Drug testing employees.

[alexava 6,973]

These numbers are similar to a manufacturer I worked for in '94-'02. 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/29/us/ohio-factory-owner-cnntv/index.html

[homersapien 11,373]

Frankly, 4 our out of 10 doesn't sound all that bad.

Regarding Cannabis, one of the worst things about it is the way it persists (from a testing standpoint) long after you've used it and any effects are long gone.  But I can appreciate the owner's position.   Abstainers will profit.

 

 

 

[alexava 6,973]

Actually it was backwards. HR director told me only 4 out of 10 passed the test. Back then it costed 1500$. ( hair test). No idea what it costs now. They quit doing drug screen and physical at the same time. They sent me for drug test then called two weeks later and had to go to same place for physical. Cutting cost of physicals by 60%. ( he explained this when he apologized for requiring two trips)

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Frankly, 4 our out of 10 doesn't sound all that bad.

Regarding Cannabis, one of the worst things about it is the way it persists (from a testing standpoint) long after you've used it and any effects are long gone.  But I can appreciate the owner's position.   Abstainers will profit.

 

 

 

The bolded statement could not be more representative of the differences in our outlook in life on this subject.  4 out of 10, not bad?  Considering that this was for a "high paying job", one would think that you could abstain from your particular vice long enough to pass a drug test.  This figure doesn't include the qualified people that didn't apply because they knew they would fail the drug test.

She mentioned that 48 of the 50 years the shop has operated they had no problem.  I would be willing to bet she probably had problems, she just didn't know it because the drug screenings were not required.  I hope she keeps to the standard and hires only the abstainers and not hire the ones that believe that there is a better life through chemistry.

[Mims44 1,869]

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The bolded statement could not be more representative of the differences in our outlook in life on this subject.  4 out of 10, not bad?  Considering that this was for a "high paying job", one would think that you could abstain from your particular vice long enough to pass a drug test.  This figure doesn't include the qualified people that didn't apply because they knew they would fail the drug test.

She mentioned that 48 of the 50 years the shop has operated they had no problem.  I would be willing to bet she probably had problems, she just didn't know it because the drug screenings were not required.  I hope she keeps to the standard and hires only the abstainers and not hire the ones that believe that there is a better life through chemistry.

No clue what the owner was using, but the hair test alexava mentioned goes back 90 days. Urine can go back 30 days. So it is very possible these people could have smoked before they ever applied.

And honestly, it's more about people not taking the rules seriously more than anything else. Several large businesses around me have a 0 tolerance tobacco policy and their tests can go back a month. But do you think I passed on the nice cubans my brother brought back on leave? Nope

[homersapien 11,373]

37 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The bolded statement could not be more representative of the differences in our outlook in life on this subject.  4 out of 10, not bad?  Considering that this was for a "high paying job", one would think that you could abstain from your particular vice long enough to pass a drug test.  This figure doesn't include the qualified people that didn't apply because they knew they would fail the drug test.

She mentioned that 48 of the 50 years the shop has operated they had no problem.  I would be willing to bet she probably had problems, she just didn't know it because the drug screenings were not required.  I hope she keeps to the standard and hires only the abstainers and not hire the ones that believe that there is a better life through chemistry.

"Not too bad" meaning I expected it to be even worse.  It has nothing to do with my "outlook on life"  

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

42 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"Not too bad" meaning I expected it to be even worse.  It has nothing to do with my "outlook on life"  

Thanks for the clarification.  I would have expected it to be lower, hence our differences in our outlook.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

30 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

No clue what the owner was using, but the hair test alexava mentioned goes back 90 days. Urine can go back 30 days. So it is very possible these people could have smoked before they ever applied.

And honestly, it's more about people not taking the rules seriously more than anything else. Several large businesses around me have a 0 tolerance tobacco policy and their tests can go back a month. But do you think I passed on the nice cubans my brother brought back on leave? Nope

I have never heard of a O tolerance for tobacco products.  What's the physiology behind that?

[Mims44 1,869]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

I have never heard of a O tolerance for tobacco products.  What's the physiology behind that?

It started in October, basically they treat using tobacco products the same as illegal substances.

They also don't test for tobacco (don't even know if you can) they test for nicotine, and the patches and gum I use to not smoke make the tests show positive as well. It's really a bunch of BS.

 

Actually just found the notice, it's still on their site.

Effective October 31, 2016 WHS will implement a "tobacco-free" hiring policy.  As a part of the hiring process, WHS will test for tobacco and nicotine products and will not hire individuals who use these products.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

24 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

It started in October, basically they treat using tobacco products the same as illegal substances.

They also don't test for tobacco (don't even know if you can) they test for nicotine, and the patches and gum I use to not smoke make the tests show positive as well. It's really a bunch of BS.

 

Actually just found the notice, it's still on their site.

Effective October 31, 2016 WHS will implement a "tobacco-free" hiring policy.  As a part of the hiring process, WHS will test for tobacco and nicotine products and will not hire individuals who use these products.

Wow, interesting.  So, I guess they don't have a random test for tobacco once hired?

[Mims44 1,869]

45 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Wow, interesting.  So, I guess they don't have a random test for tobacco once hired?

That's what I'm not 100% on, we still do random drug screenings of employees... but I don't know if they are gonna test for nicotine in those tests or just illegal substances.

As for myself, I stay busy enough to not want to smoke all day, and if I have a stick of gum during lunch no one knows... and I figure it's better to keep quiet than ask and risk being terminated.

[alexava 6,973]

I heard a guy say they had a nicotine test to take but not for termination, they would just be charged more for insurance. This was ten years ago. It was in the planning stage then and may have never took off.

[Mims44 1,869]

1 minute ago, alexava said:

I heard a guy say they had a nicotine test to take but not for termination, they would just be charged more for insurance. This was ten years ago. It was in the planning stage then and may have never took off.

They had been doing that for quite awhile at a couple places I worked at, I use the VA so it never affected me.

[I_M4_AU 7,838]

48 minutes ago, alexava said:

I heard a guy say they had a nicotine test to take but not for termination, they would just be charged more for insurance. This was ten years ago. It was in the planning stage then and may have never took off.

Never thought of that, makes since though.  The wellness campaign started where I worked about 5 years ago, I'm sure for the same reason.  Just never put the smoking thing with it.

[alexava 6,973]

The guy who told me this was an investigator for the DA, so he was a state employee. i havn't heard anything since.

[aujeff11 6,243]

On 7/29/2017 at 9:22 PM, alexava said:

These numbers are similar to a manufacturer I worked for in '94-'02. 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/29/us/ohio-factory-owner-cnntv/index.html

Had one employer say his Hair Follicle tests had an eighty percent capture rate going back six to nine months. They can't prove the tests are accurate, but  I'm sure that still provides enough motivation for them to terminate the hiring process. 

[DKW 86 7,424]

In the 80-mid 90s I worked for two companies that polygraphed everything that moved. We were easily over 50% in admitted drug use of applicants. We were also victims of our faith in polygraphs. We actually had a store manager that was hired after me get busted by one of our security guys for stealing over $20k and yet get rehired after passing a polygraph. After that and several other obvious flaws in polygraphing, I refuse to believe anything found in any polygraph. In my experience, I would tell you that I saw about 50% false positives. I also would only believe about 30-40% of the reports. They ought to print them on toilet paper so that can be used for something.

[AU64 10,122]

Former employer (metal fabrication shop) had similar results....more than 50% failure despite signs everywhere during the application process advising that "We Drug Test" but guess some people figured it was worth the chance to give it a try hoping some previous use might not show up.   The company paid well by community standards so who could blame people for trying?

[aujeff11 6,243]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

In the 80-mid 90s I worked for two companies that polygraphed everything that moved. We were easily over 50% in admitted drug use of applicants. We were also victims of our faith in polygraphs. We actually had a store manager that was hired after me get busted by one of our security guys for stealing over $20k and yet get rehired after passing a polygraph. After that and several other obvious flaws in polygraphing, I refuse to believe anything found in any polygraph. In my experience, I would tell you that I saw about 50% false positives. I also would only believe about 30-40% of the reports. They ought to print them on toilet paper so that can be used for something.

Don't know how true it is, but I've heard that if one curls his toes or does a nice squeeze on the anus ( like trying to push one out) that it could/ will help hide any irregularities. Of course one would have to start doing this during the baseline establishing process of the polygraph. 

 

[alexava 6,973]

54 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Former employer (metal fabrication shop) had similar results....more than 50% failure despite signs everywhere during the application process advising that "We Drug Test" but guess some people figured it was worth the chance to give it a try hoping some previous use might not show up.   The company paid well by community standards so who could blame people for trying?

Yep. The suck part is when you refer a candidate after they assure you they will pass. Then they fail. Happened more than once. 

[DKW 86 7,424]

3 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

Don't know how true it is, but I've heard that if one curls his toes or does a nice squeeze on the anus ( like trying to push one out) that it could/ will help hide any irregularities. Of course one would have to start doing this during the baseline establishing process of the polygraph. 

 

We had a female that was dealing drugs. She supplied the employees with ludes etc and they were passing pre-employment polygraphs left and right. She also used the ole tack in the shoe method herself. 

Her and her BF were some of the biggest drug dealers in town at the time. We had inventory turn up missing. The polygraph guy came in and did his thing. She passed theft, drugs, dealing, supplying to coworkers etc. We had coworkers admit during their polygraphs that they were getting from her. So we had a Polygraph Report saying that "co-workers acknowledge she supplied drugs to them AND that she had no knowledge of drugs being supplied to co-workers." 

We all knew it was BS but Security at the time held to the bought and paid for polygraph guy results. We all laughed, shook our heads, and stopped listening to anything Security said after that.