Sugar Plum Fairy Gets Scrooged

[rubato]

Employment drug testing is much more common than not although it is usually only when hired not annual (but somewhere in the employee manual the assert the right to do it again if they want). Nearly all large companies do it as part of their employment physical. HP actually made waves a few years ago by stopping their pre-employment drug screening.

It is a method used by lazy and incompetent managers and top-down control companies.


yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

UA testing is not a definite requirement for every state or federal job; I've had both state and federal jobs and have never been UA tested in my life (except in conjunction with medical care).

UA testing is not that costly; I know this because every day in Court we discuss UA testing in light of criminal defendants, juvenile delinquents or parents whose children are subject of dependency/neglect actions. Our tests cost the criminal subjects $7 per test.

eta: Random & pre-employment UA testing seems to have come about in the 80s as an aspect of the DARE era. It would be interesting to see figures on the overall cost of employment-related drug testing programs v. any costs that could be attributed to on the job drug use in the form of accidents or diminished productivity. Is all this drug testing 'worth' it?

I stand corrected. However, it may be worth it; the military started doing drug testing because during the 70's there was a growing drug problem throughout the ranks. (A few old salts can still tell you where the best places to get high onboard were.) The problem was becoming so great it was adversely affecting readiness.
The regular drug testing today, prevents any sort of drug use or trafficking from gaining another foothold.

In many civilian jobs, they believe it is a safety issue. When I was last working at Home Depot, they required that applicants take a drug test in order to get hired. It wasn't done regularly after that, unless someone had some sort of serious accident. (This usually involved a forklift) One of the first things management would do, was send the employee off for a drug test. In many cases, the results would come back positive.

Almost any job involving the use of machines, vehicles or heavy equipment will have a zero tolerance policy.

[BoSoxGal]

Some may consider this report biased just given the publisher (ACLU), but it seems the statistics don't support testing in the workplace as cost-effective:

http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/drugtesting.pdf

[rubato]

Ahem, the author (not the publisher) was the National Academy of Sciences.

Only a Republican is limp enough to question their integrity.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

UA testing is not a definite requirement for every state or federal job; I've had both state and federal jobs and have never been UA tested in my life

I recall back in the 80's that some munchkin in the DEA floated a "trial balloon" proposal in the press to have all federal employees submit to mandatory drug testing....

It was then Secretary of State George Schultz who shot it down. When he read about it, he publicly announced that if mandatory drug testing was imposed on his department, he would be the first to take the test, and then immediately resign.

That was the end of that....

[Guinevere]

The current standard (and one I am working on with several gvernment lcients) appears to be a non-use policy, enforced by drug testing after specific incidents or upon probable cause.

[Gob]

It was then Secretary of State George Schultz who shot it down. When he read about it, he publicly announced that if mandatory drug testing was imposed on his department, he would be the first to take the test, and then immediately resign.

He should have said he was going to takes some drugs, take the test, then resign.

[loCAtek]

Um, I think the first unspoken part of what he should have said, was already taken care of?

[Andrew D]

Smoked a little weed a few days ago? You're fired.

Drank yourself into a stupor early yesterday? You're good.

[BoSoxGal]

We were just given a presentation for a Drug/DUI Court we are hoping to launch here next year.

Apparently there is a new saliva test that can detect alcohol use up to 72 hours. This is particularly good for monitoring probationers, who are often tested a few times a week in such programs.

Anyway, it assists with that unfairness factor. Most alcoholics aren't going longer than 24 hours without a drink unless they're jailed.