent in business, also. When I used to be in a hiring capacity, people would submit applications for employment and the confirmation of the appointment to interview would clearly state that clean results from a drug test would precede any actual employment. This may or may not have been responsible for about half of the scheduled interviews being no-shows.

I work with client right now that has a very large distribution operation that is seasonal with two employment peaks through the year. They need to add about 100 people twice and then reduce that same number twice per year. Both an HR and an Unemployment Insurance nightmare for an employer. The HR manager had a Gestalt Revelation one night the week before the semi annual termination process occurred: Drug testing.

At the end of the busy season, now, the HR department conducts universal drug testing for all employees. Those who don't pass the tests or who refuse to take the tests are immediately terminated under the Zero Tolerance Policy.

This corrects the workforce to the right size and avoids the Unemployment Insurance cost increases since the terminated employees are not eligible with a just cause terminations.

Interesting bit of allowing a self selecting termination to occur in this process.
Click to expand...

This kind of thing is why I don't work for companies that drug test.

I hope at least they test BEFORE hiring those people. Otherwise its COMPLETE bull****.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
Really? Employees who are privy to large amounts of money? You don't think that a crackhead teller wouldn't be constantly thinking of how much money they can skim off their till to feed their crack habit? Some little 20-year old grocery store pothead who thinks "The Man" isn't gonna miss this $20 so he can go buy a dime bag?


Someone finds out about your little coke habit, and they offer you a little bribe to "adjust" that insurance quote?


If you're only talking about a little hippie lettuce, then yeah...I see your point. But if I'M a business owner, you bet your ass I wanna know whether a new hire is a crackhead. Especially, if their little crackhead fingers have direct access to my liquid capital.
Click to expand...

The problem is the crackhead is only "dirty" for 24 hours.

They only have to abstain for one day to pass an entrance exam.
 
What if...? said:
The problem is the crackhead is only "dirty" for 24 hours.

They only have to abstain for one day to pass an entrance exam.
Click to expand...

A drug screen will detect crack in your system a lot further than 24 hours back. More like two weeks for a urine test, 90 days for a hair test.

One drug that a urine test can't detect at all is LSD. A hair test will detect it though.
 
The Man said:
A drug screen will detect crack in your system a lot further than 24 hours back. More like two weeks for a urine test, 90 days for a hair test.

One drug that a urine test can't detect at all is LSD. A hair test will detect it though.
Click to expand...

The problem with any of these test is that a person who is around someone else who is smoking pot can have it detected in their system.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
The problem with any of these test is that a person who is around someone else who is smoking pot can have it detected in their system.
Click to expand...

That's the person's problem. Hang out with a better crowd. You are a product of your environment. If I'm with people and one of them starts smoking weed, I leave, precisely because of what you mention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom