The Money Mustache Community

Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Ask a Mustachian => Topic started by: oldtoyota on September 12, 2014, 12:57:25 PM

Title: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: oldtoyota on September 12, 2014, 12:57:25 PM
I do not take illegal drugs--or even those recently made legal in many areas--and am insulted when a company wants my urine.

It's urine. Ew. That is my first experience of the company? Peeing in a cup?

Seems like a bad way to start a relationship. Anyone else feel the same way?

I don't mind if they want to see if I have bad credit and whatnot, but the urine thing is just gross.

Also, what am I to think of a person who can't tell if someone is a drug addict? I think it's fairly obvious to spot them...
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: charis on September 12, 2014, 01:02:42 PM
Functioning drug addicts are actually very difficult to spot unless you are trained in that area.  Many private and public employees are drug tested.  It's your decision whether to work for a company that does so.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: seattlecyclone on September 12, 2014, 01:06:39 PM
I have only been asked to do this once as part of a job interview, back in college when I was applying for internships. I complied, but ended up taking an offer from a different company for a variety of reasons. I do see such tests as degrading and dehumanizing. Given the number of companies in my industry that have no such requirement, asking me to pee in a cup would likely be a dealbreaker at this point in my career.

As to jezebel's point, why should a company even care whether or not one of their employees is a functioning drug addict? It's the non-functioning ones you should want to weed out, and this should be possible through less invasive means.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: rujancified on September 12, 2014, 01:09:33 PM
Salacious thread title! Agreed that it's gross. I had a job opportunity at age 18 that was $3-4 more per hour than my mall job. They asked us to take a lengthy survey where they asked 100+ questions about drug use, ethics, etc etc. I said I didn't do drugs (the truth). At the end they had a question about willingness to submit to a drug test and I said "Nope. You asked me over and over again about drug use and I answered honestly. I will not take a drug test as well."

One other thing that's always given me pause: Not that they're necessarily LOOKING for it, but couldn't they tell if you were pregnant or not from a urine test?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: AH013 on September 12, 2014, 01:10:14 PM
I feel like someone has watched one too many episodes of "Extreme Cheapskates" and has taken the advise as gospel...
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Angie55 on September 12, 2014, 01:10:52 PM
I didn't realize there were still jobs where this isn't required. I do think it is awkward, gross, and sad that it is now commonplace. In my many jobs I have never had a job where I wasn't drug tested. Nearly all of my jobs were desk jobs. I have had a friend who got a minimal wage job which required driving a company vehicle and he wasn't drug tested. I thought that was strange...
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: oldtoyota on September 12, 2014, 01:16:56 PM
I feel like someone has watched one too many episodes of "Extreme Cheapskates" and has taken the advise as gospel...

I don't know what you mean. Can you explain? I am not familiar with Extreme Cheapskates.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spork on September 12, 2014, 01:22:50 PM
Short answer: I guess I would, because I have.  But, oldtoyota, I have the same icky feelings about it.  It feels like a guilty until proven innocent thing.

I've also known a handful of folks that do recreational drugs "responsibly". (I'm not sure if that's the right phrasing... What I mean is that it does not interfere with their job). 
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: frugaliknowit on September 12, 2014, 01:27:02 PM
Employers have the upper hand, especially in this job market.  Yes, I would and have.  I DO think grass should be excluded from the screen, especially in states where it is 100% legal.  They don't screen for booze, do they?  A severe alcoholic can pass and someone who takes a few tokes might fail!
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: NoraLenderbee on September 12, 2014, 01:32:30 PM
I had to do it for my last job. It didn't really bother me, except for the time that it took. I don't use recreational drugs. However, having to take it with all the rigmarole proved a good indicator of what working for the company would be like.

It does bother me that you can fail the test because you used drugs on the weekend, even if you never are impaired at work. Of course you don't want to hire someone who can't stay off cocaine or alcohol for a couple of days (or is so stupid as to show up for the test with it in their system.) But marijuana leaves traces in your system for a long time after the effects are completely gone.

Quote
Not that they're necessarily LOOKING for it, but couldn't they tell if you were pregnant or not from a urine test?

Drug tests look for certain specific indicators. A pregnancy test looks for different indicators. They don't have one single test that shows everything in your pee--you'd have to run both tests. Which they don't do because it costs more.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: fa on September 12, 2014, 01:33:10 PM

As to jezebel's point, why should a company even care whether or not one of their employees is a functioning drug addict? It's the non-functioning ones you should want to weed out, and this should be possible through less invasive means.

An addict is, well... addicted.  They are no longer in control.  I think functional in that context means "able to hide".  You probably mean a recreational user, who uses occasionally but it still in control of his use.

I don't understand why peeing in a cup is so gross.  My doctor wants a urine sample every time I go for a physilycal.  Such as to test for diabetes.  I thought this was a common practice, no?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Caoineag on September 12, 2014, 01:35:53 PM
Only if I understood the relevance to the job and really wanted to work there. I currently work in a field where drug screening is not common and would not work for any employer who does. That said, when I was younger, I did agree to a screening when I was applying to work as an assistant at a nursing home. Too easy access to drugs to hire drug addicts.

The big issue with drug screening is most drugs pass from your system quickly except for marijuana which lasts for a very long time. As I would consider cocaine and various other illegal drugs more concerning, I consider drug screening to be rather inefficient and inaccurate (i.e., better not like poppy seeds).
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 12, 2014, 01:38:27 PM
You're all looking at this the wrong way.  The existence of these tests are actually a boon.  As a drug free person I now have a new revenue *ahem* stream to tap into - selling clean urine!
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Jellyfish on September 12, 2014, 01:40:11 PM
How much do you value your "won't pee in a cup" principles? How much do you value this job opportunity?  How standard is drug testing in this particular industry?

I would personally pee in the cup and move on but that's just me.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Pigeon on September 12, 2014, 01:42:31 PM
I also think drug testing should be illegal without cause.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: guitar_stitch on September 12, 2014, 01:44:19 PM
I get tested regularly.  Due to my long hair, status as a musician, and the fact that routinely test clean, I am the perfect candidate for being tested because I break stereotypes and make their numbers look good.

It's not terrible walking down the hallway with a cup of coffee in one hand and a cup of piss in the other... so long as you do not confuse the two.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: usmarine1975 on September 12, 2014, 01:46:31 PM
Military members are subject to pee test on a regular basis.  6 years in the Reserves with 2 deployments and I can't remember a full drilling period in which a pee test wasn't conducted.  Ironically one of my friends if you talked to him you would think he was high just by his demeanor but he never was.  Was randomly selected just about every time.  We always joked and carried on about the random part.  The part I didn't enjoy is that some of the watchers actually got into watching.  Yea wasn't so into that.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: foobar on September 12, 2014, 01:47:30 PM

As to jezebel's point, why should a company even care whether or not one of their employees is a functioning drug addict? It's the non-functioning ones you should want to weed out, and this should be possible through less invasive means.

Who is more likely to become a nonfunctioning addict. The function addict or the nonuser? In some jobs there is liability issues(i.e. if the bus drivers tox screen after an accident comes positive, do you want to be the company arguing that the driver wasn't on drugs and that they were from the party last night?) and security issues. Drug testing is a basic CYA move.


I am far more concerned with NDA and property ownership agreements than piss in a cup.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Shann106 on September 12, 2014, 01:52:46 PM
Salacious thread title! Agreed that it's gross. I had a job opportunity at age 18 that was $3-4 more per hour than my mall job. They asked us to take a lengthy survey where they asked 100+ questions about drug use, ethics, etc etc. I said I didn't do drugs (the truth). At the end they had a question about willingness to submit to a drug test and I said "Nope. You asked me over and over again about drug use and I answered honestly. I will not take a drug test as well."

One other thing that's always given me pause: Not that they're necessarily LOOKING for it, but couldn't they tell if you were pregnant or not from a urine test?

No, as an RN who is also a certified drug screen collector / trainer I can assure you that drug screens only test for a selected number of drugs, there is never a pregnancy test done, period.
It is common place for almost every industry I know to drug screen new employees. I have taken drug screens for every job I have ever had, even before I was a nurse, and I have collected thousands upon thousands of drug screens over the years. My opinion is that if that is the companies policy then that's the policy, if you want to work there you are required to follow policy, if you don't want to submit urine for a drug screen then they are free to not employee you. Many large companies have a policy where. Refusal to submit is viewed the same as a positive test.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: EricL on September 12, 2014, 02:19:15 PM
I peed in a cup for the Army for an entire career.  While I understood why I HATED it.  It was degrading and embarrassing.  Unless you're in a job field that entails a huge amount of responsibility or can pee comfortably in front of strangers it's totally unnecessary.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: RyanAtTanagra on September 12, 2014, 02:24:41 PM
I do see such tests as degrading and dehumanizing. Given the number of companies in my industry that have no such requirement, asking me to pee in a cup would likely be a dealbreaker at this point in my career.

This.  I've taken them before earlier in my career when I had less options and really wanted/needed the job, but now with having some FU money I don't think I would put up with it.  I work at a desk, it's beyond stupid and insulting.  So it basically depends on how much you want the job and how strict you are with your principles.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: libertarian4321 on September 12, 2014, 02:28:48 PM
I peed in a cup for the Army for an entire career.  While I understood why I HATED it.  It was degrading and embarrassing.  Unless you're in a job field that entails a huge amount of responsibility or can pee comfortably in front of strangers it's totally unnecessary.

Agreed.

It's ridiculous (and expensive) to test everyone.

If someone is screwing up, or done something suspect, and his job would somehow be affected if he was a drug user, then go ahead and test him.

But routinely testing everyone is a waste of time and money.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Eric on September 12, 2014, 02:34:13 PM
In college I submitted to one that I was pretty sure I'd fail.  But hey, those things are expensive and fuck them for thinking that it's necessary.  I wanted to see what the results would be, but sadly it was only a pass/fail sort of thing.  A list would've been more interesting.

(note, not a current place I was working)

There's a 0% chance that I'd capitulate today.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: DollarsAndDissonance on September 12, 2014, 02:35:32 PM
I think it's generally within an employer's rights to ask you to consent to drug or alcohol testing.  Breath alcohol testing makes sense to me.  It's a huge liability concern if someone operating large machinery or driving a delivery truck is intoxicated on the job.

As an employer, I find drug use information nearly irrelevant, especially in a professional context.  I think it's degrading, and some of the smartest, most effective professionals with whom I've worked have been heavy users of all sorts of stuff (marijuana, adderall, harder drugs...).

One of my good friends worked in the marketing department for a major (S&P 500-listed) U.S. company.  Before she started, they demanded not just urine, but a HAIR sample drug test, which apparently lets them test drug use for a much longer time period.  As a casual smoker, she spent a ton of time researching online and had her hair bleached and colored multiple times to basically totally destroy any trace of it.  She passed the test and was one of their best employees.

That's actually an interesting consideration from an employer's point of view: by mandating drug tests for all employees, you are actually substantially reducing the pool of high-potential people who might work for you.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: GetItRight on September 12, 2014, 02:44:29 PM
I value ethics and integrity highly. I do not use recreational or prescription drugs and only very rarely use over the counter drugs. Not that drug use has anything to do with ethics or integrity, but my choice is not to use them.

I never have and would not take a drug test. It shows lack or trust without a reasonable cause and let's me know it would likely be a toxic work environment. I have turned down a couple entry level jobs when I was starting out when they requested a drug test. I suppose for enough money I'd do a urine test... Would have to be a lot of money though, like pretty well into six figures.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: usmarine1975 on September 12, 2014, 02:48:33 PM
The interesting thing for my Unit was the guys that were using or smoking dope just went UA for the drill period if they were selected and took punishment for that and never had to complete the pee test.  It was a huge waste of time and money.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: oldtoyota on September 12, 2014, 03:05:39 PM
I had to do it for my last job. It didn't really bother me, except for the time that it took. I don't use recreational drugs. However, having to take it with all the rigmarole proved a good indicator of what working for the company would be like.

It does bother me that you can fail the test because you used drugs on the weekend, even if you never are impaired at work. Of course you don't want to hire someone who can't stay off cocaine or alcohol for a couple of days (or is so stupid as to show up for the test with it in their system.) But marijuana leaves traces in your system for a long time after the effects are completely gone.

Quote
Not that they're necessarily LOOKING for it, but couldn't they tell if you were pregnant or not from a urine test?

Drug tests look for certain specific indicators. A pregnancy test looks for different indicators. They don't have one single test that shows everything in your pee--you'd have to run both tests. Which they don't do because it costs more.

What really bothered me about it was how I was treated. At the "pee center," they acted like I was going to cheat and like I was guilty.

Another time I took a test, the man was extremely rude to me but then got nicer when he found out we live in the same part of town (not the fancy part). The employer had actually told me I needed to come in to "fill out paperwork" before I started the job. I said I was going out of town and could it wait. They said it was vital. Eventually, I persuaded them it would be fine for me to fill out the paperwork when I started the job. I did not want to spend my own unpaid time filling out papers. When I started the job, an HR person greeted me in the front lobby with a slip of paper telling me I had a week to pee in a cup and then she ran away in embarrassment.

This happened at a large newspaper you all have heard of. It was gross. I could not get past the fact the HR person had lied to me about "paperwork." I used to love that paper and unsubscribed from them recently.


Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: oldtoyota on September 12, 2014, 03:06:49 PM
You're all looking at this the wrong way.  The existence of these tests are actually a boon.  As a drug free person I now have a new revenue *ahem* stream to tap into - selling clean urine!

You have to come up with a way to keep it the right temperature.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: oldtoyota on September 12, 2014, 03:09:53 PM
I value ethics and integrity highly. I do not use recreational or prescription drugs and only very rarely use over the counter drugs. Not that drug use has anything to do with ethics or integrity, but my choice is not to use them.

I never have and would not take a drug test. It shows lack or trust without a reasonable cause and let's me know it would likely be a toxic work environment. I have turned down a couple entry level jobs when I was starting out when they requested a drug test. I suppose for enough money I'd do a urine test... Would have to be a lot of money though, like pretty well into six figures.

It is interesting that so many of you say it's common to be tested. I've only been tested twice. Both places were completely messed up, so maybe there's a relation between wasting money on drug tests and not managing your company well…
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: seattlecyclone on September 12, 2014, 03:10:59 PM
Salacious thread title! Agreed that it's gross. I had a job opportunity at age 18 that was $3-4 more per hour than my mall job. They asked us to take a lengthy survey where they asked 100+ questions about drug use, ethics, etc etc. I said I didn't do drugs (the truth). At the end they had a question about willingness to submit to a drug test and I said "Nope. You asked me over and over again about drug use and I answered honestly. I will not take a drug test as well."

One other thing that's always given me pause: Not that they're necessarily LOOKING for it, but couldn't they tell if you were pregnant or not from a urine test?

No, as an RN who is also a certified drug screen collector / trainer I can assure you that drug screens only test for a selected number of drugs, there is never a pregnancy test done, period.
It is common place for almost every industry I know to drug screen new employees. I have taken drug screens for every job I have ever had, even before I was a nurse, and I have collected thousands upon thousands of drug screens over the years. My opinion is that if that is the companies policy then that's the policy, if you want to work there you are required to follow policy, if you don't want to submit urine for a drug screen then they are free to not employee you. Many large companies have a policy where. Refusal to submit is viewed the same as a positive test.

I'm aware pretty much every company has a policy against drug use. Of course you don't want your employees intoxicated on the job. I have also worked at companies that reserve the right to require a test if they suspect you're intoxicated at work. Seems fair enough.

However, I see little justification for routine testing as part of the job interview process. It's a privacy matter. What someone does on their own time should be none of the employer's business. I like to read science fiction novels on the weekends. Other people like to smoke pot. To each their own. Neither of these activities has any relevance to a person's ability to perform their job during the week. Just as I wouldn't appreciate having a job interviewer take a look at my home bookshelf to make sure that nothing from company disallowed genres is present there, I wouldn't appreciate being asked to affirmatively prove there are no traces of disapproved drugs in my system in order to get a job.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spork on September 12, 2014, 03:12:55 PM
You're all looking at this the wrong way.  The existence of these tests are actually a boon.  As a drug free person I now have a new revenue *ahem* stream to tap into - selling clean urine!

You have to come up with a way to keep it the right temperature.

There are actually entire product lines dedicated to making this work in a convincing manner.  Google "whizzinator" for one example.   It is stored in a thin bag right next to the body to keep it at body temp.  (Never used it... don't need to...  but find it a little humorous.)
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Eric on September 12, 2014, 03:35:27 PM
Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode -- (2 parts, 1:30 each)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxI9yy8Fn2A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFqOSa7u0dA

Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: isbjshaffer on September 12, 2014, 03:51:36 PM
I've had to pee in a cup for any legitimate job I've been offered and consent to a background check. I have nothing to hide and it's money out of their pocket. I also like the security of knowing that there won't be a bunch of drug addicts at my new workplace. 
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Eric on September 12, 2014, 03:53:25 PM
I also like the security of knowing that there won't be a bunch of drug addicts at my new workplace.

How would you know that?  It was only a one time test, right?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spartana on September 12, 2014, 04:05:43 PM
Functioning drug addicts are actually very difficult to spot unless you are trained in that area.  Many private and public employees are drug tested.  It's your decision whether to work for a company that does so.
^ one +

Whether a drug addict or a drug user, there may be certain risks when it comes to dealing with money, property, info, safety, etc.. that your potential employer may feel are not safe to handle for someone who uses drugs. Whether due to negligence, theft or other reasons. There is no way to weed out a casual user from an abuser in many cases. The blood or urine test won't likely tell the difference. Plus MJ is still illegal at a federal level even though some states have legalized it, so if the company choses to follow federal guidelines, then any usage will not be allowed as a condition of employment.

As for myself, I had regularly required urine tests on my jobs as part of the job as well as for security clearances.  I never had an "ick!" moment. I generally went to a medical center bathroom to do my business (and yes, there was a female attendant more or less watching so no switchies). Of course I was active duty in the Coast Guard so  got direct contact with "the goods" during any drug interdiction. Guess it was their way of making sure we didn't partake (kept our noses clean ha ha) on that long slow ship ride back to a port when we were surrounded by a few tons of smokable or sniffable fun :-)!
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: BlueMR2 on September 12, 2014, 04:08:37 PM
I do not take illegal drugs--or even those recently made legal in many areas--and am insulted when a company wants my urine.

It's urine. Ew. That is my first experience of the company? Peeing in a cup?

Seems like a bad way to start a relationship. Anyone else feel the same way?

I don't mind if they want to see if I have bad credit and whatnot, but the urine thing is just gross.

Also, what am I to think of a person who can't tell if someone is a drug addict? I think it's fairly obvious to spot them...

I have, when I returned to a company I had left a couple years before.  I also got pulled for a random there in the years I've been back.  It does have a very negative impact on employee trust and morale, but there are some industries where the risk from having someone on drugs is just too high to tolerate anymore (think heavy manufacturing).

It's also not as bad as some people think.  You don't have to whip it out or pop a squat right in front of people or anything.

That said though, if you can't tell someone is on drugs/they're high functioning, do you really care if they're on drugs?  There's an awful lot of non-drug users that are clumsy, negligent, and thieves...
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: DollarBill on September 12, 2014, 05:08:46 PM
Only on deployments...it's too far to the bathrooms when you wake up in the middle of the night (Military humor) :)
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Emilyngh on September 12, 2014, 05:28:58 PM
No, unless my current circumstances change dramatically and I'm desperate for the job to feed my family, it would be a deal breaker.

To me, it is a strong indication that the company does not respect my personal rights to privacy, does not assume that I'm good/innocent until shown otherwise, believes that our business agreement gives them the right to infringe on me as a person, and would be a very bad sign. 

 I have gotten so spoiled regarding autonomy at work that I would not react well to my company making rules about the hours I work (outside of times that are clearly required for meetings or other specific tasks), or what I wear, or a company that would take issue with me criticizing policies or even management.   

Considering that I'm used to working somewhere I expect to be able to wear what I want, come and go as I please, and tell my boss that her plans sound like a terrible idea, I can't imagine reacting well to have to pee in a cup. 
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: JENRETIRE on September 12, 2014, 05:30:50 PM
It surprises me how many people are offended by this, maybe because I've never had to do one, but it seems so minor, it definitely wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

I do think in certain industries it's much more common. At my husband's business every new employee is screened, as well as anytime anyone is injured on the job and requires medical attention (large CNC machinery). I don't think any potential employee has ever declined. I should ask though, maybe I'm wrong :)
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: JENRETIRE on September 12, 2014, 05:41:31 PM
I do not take illegal drugs--or even those recently made legal in many areas--and am insulted when a company wants my urine.

It's urine. Ew. That is my first experience of the company? Peeing in a cup?

Seems like a bad way to start a relationship. Anyone else feel the same way?

I don't mind if they want to see if I have bad credit and whatnot, but the urine thing is just gross.

Also, what am I to think of a person who can't tell if someone is a drug addict? I think it's fairly obvious to spot them...

I have, when I returned to a company I had left a couple years before.  I also got pulled for a random there in the years I've been back.  It does have a very negative impact on employee trust and morale, but there are some industries where the risk from having someone on drugs is just too high to tolerate anymore (think heavy manufacturing).

It's also not as bad as some people think.  You don't have to whip it out or pop a squat right in front of people or anything.

That said though, if you can't tell someone is on drugs/they're high functioning, do you really care if they're on drugs?  There's an awful lot of non-drug users that are clumsy, negligent, and thieves...

Until there is an accident. An employee on drugs or alcohol who is involved in an accident is going to open up a whole new can of worms.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: seattlecyclone on September 12, 2014, 05:59:02 PM
In addition to privacy, it's a matter of trust. I do not want to work in a place where management and employees cannot trust each other. I agree to follow company policies when I start a new job. Being asked to take a drug test without any reason to suspect I'm intoxicated is a major red flag, showing that mutual distrust is a major part of the company culture. No thanks.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Emilyngh on September 12, 2014, 06:00:17 PM
It surprises me how many people are offended by this, maybe because I've never had to do one, but it seems so minor, it definitely wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

I cannot wrap my mind around this; it all seems so egregious to me.  *Giving your employer a cup of your urine*,  so that they can *chemically test your urine*, because *they think it's their right to know what you might have put into your body* although there is *no evidence that any of it was imbibed while working or on their premises*. 
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Simple Abundant Living on September 12, 2014, 06:02:53 PM
I did to work in a hospital setting.  There were strict rules about purses and temperature, but I didn't have to pee in front of anyone.  I'm not sure if that's standard practice somewhere.  I didn't see anything wrong or offensive with it, and if I were a patient, I would want the people working around me to be clean and sober.

Interestingly now, I work at a pain clinic and we make our patients on controlled substances submit to random urine drug tests.  When they hired me, they didn't have me do one!  Just thinking about this made me realize how weird that is.  A lot of new patients (especially older patients) are offended by it, but it is part of our protocol and liability protection.  I just figure if you have nothing to hide, it's not a problem.  And yes, we do catch people trying to cheat the test.  I happen to live in a state that is like an island of non-legal THC use, surrounded by states that have legalized it.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: DollarBill on September 12, 2014, 06:13:34 PM
(http://cdn.newadnetwork.com/sites/prod/files/uploads/sskinner/robfordmeme.jpg)

I don't think they should test if someone is still productive. What could be the down side? Wake up you stoners! 
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: fantabulous on September 12, 2014, 06:44:09 PM
It surprises me how many people are offended by this, maybe because I've never had to do one, but it seems so minor, it definitely wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

I do think in certain industries it's much more common. At my husband's business every new employee is screened, as well as anytime anyone is injured on the job and requires medical attention (large CNC machinery). I don't think any potential employee has ever declined. I should ask though, maybe I'm wrong :)

It very much depends on the job/industry someone is in, as you stated. As a run of the mill IT worker (as in not working for a three letter organization or with particularly sensitive information) I'd submit to one in my current financial state, but start looking for another job immediately. A few years down the line with a healthy 'stache and FU money, I might poop in the cup and hand that in as my resignation letter. In my field especially, drug testing for the sake of drug testing indicates a toxic work environment. I realize this is from the perspective of, for lack of a better phrase, a special snowflake of an IT worker. I'd be totally fine with it* in other situations/fields where the need is clear, rather than being an indication of a company that's just going to be awful to work for.

*: Totally fine with the reason for it. All kinds of potential for offense if I have to be watched, since I'm trans.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: DollarBill on September 12, 2014, 06:51:24 PM
It surprises me how many people are offended by this, maybe because I've never had to do one, but it seems so minor, it definitely wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

I do think in certain industries it's much more common. At my husband's business every new employee is screened, as well as anytime anyone is injured on the job and requires medical attention (large CNC machinery). I don't think any potential employee has ever declined. I should ask though, maybe I'm wrong :)

It very much depends on the job/industry someone is in, as you stated. As a run of the mill IT worker (as in not working for a three letter organization or with particularly sensitive information) I'd submit to one in my current financial state, but start looking for another job immediately. A few years down the line with a healthy 'stache and FU money, I might poop in the cup and hand that in as my resignation letter. In my field especially, drug testing for the sake of drug testing indicates a toxic work environment. I realize this is from the perspective of, for lack of a better phrase, a special snowflake of an IT worker. I'd be totally fine with it* in other situations/fields where the need is clear, rather than being an indication of a company that's just going to be awful to work for.

*: Totally fine with the reason for it. All kinds of potential for offense if I have to be watched, since I'm trans.
That would make an epic FU story...lol
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Emilyngh on September 12, 2014, 06:51:34 PM
  I just figure if you have nothing to hide, it's not a problem. 

(http://www.tarborotimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/overly-attached-girlfriend-meme-nsa-meme-nothing-to-hide.jpg)
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Zamboni on September 12, 2014, 06:53:41 PM
rofl at the poop in the cup idea! 

I think you are all missing the boat on a key point:  in cases like desk jobs, stock boy at your local grocery, etc., employers are primarily drug testing for health insurance premium reasons.  My brother owns a company and covering his employees is much cheaper if they all pass a drug test.  So there you go.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: minkcar on September 12, 2014, 06:56:30 PM
I work in a hospital. I don't find it particularly gross. There have been cases of surgeons and anesthesiologists on narcotics while operating, and patients have died. I'm completely okay with mandatory drug testing as a condition of employment. I'm even a bit surprised we don't have periodic testing.

I think it all comes down to how much risk is involved in the job.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Eric on September 12, 2014, 08:08:49 PM
I did to work in a hospital setting.  There were strict rules about purses and temperature, but I didn't have to pee in front of anyone.  I'm not sure if that's standard practice somewhere.  I didn't see anything wrong or offensive with it, and if I were a patient, I would want the people working around me to be clean and sober.

I think we all would.  The problem is that drug tests don't measure sobriety.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: pipercat on September 12, 2014, 08:49:38 PM
Doesn't bother me at all.  I've never really thought that much about it, so it certainly doesn't offend me.  I don't really remember how many times I've been required to do it, though.  At least a few times I guess.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sol on September 12, 2014, 08:54:41 PM
I cannot wrap my mind around this; it all seems so egregious to me.  *Giving your employer a cup of your urine*,  so that they can *chemically test your urine*, because *they think it's their right to know what you might have put into your body* although there is *no evidence that any of it was imbibed while working or on their premises*.

I'm kind of surprised to see so many different people express this opinion.  I've never taken a drug test, but I would gladly consent to one.  You always have the choice of declining employment by anyone who wants to test you.

Is there really no job you can think of that you think should be able to require drug testing?  Would you hire a full time live-in nanny if you knew she was a heavy heroin user but currently appeared to be a functional addict?  Would you vote for a President known to be self-medicating his crippling depression with illegal opiates?  Should Barry Bonds be allowed in the Hall of Fame?

In some jobs (like spies) the no-drugs policy has nothing to do with potential on-the-job performance, and everything to do with your perceived security risk.  Are you the kind of person who is subject to blackmail?  Could a foreign intelligence operative potentially use your drug habit to influence your judgment, or convince you to divulge secret information?  Drug use is still seen in some circles as a proxy for character flaws, at least in circles where "character" means blind obedience to authority and not rocking the boat.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Simple Abundant Living on September 12, 2014, 09:10:12 PM
I did to work in a hospital setting.  There were strict rules about purses and temperature, but I didn't have to pee in front of anyone.  I'm not sure if that's standard practice somewhere.  I didn't see anything wrong or offensive with it, and if I were a patient, I would want the people working around me to be clean and sober.

I think we all would.  The problem is that drug tests don't measure sobriety.

I meant sobriety by this definition.

"Sobriety is the condition of not having any measurable levels, or effects from mood-altering drugs."
Source- Wikipedia.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Emilyngh on September 12, 2014, 09:25:08 PM
  You always have the choice of declining employment by anyone who wants to test you.

Yes, as I would (which I thought was basically what the OP was asking-who would not consent to this).

Is there really no job you can think of that you think should be able to require drug testing?  Would you hire a full time live-in nanny if you knew she was a heavy heroin user but currently appeared to be a functional addict?  Would you vote for a President known to be self-medicating his crippling depression with illegal opiates?  Should Barry Bonds be allowed in the Hall of Fame?


There is no job that  I can think of that I would want to have where I could imagine drug testing being justified.   If I knew a nanny were a heavy heroin user, then no, I would not hire her.   But, clearly there was enough evidence to "know" without testing her in this case, so what would the point of a piss test be?   I would not insist that someone else who has given no signs of issues have their privacy violated in the name of my paranoia (and if there are signs of issues, I wouldn't hire, drug test or not).   

And I'm not sure what level of drug use under what circumstances would influence my vote for the President and by how much, it would all depend.    But, again, this would only be influenced by drug issues that are known b/c their are some other indications of them (although like I said, how much they'd even matter then would depend).   I wouldn't support urine drug tests of the President.

And I don't know who Barry Bonds is, nor do I care at all about whether or not he's in some hall of fame, regardless he uses or has used drugs (which I'm assuming is why he was mentioned).

In some jobs (like spies) the no-drugs policy has nothing to do with potential on-the-job performance, and everything to do with your perceived security risk.  Are you the kind of person who is subject to blackmail?  Could a foreign intelligence operative potentially use your drug habit to influence your judgment, or convince you to divulge secret information?  Drug use is still seen in some circles as a proxy for character flaws, at least in circles where "character" means blind obedience to authority and not rocking the boat.

I disagree with it indicating anything about "character," but as far as perceived security risk, I assume that if one has such a drug problem that they could be blackmailed about it, it will show up through other crazy-ass behavior, finances, and other things that a high level security clearance would show.  If not, I question our security clearance processes, and adding a piss test certainly isn't going to fix them.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Eric on September 12, 2014, 11:06:11 PM
I did to work in a hospital setting.  There were strict rules about purses and temperature, but I didn't have to pee in front of anyone.  I'm not sure if that's standard practice somewhere.  I didn't see anything wrong or offensive with it, and if I were a patient, I would want the people working around me to be clean and sober.

I think we all would.  The problem is that drug tests don't measure sobriety.

I meant sobriety by this definition.

"Sobriety is the condition of not having any measurable levels, or effects from mood-altering drugs."
Source- Wikipedia.

Hey, me too!  There are absolutely no measurable effects from smoking a joint the next day, let alone three weeks later.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: CerebralPrimate on September 13, 2014, 01:21:13 AM
As prior military and doing lots of defense type work since, I got used to it long ago. Just like getting shots... if ya do it enough, you learn to deal with it. I've probably had my "middle east" shot sets about 4 or 5 times now. Meh, just jab me and get it over with, I gotta go pee in a cup, then hop a plane to the big sandbox so I can work on my early retirement...
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: DollarBill on September 13, 2014, 02:54:27 AM
As prior military and doing lots of defense type work since, I got used to it long ago. Just like getting shots... if ya do it enough, you learn to deal with it. I've probably had my "middle east" shot sets about 4 or 5 times now. Meh, just jab me and get it over with, I gotta go pee in a cup, then hop a plane to the big sandbox so I can work on my early retirement...

Them: Sir, it's time for your anthrax shot, smallpox shot, pee test.
Me: Can I refuse to do it?
Them: No
Me: All righty then...four shots at the same visit...sure! lol
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: totoro on September 13, 2014, 06:10:11 AM
I didn't realize drug testing was so common in the US. 

In Canada you can only require it for safety-sensitive positions like operating heavy equipment - and maybe places like the military - not sure about that.  Our health insurance rates are not tied to this as we have universal health care.  I actually don't know anyone who has been drug tested personally, although ferry workers are subject to testing randomly.

If I was asked to submit to a drug test and I wanted the job I really wouldn't care.  I don't do drugs and I don't particularly want to work with those who are impaired so I'd have zero objection to the whole thing.  Peeing in a cup seems pretty minor to me.

I can understand if you smoke pot it would get in the way of your decision to do so, or the job you would accept, but I'm not too fussed about it if it is illegal in your state.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: astvilla on September 13, 2014, 06:55:59 AM
Of course I would, won't delve into personal beliefs or politics but would you want your ER doctor, surgeon, nurse, or pharmacist to have a history of abuse and have the chance of being intoxicated while your guts are falling out? Or maybe getting a much lower dose of pain killers because someone took a little themselves before administering to you? NO. And I know of cases where healthcare workers have done that. What about the pilot of the plane you are in? Or the bus driver, truck driver? NO.

Sometimes people feel they know themselves well but not as much they think. It takes just one lapse of judgment to ruin everything and hurt others. Of course urine screens don't prevent all accidents, and it's probably more important in certain jobs where one has to be more professional. But it beats getting tested with blood. I'm just not a fan of the time it takes and long lines. And if employer asks for a urine drug screen, it could mean they had problems with employees who were once abusers. I guess it's the ones who do drugs but are "responsible" that worry the most.

A little surprised how many are against it. It's not a big deal IMO but if you're someone who makes a big fuss about a pee test not sure you're someone I feel is mature enough or someone I'd like to work with on the chance (small, but higher than average) that drug use could impair your performance and image.  And then there's issue of health insurance coverage. Really it's all about risk in the end and it's normal for people to look after their bottom line.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Simple Abundant Living on September 13, 2014, 07:12:07 AM
I did to work in a hospital setting.  There were strict rules about purses and temperature, but I didn't have to pee in front of anyone.  I'm not sure if that's standard practice somewhere.  I didn't see anything wrong or offensive with it, and if I were a patient, I would want the people working around me to be clean and sober.

I think we all would.  The problem is that drug tests don't measure sobriety.

I meant sobriety by this definition.

"Sobriety is the condition of not having any measurable levels, or effects from mood-altering drugs."
Source- Wikipedia.

Hey, me too!  There are absolutely no measurable effects from smoking a joint the next day, let alone three weeks later.

Three weeks later, the measurable effect is that the THC indicator will still be positive.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: AccidentalMiser on September 13, 2014, 07:15:23 AM
I do not take illegal drugs--or even those recently made legal in many areas--and am insulted when a company wants my urine.

It's urine. Ew. That is my first experience of the company? Peeing in a cup?

Seems like a bad way to start a relationship. Anyone else feel the same way?

I don't mind if they want to see if I have bad credit and whatnot, but the urine thing is just gross.

Also, what am I to think of a person who can't tell if someone is a drug addict? I think it's fairly obvious to spot them...

I've been in nuclear power since graduating high school, first in the Navy, then commercial.  I've peed in a cup a hundred times for work.  After while, it's just no big deal to me.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: wtjbatman on September 13, 2014, 07:55:09 AM
This thread does a great job of weeding out (no pun intended) those who work in IT/Engineering jobs and think a UA is somehow degrading, disgusting, or violates their privacy... and those who have worked retail/manufacturing/military and UAs are done either at time of hire (every retail job I've had), or during employment for different reasons (when I was in private security for a manufacturing company).

It's actually really interesting reading the different responses and expectations of people.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Kriegsspiel on September 13, 2014, 08:41:56 AM
This thread does a great job of weeding out (no pun intended) those who work in IT/Engineering jobs and think a UA is somehow degrading, disgusting, or violates their privacy... and those who have worked retail/manufacturing/military and UAs are done either at time of hire (every retail job I've had), or during employment for different reasons (when I was in private security for a manufacturing company).

It's actually really interesting reading the different responses and expectations of people.

For true. I mean, degrading is when you were looking forward to taking a majoir dump when you came in before PT, and got redirected to the piss test :( #poopshame
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: socaso on September 13, 2014, 08:50:44 AM
I would not mind taking a drug test to get a job but I refuse to work for a company that forces its employees to submit to random and ongoing drug testing. That level of mistrust and paranoia on the part of the company is something I could not live with. A guy I knew in college worked for a company that did that and he was constantly on edge about the drug testing.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: totoro on September 13, 2014, 09:12:39 AM
No reason to be on edge if you don't do drugs.  When you are going to be subject to random drug testing for work why engage at all given the downside unless you are addicted, in which case maybe it is time to get some help.   
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Mega on September 13, 2014, 09:18:03 AM
It is an interesting situation. I dont think they can force you to do that in Canada.

For a different perspective, I am surprised that companies actually do this, as it could open them up to potential lawsuits for discrimination based on medical conditions (Think protected groups). Think about if they test urine for legal drugs: depression, diabetes,  ADD, etc.

Not to mention there are a number of food and other drugs that cause false positives.

Either way, piss in a cup for them if you want the job.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: trailrated on September 13, 2014, 09:19:26 AM
My company drug tests employees picked at random every month. For us it is required to keep our insurance prices down. The drivers all operate trucks that are roughly 60,000lbs when loaded. It is a safety issue, if anybody tests positive they are fired on the spot. Partially for insurance purposes, but also for safety. If someone was high on something operating a truck and killed someone or potentially more than one person we would be liable. Making someone pee in a cup to prevent that is well worth it.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: totoro on September 13, 2014, 09:21:19 AM
If your position is safety-sensitive they can indeed require drug-testing in Canada.  Ex. operating big mining equipment or ferry boats.

They cannot require you to do it otherwise.

They don't test for anything other than illegal drugs, they are not permitted to.

Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: mm1970 on September 13, 2014, 09:43:14 AM
I was in the Navy for 5 years, subject to random drug tests - with a spectator so you couldn't cheat.  So no, it doesn't bother me.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Eric on September 13, 2014, 02:06:10 PM
Would you submit to a blood test?  Would you submit to a genital exam?  Why not?  It keeps our insurance rates low by weeding out those with poor genes and STDs.  If you don't have an STD, you should have no problem spreading your legs.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: totoro on September 13, 2014, 04:01:39 PM
Very different context. 

There is already legislation to protect the security of medical information which belongs to the patient and relates to health status.  There is law on genetic discrimination in the US: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

Some private insurers do require blood tests prior to setting your rate or insuring you - mine did.  They also ask detailed questions about your parents health status and grandparents.   How far this should go?  I would argue we shouldn't discriminate based on DNA information, but it is reasonable to pay more when you have a known medical condition.

Being high on drugs at work when you drive a big truck is absolutely preventable - yep, I support such testing.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Kriegsspiel on September 13, 2014, 04:46:30 PM
Would you submit to a blood test?  Would you submit to a genital exam?  Why not?  It keeps our insurance rates low by weeding out those with poor genes and STDs.  If you don't have an STD, you should have no problem spreading your legs.

Fuck yea I would, I am the ubermensch.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Johnez on September 13, 2014, 06:22:09 PM

There is no job that  I can think of that I would want to have where I could imagine drug testing being justified.   If I knew a nanny were a heavy heroin user, then no, I would not hire her.   But, clearly there was enough evidence to "know" without testing her in this case, so what would the point of a piss test be?   I would not insist that someone else who has given no signs of issues have their privacy violated in the name of my paranoia (and if there are signs of issues, I wouldn't hire, drug test or not).   


How would you actually know?  Through her physical appearance?  Would you simply assume she was a drug addict because she fit the profile, or would you ask her some questions?  I know many "happy" people who are heavily medicated, legally or not.  Things aren't always what they seem.  People can lie, and people can assume.  Both are wrong.  The piss test kind of shuts both avenues down.

I disagree with it indicating anything about "character," but as far as perceived security risk, I assume that if one has such a drug problem that they could be blackmailed about it, it will show up through other crazy-ass behavior, finances, and other things that a high level security clearance would show.  If not, I question our security clearance processes, and adding a piss test certainly isn't going to fix them.

Piss test isn't meant to be 100% of the picture.  It part of a system of redundancies.  One part fails, the other part picks up the slack.

***

I'm a live and let live guy, but I think companies have the right to hold their judgements.  If I have a company, I really don't care who does drugs, but I care about the people I hire NOT doing them.  On their own free time, or not.  Some like to point to the slippery slope argument of "what's next, a blood test, etc..." well, I'll go the other direction-what is considered "acceptable"?  Using pot one hour before work, 2...3 hours?  How much is acceptable?  A toke?  A joint?  A bowl?  Some people are fine and responsible about it, but there is a reason behind most laws.  Some idiot pushed a limit somewhere.  Someone probably got hurt.  In the old days, maybe it would have been worth the risk to be "cool" about stuff like this, in this hyperlitigious atmosphere would you blame companies for being on the aggressive end of keeping things safe?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: oldtoyota on September 13, 2014, 07:06:58 PM
I cannot wrap my mind around this; it all seems so egregious to me.  *Giving your employer a cup of your urine*,  so that they can *chemically test your urine*, because *they think it's their right to know what you might have put into your body* although there is *no evidence that any of it was imbibed while working or on their premises*.

I'm kind of surprised to see so many different people express this opinion.  I've never taken a drug test, but I would gladly consent to one.  You always have the choice of declining employment by anyone who wants to test you.

Is there really no job you can think of that you think should be able to require drug testing?  Would you hire a full time live-in nanny if you knew she was a heavy heroin user but currently appeared to be a functional addict?  Would you vote for a President known to be self-medicating his crippling depression with illegal opiates?  Should Barry Bonds be allowed in the Hall of Fame?

In some jobs (like spies) the no-drugs policy has nothing to do with potential on-the-job performance, and everything to do with your perceived security risk.  Are you the kind of person who is subject to blackmail?  Could a foreign intelligence operative potentially use your drug habit to influence your judgment, or convince you to divulge secret information?  Drug use is still seen in some circles as a proxy for character flaws, at least in circles where "character" means blind obedience to authority and not rocking the boat.

Wow. I am surprised at this response from you. Weren't you the one who will not wear a suit because it feels like slavery? Yet, you'll give up your urine? I am not criticizing…just really surprised.

Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: oldtoyota on September 13, 2014, 07:14:08 PM
This thread does a great job of weeding out (no pun intended) those who work in IT/Engineering jobs and think a UA is somehow degrading, disgusting, or violates their privacy... and those who have worked retail/manufacturing/military and UAs are done either at time of hire (every retail job I've had), or during employment for different reasons (when I was in private security for a manufacturing company).

It's actually really interesting reading the different responses and expectations of people.

I agree. I work at a computer. I am not flying a plane or shooting at people for a living, so I don't think I should be tested.

Someone has made companies think this is necessary. I guess I should have bought stock in those companies. LOL.



Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: totoro on September 13, 2014, 07:16:44 PM
Or move to Canada.  You couldn't be tested here.  It seems like it is all related to the US health insurance system - with universal Medicare it becomes a non-issue with positions that aren't safety-sensitive.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: oldtoyota on September 13, 2014, 07:41:15 PM
Or move to Canada.  You couldn't be tested here.  It seems like it is all related to the US health insurance system - with universal Medicare it becomes a non-issue with positions that aren't safety-sensitive.

Could you explain the correlation between US health insurance and drug testing for jobs in the US? I don't see how they are related.

Moving to Canada appealed to me at one time…but y'all have your own problems up there. I don't think your country would let me move there without a job anyway.

Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: totoro on September 13, 2014, 08:44:03 PM
It appears that drug testing may lower employer medical insurance premiums in the US in some states: http://wyomingworkforce.org/employers-and-businesses/workers-compensation/Pages/premium-base-rate-discount-for-drug-testing.aspx

In Canada it has no effect as all employees are covered by universal health care and extended benefits are capped by a dollar value.  In addition, drug testing is not supported in law unless necessary for safety reasons.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Kriegsspiel on September 13, 2014, 08:51:56 PM
This thread does a great job of weeding out (no pun intended) those who work in IT/Engineering jobs and think a UA is somehow degrading, disgusting, or violates their privacy... and those who have worked retail/manufacturing/military and UAs are done either at time of hire (every retail job I've had), or during employment for different reasons (when I was in private security for a manufacturing company).

It's actually really interesting reading the different responses and expectations of people.

I agree. I work at a computer. I am not flying a plane or shooting at people for a living, so I don't think I should be tested.

Someone has made companies think this is necessary. I guess I should have bought stock in those companies. LOL.

I, for one, don't want you drug-addled heathens breaking the internet, thank you please.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sol on September 13, 2014, 10:45:43 PM
Weren't you the one who will not wear a suit because it feels like slavery? Yet, you'll give up your urine? I am not criticizing…just really surprised.

I don't see the conflict here.  You don't have to work for a company that requires drug testing.  I don't have to work for a company that requires uniforms.  I believe a company should be allowed to require either, and you should be free to decline employment in either case.

In this case, a company prohibiting drug use is like a company prohibiting neon orange fishnets.  I'm okay with this particular restriction, but if I wasn't then I wouldn't have taken the job.  There's a big difference between prohibiting an action and requiring an action.  I'm prohibited from murdering my children, but it's a law I don't mind following.  Forcing me to murder strangers, however, is a bit harder.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: oldtoyota on September 14, 2014, 11:03:53 AM
It appears that drug testing may lower employer medical insurance premiums in the US in some states: http://wyomingworkforce.org/employers-and-businesses/workers-compensation/Pages/premium-base-rate-discount-for-drug-testing.aspx

In Canada it has no effect as all employees are covered by universal health care and extended benefits are capped by a dollar value.  In addition, drug testing is not supported in law unless necessary for safety reasons.

Interesting. I did not know that it could lower medical insurance premiums for employers. Wow.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: oldtoyota on September 14, 2014, 11:05:33 AM
Weren't you the one who will not wear a suit because it feels like slavery? Yet, you'll give up your urine? I am not criticizing…just really surprised.

I don't see the conflict here.  You don't have to work for a company that requires drug testing.  I don't have to work for a company that requires uniforms.  I believe a company should be allowed to require either, and you should be free to decline employment in either case.

In this case, a company prohibiting drug use is like a company prohibiting neon orange fishnets.  I'm okay with this particular restriction, but if I wasn't then I wouldn't have taken the job.  There's a big difference between prohibiting an action and requiring an action.  I'm prohibited from murdering my children, but it's a law I don't mind following.  Forcing me to murder strangers, however, is a bit harder.

I think they are related in a tangential way. You may not and so you do not see your views as surprising. Oh, well. Guess we'll just see it different ways.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: MoneyCat on September 14, 2014, 11:14:57 AM
I don't really care about peeing in a cup for a job.  Money is money.  I had to pass a drug test for my current job and since I don't do drugs (and nobody who is intelligent does drugs anyway) it wasn't an issue for me.  I was a little annoyed that I had to take a couple hours out of my day to do the drug test, but it resulted in income so whatever.  The only real issue I see with drug testing is for people who are prescribed medicinal marijuana (which is legal in my state).  I would hope that employers would not have an issue with it if they knew it was prescribed.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Iron Mike Sharpe on September 14, 2014, 11:48:08 AM
I've never worked for a company that has them.  I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs.  But I find the test invasive.  I'd be very wary of working somewhere that had those tests.  What else could they be looking for without telling you? 

I won't say I wouldn't take a job somewhere that had drug testing.  But I'd charge an employer at least a 10% premium on my salary if they wanted me to take a drug test. 
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: BlueHouse on September 14, 2014, 01:16:59 PM
The last time I took a pee test (about 10 years ago), I swore I'd never do another one.  I have my own company now and for contracts that require a pee test, they really just require the employer to vouch for the employee.  So I just vouch for myself.  I also don't do background checks on myself.  I suppose if I have to get a job in the future, I'll do it, but with the following stipulations:

1.  I prefer they only require it AFTER an offer is made so that, like credit, any negative impact to me must me acknowledged.  (I want the right to dispute a false positive).
2.  I don't really mind peeing in a cup so much, but I'm not EVER holding it again.  If I ever have to submit to a pee test again, I'm going to claim there's something wrong with my arms so that I cannot squat and hold a cup at the same time.  I would like someone else (preferably some donkey from HR that has to look me in the eye everyday) to hold the cup for me.  Then we can see how degrading it is.
3.  I'm also never again going to clean up the public bathroom after I urinate/pee/splatter/dribble.  I don't know if it's this difficult for everyone, but my urine tends to not come out in a nice clean stream when I'm squatting.  It goes this way and that, especially when I'm trying to aim it.   I'm lucky it doesn't run down my legs.   So I usually spend a few minutes cleaning up a public restroom because my urine has spilled.  No more.  In fact, I may just insist that I can only do it if I'm hovering over the HR donkey's own desk chair.
4.  I'm also not going to wipe down the outside of the cup for the lab tech anymore (sorry...but at least they give you guys gloves!)


Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: iris lily on September 14, 2014, 01:23:02 PM
DH used to work in the tree and lawn care business where driving a huge vehicle was regulated by DOT and drug testing was mandatory.

He said that a fair number of new hires never showed up again after drug testing day. They knew the results. Use of weed is pretty common in the green industry.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Zamboni on September 14, 2014, 01:24:35 PM
Again, most of this testing comes back to insurance rates.

Quote
If I knew a nanny were a heavy heroin user, then no, I would not hire her.   But, clearly there was enough evidence to "know" without testing her in this case, so what would the point of a piss test be? 

I once babysat a little girl.  Her Mom said "her best friend lives next door; you can go with her over there if she wants to visit, but under no circumstances can she go over there by herself.  If her friend wants to come over here, then that's okay."  I didn't think much of it at first, figuring she just wanted me working since she was paying me.  But then I met the nanny next door.  One word:  LOADED.  I bet the people employing her had no clue, though.  Maybe she would come in clean in the morning, get high as soon as they left, and be seeming pretty "normal" by the time they got home?  Anyway, it was pretty disturbing.  Not sure why the lady I worked for didn't say anything to the other parents.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: brizna on September 14, 2014, 07:41:00 PM
(and nobody who is intelligent does drugs anyway)

What an asinine thing to say. You really don't know what you're talking about.


On topic, I had to pee in a cup for my current job. I find it invasive, distrustful, and ineffective and think worse of my company for making it a requirement. 30% bump in pay so I took the job, but I don't have much respect for the company as a result.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Elderwood17 on September 14, 2014, 07:48:20 PM
Some of the healthcare places I have worked at in the past it was a requirement for many jobs.....nothing personal, just came with the job.  What bothered me though is when an area would have a potential problem with diversion and all employees would get screened.  That seemed excessive to me when there was no evidence of anyone being a potential suspect but the assumption was someone must have been guilty so check them all. 
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Hugh H on September 14, 2014, 07:59:49 PM
I'm in the military and I'm mandated to pee in a cup often. Doesn't bother me at all, but maybe I'm just used to it.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: DollarBill on September 15, 2014, 08:06:53 AM
For the people who dislike urinating in a cup:
Is it because;
A. I would like to enjoy a duddie every now and then.
B. I don't like the fact my Employer can't trust who they hired.
C. I don't think anyone should have the power to make me pee in a cup, for any reason.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Chranstronaut on September 15, 2014, 08:39:17 AM
I think you are all missing the boat on a key point:  in cases like desk jobs, stock boy at your local grocery, etc., employers are primarily drug testing for health insurance premium reasons.  My brother owns a company and covering his employees is much cheaper if they all pass a drug test.  So there you go.

Hmm, I'd never thought about this before... not sure it relates to my job, but I could see how this would be the case for job where it doesn't really matter for safety or security.

I work in aerospace/defense industry and thorough background checks and pee tests are just par for the course.  They have to keep that government contract money rolling in and if the DOD says jump, they jump.  Everyone knows this going in, and I don't have a problem with it.  I have never been asked to submit to a test before a job offer was extended -- that would be fishy.  And I've never heard of a random test being performed where I'm at now, even after weed was legalized in WA.  We did get a nice little "reminder" email about the drug policy after it was passed though...

It really doesn't bother me at all because it's been done fairly, safely and only once before starting the job.  I'd take little issue with being tested in the future unless I was getting "randomly" screened often and/or it wasn't being done at a safe, third party location.

Edited to add: I've been refused a Rx for birth control from a medical provider because I didn't want to have a full pelvic exam.  I find that FAR more invasive than peeing in a cup, so it puts it in a different perspective for me.  Since we're dealing with peeing in cups here specifically, I have also been required multiple times to pee in a cup before receiving new BC prescriptions and other lady related medical needs to make sure I'm not pregnant.  I guess that's a liability thing?  That annoys me far more than drug testing.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spork on September 15, 2014, 08:56:57 AM
For the people who dislike urinating in a cup:
Is it because;
A. I would like to enjoy a duddie every now and then.
B. I don't like the fact my Employer can't trust who they hired.
C. I don't think anyone should have the power to make me pee in a cup, for any reason.

D. Guilty until proven innocent is a bad methodology
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Cromacster on September 15, 2014, 10:23:27 AM
(and nobody who is intelligent does drugs anyway)

How's the view from up their?...or is it up there?  Not sure....mind so fuzzy

Update:
I should just add for clarification.  To say that no intelligent person uses drugs is a pretty unintelligent thing to say.  Even further where does the line end.  Alcohol? Nicotine? Or is it just the ones where some bureaucrat decided it was a danger to society and to protect the future of our children must be stricken from the land?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: shotgunwilly on September 15, 2014, 10:36:37 AM
For the people who dislike urinating in a cup:
Is it because;
A. I would like to enjoy a duddie every now and then.
B. I don't like the fact my Employer can't trust who they hired.
C. I don't think anyone should have the power to make me pee in a cup, for any reason.

+1

I'm confused.  Every single job I've had, and yes I mean professional jobs, have required a drug test before you are hired.  I don't get the complaints here.  I also don't get the "it should be illegal."  They have a right to hire you or not and you are consenting to take a drug test, not forced.  Don't want to take it? No problem. Go find work elsewhere.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Simple Abundant Living on September 15, 2014, 10:59:27 AM
I just have a couple more things to say.  The patients I test who complain the most end up with inappropriate UDS results.  The same goes for the ones who refuse to meet with the pain psychologist "I've never been to a shrink in my life!"  (almost a guaranteed moderate to high risk, personality disorder, etc.).

Also, I do not have a problem with legal medicinal marijuana.  I do have a problem with people buying and using illegal drugs.  I feel like you have blood on your hands for you are feeding an industry that is guilty of every gross and horrific crime against humanity (and the reason so many young people from Central America are trying to get to the US or die).  It is not a victimless crime.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sheepstache on September 15, 2014, 11:07:29 AM
What about all the employers who ask for your facebook password?

What if they ask for your username on the Mr. Money Mustache forum?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: seattlecyclone on September 15, 2014, 11:08:12 AM
I do have a problem with people buying and using illegal drugs.  I feel like you have blood on your hands for you are feeding an industry that is guilty of every gross and horrific crime against humanity (and the reason so many young people from Central America are trying to get to the US or die).  It is not a victimless crime.

Have you ever considered that the violence only happens because the drugs are illegal? The only reason there were ever alcohol trafficking cartels shooting people up to defend their turf in America was because Prohibition made the industry illegal, so those participating in it had no reason to respect the rest of the laws. We finally repealed that because it did more harm than good, and I'm happy we seem to be headed in that direction with marijuana as well. Let's tax and regulate the stuff and get rid of the need for a black market.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sheepstache on September 15, 2014, 11:09:28 AM
For the people who dislike urinating in a cup:
Is it because;
A. I would like to enjoy a duddie every now and then.
B. I don't like the fact my Employer can't trust who they hired.
C. I don't think anyone should have the power to make me pee in a cup, for any reason.

+1

I'm confused.  Every single job I've had, and yes I mean professional jobs, have required a drug test before you are hired.  I don't get the complaints here.  I also don't get the "it should be illegal."  They have a right to hire you or not and you are consenting to take a drug test, not forced.  Don't want to take it? No problem. Go find work elsewhere.

But . . . every single job you've had has asked for it.  If we get to the point where every single employer asks for it, how can we continue to say that the applicant has a choice?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Cpa Cat on September 15, 2014, 11:11:30 AM
I've always checked the box saying I would consent, but I've never been asked for one. I don't think I've ever worked anywhere that didn't explicitly say I could be terminated if I refused to take a drug test.

Rumor has it that illegal stimulant use is rampant at some accounting firms - especially during busy season. I'm thinking maybe they just don't want to know.

Or, whoever is in charge of the decision just snorted some cocaine in the bathroom.

Hard to say.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Freedom2016 on September 15, 2014, 11:38:19 AM
The last time I took a pee test (about 10 years ago), I swore I'd never do another one.  I have my own company now and for contracts that require a pee test, they really just require the employer to vouch for the employee.  So I just vouch for myself.  I also don't do background checks on myself.  I suppose if I have to get a job in the future, I'll do it, but with the following stipulations:

1.  I prefer they only require it AFTER an offer is made so that, like credit, any negative impact to me must me acknowledged.  (I want the right to dispute a false positive).
2.  I don't really mind peeing in a cup so much, but I'm not EVER holding it again.  If I ever have to submit to a pee test again, I'm going to claim there's something wrong with my arms so that I cannot squat and hold a cup at the same time.  I would like someone else (preferably some donkey from HR that has to look me in the eye everyday) to hold the cup for me.  Then we can see how degrading it is.
3.  I'm also never again going to clean up the public bathroom after I urinate/pee/splatter/dribble.  I don't know if it's this difficult for everyone, but my urine tends to not come out in a nice clean stream when I'm squatting.  It goes this way and that, especially when I'm trying to aim it.   I'm lucky it doesn't run down my legs.   So I usually spend a few minutes cleaning up a public restroom because my urine has spilled.  No more.  In fact, I may just insist that I can only do it if I'm hovering over the HR donkey's own desk chair.
4.  I'm also not going to wipe down the outside of the cup for the lab tech anymore (sorry...but at least they give you guys gloves!)

Re #4, you do know urine is sterile, right? And (famously from Friends), it is also a good treatment for a jellyfish sting. :\

I can't tell you how many urine samples I've had to give during this pregnancy (easily 12-15 in a 7-month span). Or how many times my toddler son has peed on me, near me, and in the tub. I'm way over the grossness/humiliation factor.

I've never had a job that required urine samples, but one of my clients has random drug testing as well as "post incident" testing. Both are for safety reasons - their employees handle heavy equipment and chemicals. I am also confident they are not surreptitiously testing for "other things" not allowed or publicized.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: DollarBill on September 15, 2014, 11:48:54 AM
The last time I took a pee test (about 10 years ago), I swore I'd never do another one.  I have my own company now and for contracts that require a pee test, they really just require the employer to vouch for the employee.  So I just vouch for myself.  I also don't do background checks on myself.  I suppose if I have to get a job in the future, I'll do it, but with the following stipulations:

1.  I prefer they only require it AFTER an offer is made so that, like credit, any negative impact to me must me acknowledged.  (I want the right to dispute a false positive).
2.  I don't really mind peeing in a cup so much, but I'm not EVER holding it again.  If I ever have to submit to a pee test again, I'm going to claim there's something wrong with my arms so that I cannot squat and hold a cup at the same time.  I would like someone else (preferably some donkey from HR that has to look me in the eye everyday) to hold the cup for me.  Then we can see how degrading it is.
3.  I'm also never again going to clean up the public bathroom after I urinate/pee/splatter/dribble.  I don't know if it's this difficult for everyone, but my urine tends to not come out in a nice clean stream when I'm squatting.  It goes this way and that, especially when I'm trying to aim it.   I'm lucky it doesn't run down my legs.   So I usually spend a few minutes cleaning up a public restroom because my urine has spilled.  No more.  In fact, I may just insist that I can only do it if I'm hovering over the HR donkey's own desk chair.
4.  I'm also not going to wipe down the outside of the cup for the lab tech anymore (sorry...but at least they give you guys gloves!)

That's hilarious...I have been know to drop my pants to my ankles during the wiz quiz. I just want to make sure to them I'm not cheating :).
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: shotgunwilly on September 15, 2014, 11:56:52 AM
For the people who dislike urinating in a cup:
Is it because;
A. I would like to enjoy a duddie every now and then.
B. I don't like the fact my Employer can't trust who they hired.
C. I don't think anyone should have the power to make me pee in a cup, for any reason.

+1

I'm confused.  Every single job I've had, and yes I mean professional jobs, have required a drug test before you are hired.  I don't get the complaints here.  I also don't get the "it should be illegal."  They have a right to hire you or not and you are consenting to take a drug test, not forced.  Don't want to take it? No problem. Go find work elsewhere.

But . . . every single job you've had has asked for it.  If we get to the point where every single employer asks for it, how can we continue to say that the applicant has a choice?

They still have the choice. To not work.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sheepstache on September 15, 2014, 11:58:30 AM
For the people who dislike urinating in a cup:
Is it because;
A. I would like to enjoy a duddie every now and then.
B. I don't like the fact my Employer can't trust who they hired.
C. I don't think anyone should have the power to make me pee in a cup, for any reason.

+1

I'm confused.  Every single job I've had, and yes I mean professional jobs, have required a drug test before you are hired.  I don't get the complaints here.  I also don't get the "it should be illegal."  They have a right to hire you or not and you are consenting to take a drug test, not forced.  Don't want to take it? No problem. Go find work elsewhere.

But . . . every single job you've had has asked for it.  If we get to the point where every single employer asks for it, how can we continue to say that the applicant has a choice?

They still have the choice. To not work.

Pee in a cup or your children will starve is not a choice.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: DollarBill on September 15, 2014, 11:59:08 AM
I do have a problem with people buying and using illegal drugs.  I feel like you have blood on your hands for you are feeding an industry that is guilty of every gross and horrific crime against humanity (and the reason so many young people from Central America are trying to get to the US or die).  It is not a victimless crime.

Have you ever considered that the violence only happens because the drugs are illegal? The only reason there were ever alcohol trafficking cartels shooting people up to defend their turf in America was because Prohibition made the industry illegal, so those participating in it had no reason to respect the rest of the laws. We finally repealed that because it did more harm than good, and I'm happy we seem to be headed in that direction with marijuana as well. Let's tax and regulate the stuff and get rid of the need for a black market.
I think everything should be legalized like Portugal. It's cheaper for their Gov, it's taxed and it thins out the herd. If people want to do drugs then they will find a way. But I think companies still should have the right to ask for the test. Whether you comply or not is your choice.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: DollarBill on September 15, 2014, 12:00:41 PM
For the people who dislike urinating in a cup:
Is it because;
A. I would like to enjoy a duddie every now and then.
B. I don't like the fact my Employer can't trust who they hired.
C. I don't think anyone should have the power to make me pee in a cup, for any reason.

+1

I'm confused.  Every single job I've had, and yes I mean professional jobs, have required a drug test before you are hired.  I don't get the complaints here.  I also don't get the "it should be illegal."  They have a right to hire you or not and you are consenting to take a drug test, not forced.  Don't want to take it? No problem. Go find work elsewhere.

But . . . every single job you've had has asked for it.  If we get to the point where every single employer asks for it, how can we continue to say that the applicant has a choice?

They still have the choice. To not work.

Pee in a cup or your children will starve is not a choice.
Sure it is! You still have the choice to not do drugs and pee in the cup.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: seattlecyclone on September 15, 2014, 12:32:59 PM

Pee in a cup or your children will starve is not a choice.
Sure it is! You still have the choice to not do drugs and pee in the cup.

False. Peeing in a cup was still required to get the job. Refusing the test would have led to kids starving. Try again.

I'm not even that opposed to this type of test where sobriety is a major safety concern (truck driving, operating other heavy machinery, surgery, etc.). However we've seen plenty of anecdotes from people who have had to take drug tests to obtain non-safety-critical work. This concerns me. If we're so willing to give up our privacy to prove we haven't committed this one type of crime outside of work, what other tests should we be willing to submit to in order to obtain employment? Should a job applicant be willing wear a GPS tracker for a week to prove they don't regularly speed or jaywalk? Should a job applicant be willing to submit his/her significant other for a visual inspection to prove there isn't a domestic violence situation going on? Should a job applicant be willing to have their employer audit their finances to prove they haven't cheated on their taxes? If you say no to any of these, what makes a drug test different than tests for any other conceivable crime?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Bob W on September 15, 2014, 12:48:07 PM
Get scripts for all your mood altering drugs.   There are legal analogues to them all.  In fact 85% of my staff take them.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sheepstache on September 15, 2014, 12:48:31 PM

Pee in a cup or your children will starve is not a choice.
Sure it is! You still have the choice to not do drugs and pee in the cup.

False. Peeing in a cup was still required to get the job. Refusing the test would have led to kids starving. Try again.

I'm not even that opposed to this type of test where sobriety is a major safety concern (truck driving, operating other heavy machinery, surgery, etc.). However we've seen plenty of anecdotes from people who have had to take drug tests to obtain non-safety-critical work. This concerns me. If we're so willing to give up our privacy to prove we haven't committed this one type of crime outside of work, what other tests should we be willing to submit to in order to obtain employment?

Right.  We as a society agree on what tests are reasonable.  The uber-individualism internal-locus-of-control taken to extremes is what, in certain cases, allows our rights to be stripped from us.
One can argue that people have a choice not to fly.  One can also argue that the TSA is utter bullshit.  The two arguments are not mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Eric on September 15, 2014, 01:03:06 PM
I'm confused.  Every single job I've had, and yes I mean professional jobs, have required a drug test before you are hired.  I don't get the complaints here.  I also don't get the "it should be illegal."  They have a right to hire you or not and you are consenting to take a drug test, not forced.  Don't want to take it? No problem. Go find work elsewhere.

Because it's none of their business?  I wouldn't let them look at my bank account, facebook page, the books I read, whether I ride a motorcycle, or anything else that's unrelated to my job performance either.  Your employer pays you for time at work.  It's a huge line that's crossed when you allow them to dictate how you can spend your time outside of work.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spartana on September 15, 2014, 01:14:26 PM

Pee in a cup or your children will starve is not a choice.
Sure it is! You still have the choice to not do drugs and pee in the cup.

False. Peeing in a cup was still required to get the job. Refusing the test would have led to kids starving. Try again.

 
By that analogy ANYTHING the job required that you didn't want to do wouldn't be a choice and your kids would starve. Don't wanna work a 40 hour work week but the job requires it? Kids are gonna starve. Don't wanna work 9 to 5 M - F but the job requires it? Kids are gonna starve. I'm not saying that a company should have mandatory drug tests, and in many cases I can see where they would be a violation of a person's rights, but jobs often require a lot of things (like credit checks, etc...) to be able to be hired or continue employment and we can agree to do them or not be hired. So you can chose not to do drug so that you can be employed the same way you can chose to work full time so that you can be employed. If that is what the job requires then that's what it requires even if a person would rather smoke pot and work P/T.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sheepstache on September 15, 2014, 01:25:47 PM

Pee in a cup or your children will starve is not a choice.
Sure it is! You still have the choice to not do drugs and pee in the cup.

False. Peeing in a cup was still required to get the job. Refusing the test would have led to kids starving. Try again.

 
By that analogy ANYTHING the job required that you didn't want to do wouldn't be a choice and your kids would starve. Don't wanna work a 40 hour work week but the job requires it? Kids are gonna starve. Don't wanna work 9 to 5 M - F but the job requires it? Kids are gonna starve.

Right, I think it's true to say that you don't have a choice whether to work or not--if your kids not starving is contingent on your working.  That's kind of my point.  Other people are saying that you do have a choice.

The problem is not whether you have a choice, the question is whether it's ethical and people are arguing that whether it's optional determines, in part, it's ethical-ness.  Which I agree with, we just disagree over how much control a person has.

If one job involves killing puppies and another job involves feeding puppies and it's required that you have a job, then I think it's okay that the puppy-killing job exists.  Even though I think killing puppies is bad.  Because you have a choice. 
But if all jobs involve killing puppies, you're forced into an unethical position.
If all jobs involve feeding puppies, I don't think you're forced into an unethical position.  It doesn't matter that you don't have a choice of jobs, because you're not being asked to do anything unethical.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spartana on September 15, 2014, 01:29:32 PM

Pee in a cup or your children will starve is not a choice.
Sure it is! You still have the choice to not do drugs and pee in the cup.

False. Peeing in a cup was still required to get the job. Refusing the test would have led to kids starving. Try again.

 
By that analogy ANYTHING the job required that you didn't want to do wouldn't be a choice and your kids would starve. Don't wanna work a 40 hour work week but the job requires it? Kids are gonna starve. Don't wanna work 9 to 5 M - F but the job requires it? Kids are gonna starve.

Right, I think it's true to say that you don't have a choice whether to work or not--if your kids not starving is contingent on your working.  That's kind of my point.  Other people are saying that you do have a choice.

The problem is not whether you have a choice, the question is whether it's ethical and people are arguing that whether it's optional determines, in part, it's ethical-ness.  Which I agree with, we just disagree over how much control a person has.

If one job involves killing puppies and another job involves feeding puppies and it's required that you have a job, then I think it's okay that the puppy-killing job exists.  Even though I think killing puppies is bad.  Because you have a choice. 
But if all jobs involve killing puppies, you're forced into an unethical position.
If all jobs involve feeding puppies, I don't think you're forced into an unethical position.  It doesn't matter that you don't have a choice of jobs, because you're not being asked to do anything unethical.
well I think the "choice" part is about the choice to do drugs or not. You don't have to do them (and will test negative on a urine test) and can thus get a job. I guess I don't think an employer requesting a person submit to an "illegal" (at the fed level) drug test in order to get hired for a job as unethical.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sheepstache on September 15, 2014, 01:40:21 PM

Pee in a cup or your children will starve is not a choice.
Sure it is! You still have the choice to not do drugs and pee in the cup.

False. Peeing in a cup was still required to get the job. Refusing the test would have led to kids starving. Try again.

 
By that analogy ANYTHING the job required that you didn't want to do wouldn't be a choice and your kids would starve. Don't wanna work a 40 hour work week but the job requires it? Kids are gonna starve. Don't wanna work 9 to 5 M - F but the job requires it? Kids are gonna starve.

Right, I think it's true to say that you don't have a choice whether to work or not--if your kids not starving is contingent on your working.  That's kind of my point.  Other people are saying that you do have a choice.

The problem is not whether you have a choice, the question is whether it's ethical and people are arguing that whether it's optional determines, in part, it's ethical-ness.  Which I agree with, we just disagree over how much control a person has.

If one job involves killing puppies and another job involves feeding puppies and it's required that you have a job, then I think it's okay that the puppy-killing job exists.  Even though I think killing puppies is bad.  Because you have a choice. 
But if all jobs involve killing puppies, you're forced into an unethical position.
If all jobs involve feeding puppies, I don't think you're forced into an unethical position.  It doesn't matter that you don't have a choice of jobs, because you're not being asked to do anything unethical.
well I think the "choice" part is about the choice to do drugs or not. You don't have to do them (and will test negative on a urine test) and can thus get a job. I guess I don't think an employer requesting a person submit to an "illegal" (at the fed level) drug test in order to get hired for a job as unethical.

Right, but whether you do drugs or not doesn't change whether you have to pee in a cup.  It's the peeing in a cup part that rankles, not getting caught ;)

If it's only for fed jobs or certain jobs, I'm fine with it because you have the choice not to apply for those jobs.  I would say that you're not *forced* to in that case.  Some people were saying the practice was becoming ubiquitous but they didn't have a problem with that.

*Alternately I would never be against it where there's an extremely good rationale for it.  For example, there's a good reason everyone in the US needs a SS# to work, so its not being option is not a problem.  If there were some sort of scary new plague that we all needed regular pee testing for, that's also fine.  So, again, choice is not the only factor.  While I don't like the fact that a small percentage of employers would ask for a urine test without having a good reason, the choice issue just means I'm not going to start yelling my head off about it quite yet.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spartana on September 15, 2014, 01:49:42 PM

Right, but whether you do drugs or not doesn't change whether you have to pee in a cup.  It's the peeing in a cup part that rankles, not getting caught ;)
 
Ha Ha!!
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: seattlecyclone on September 15, 2014, 02:07:02 PM
well I think the "choice" part is about the choice to do drugs or not. You don't have to do them (and will test negative on a urine test) and can thus get a job. I guess I don't think an employer requesting a person submit to an "illegal" (at the fed level) drug test in order to get hired for a job as unethical.

Let me be clear. I have never used illegal drugs (marijuana included). I never plan to. It's just not my thing. I still would object to being asked to prove that just to get a job. The only reason a drug test is plausibly relevant to an employer is where it determines that someone is actively intoxicated and thus unfit to do their job. However due to the nature of marijuana (and maybe other drugs? I don't know enough about them), these tests will come back positive even if the applicant used the drug a week prior and never comes to work high. I think it is objectionable to disqualify someone from employment for this reason, or any other reason that isn't directly related to the applicant's suitability to perform the job during assigned work hours. Do employers have the right to do it? Sure. That doesn't mean they should as a matter of course.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: shotgunwilly on September 15, 2014, 02:32:10 PM
I'm confused.  Every single job I've had, and yes I mean professional jobs, have required a drug test before you are hired.  I don't get the complaints here.  I also don't get the "it should be illegal."  They have a right to hire you or not and you are consenting to take a drug test, not forced.  Don't want to take it? No problem. Go find work elsewhere.

Because it's none of their business?  I wouldn't let them look at my bank account, facebook page, the books I read, whether I ride a motorcycle, or anything else that's unrelated to my job performance either.  Your employer pays you for time at work.  It's a huge line that's crossed when you allow them to dictate how you can spend your time outside of work.

How is it possibly not their business when they are liable for your actions?  If your drug abuse causes a major mishap whether that endangers other people, or even costs a company a lot of money, they shouldn't have a right to screen people to take cautionary measures to avoid that?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Eric on September 15, 2014, 02:42:39 PM
I'm confused.  Every single job I've had, and yes I mean professional jobs, have required a drug test before you are hired.  I don't get the complaints here.  I also don't get the "it should be illegal."  They have a right to hire you or not and you are consenting to take a drug test, not forced.  Don't want to take it? No problem. Go find work elsewhere.

Because it's none of their business?  I wouldn't let them look at my bank account, facebook page, the books I read, whether I ride a motorcycle, or anything else that's unrelated to my job performance either.  Your employer pays you for time at work.  It's a huge line that's crossed when you allow them to dictate how you can spend your time outside of work.

How is it possibly not their business when they are liable for your actions?  If your drug abuse causes a major mishap whether that endangers other people, or even costs a company a lot of money, they shouldn't have a right to screen people to take cautionary measures to avoid that?

Huh?  They are certainly not liable for your actions when you're not at work, so it's impossible for someone not at work to cost their company money.  So I maintain that what I do or don't do when not at work is none of their business.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: BlueHouse on September 15, 2014, 02:44:15 PM

How is it possibly not their business when they are liable for your actions?  If your drug abuse causes a major mishap whether that endangers other people, or even costs a company a lot of money, they shouldn't have a right to screen people to take cautionary measures to avoid that?
I work on an Excel spreadsheet.  On my most dangerous days, sometimes I'm even allowed to use Powerpoint.  None of my jobs have ever required anything more strenuous than punching keys on a keyboard.  And yet, it's the norm in my field.   
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: shotgunwilly on September 15, 2014, 02:49:21 PM
I'm confused.  Every single job I've had, and yes I mean professional jobs, have required a drug test before you are hired.  I don't get the complaints here.  I also don't get the "it should be illegal."  They have a right to hire you or not and you are consenting to take a drug test, not forced.  Don't want to take it? No problem. Go find work elsewhere.

Because it's none of their business?  I wouldn't let them look at my bank account, facebook page, the books I read, whether I ride a motorcycle, or anything else that's unrelated to my job performance either.  Your employer pays you for time at work.  It's a huge line that's crossed when you allow them to dictate how you can spend your time outside of work.

How is it possibly not their business when they are liable for your actions?  If your drug abuse causes a major mishap whether that endangers other people, or even costs a company a lot of money, they shouldn't have a right to screen people to take cautionary measures to avoid that?

Huh?  They are certainly not liable for your actions when you're not at work, so it's impossible for someone not at work to cost their company money.  So I maintain that what I do or don't do when not at work is none of their business.

Huh? All they have to do is come into work high. Then they are liable. So i maintain my statement that they should be able to take precautionary measures.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: shotgunwilly on September 15, 2014, 02:51:36 PM
Alright, seriously, how many of y'all are smoking the crack as we speak?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Simple Abundant Living on September 15, 2014, 02:56:15 PM
I do have a problem with people buying and using illegal drugs.  I feel like you have blood on your hands for you are feeding an industry that is guilty of every gross and horrific crime against humanity (and the reason so many young people from Central America are trying to get to the US or die).  It is not a victimless crime.

Have you ever considered that the violence only happens because the drugs are illegal? The only reason there were ever alcohol trafficking cartels shooting people up to defend their turf in America was because Prohibition made the industry illegal, so those participating in it had no reason to respect the rest of the laws. We finally repealed that because it did more harm than good, and I'm happy we seem to be headed in that direction with marijuana as well. Let's tax and regulate the stuff and get rid of the need for a black market.

There may be some truth to that, but I've also heard that in areas where it is legal that there is still illegal drug trade because it's cheaper.  But the net effect is that when you buy drugs from illegal sources, you are supporting violent gangs and drug cartels. 
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: DeepEllumStache on September 15, 2014, 02:56:58 PM
I've had to pee in a cup prior to the last two positions I've had.  I just assumed it was an annoying standard but not offensive... kind of like liquid paperwork.

The worst is when you didn't drink enough water beforehand to fill the cup to the line.  I over prepared the second time which is then another problem.  Precision hydration.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sheepstache on September 15, 2014, 02:57:22 PM
I'm confused.  Every single job I've had, and yes I mean professional jobs, have required a drug test before you are hired.  I don't get the complaints here.  I also don't get the "it should be illegal."  They have a right to hire you or not and you are consenting to take a drug test, not forced.  Don't want to take it? No problem. Go find work elsewhere.

Because it's none of their business?  I wouldn't let them look at my bank account, facebook page, the books I read, whether I ride a motorcycle, or anything else that's unrelated to my job performance either.  Your employer pays you for time at work.  It's a huge line that's crossed when you allow them to dictate how you can spend your time outside of work.

How is it possibly not their business when they are liable for your actions?  If your drug abuse causes a major mishap whether that endangers other people, or even costs a company a lot of money, they shouldn't have a right to screen people to take cautionary measures to avoid that?

So, they can have access to your bank account too, right?  Because if money is tight you'll be stressed out and might mess up your job and they'll be liable.  And they can have access to your facebook account too, right?  Because if your girlfriend dumped you now you'll be horny and more likely to commit sexual harassment with an ensuing costly legal suit.

All of it is verging into "won't somebody think of the children" "sign the patriot act to protect our freedoms" territory.  There are tremendous risks to taking zero risks.  We need to have a continuing conversation about what's reasonable and what's not, not declare carte blanche to do whatever either way.
If you wanted to combine it with a discussion about decreased corporate liability for the actions of an individual employee, that'd be okay too.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Eric on September 15, 2014, 02:59:27 PM
I'm confused.  Every single job I've had, and yes I mean professional jobs, have required a drug test before you are hired.  I don't get the complaints here.  I also don't get the "it should be illegal."  They have a right to hire you or not and you are consenting to take a drug test, not forced.  Don't want to take it? No problem. Go find work elsewhere.

Because it's none of their business?  I wouldn't let them look at my bank account, facebook page, the books I read, whether I ride a motorcycle, or anything else that's unrelated to my job performance either.  Your employer pays you for time at work.  It's a huge line that's crossed when you allow them to dictate how you can spend your time outside of work.

How is it possibly not their business when they are liable for your actions?  If your drug abuse causes a major mishap whether that endangers other people, or even costs a company a lot of money, they shouldn't have a right to screen people to take cautionary measures to avoid that?

Huh?  They are certainly not liable for your actions when you're not at work, so it's impossible for someone not at work to cost their company money.  So I maintain that what I do or don't do when not at work is none of their business.

Huh? All they have to do is come into work high. Then they are liable. So i maintain my statement that they should be able to take precautionary measures.

Then we're agreed.  Companies are liable for things employees do at work, but not outside of work.  So, assuming I'm not at work, then the company has no business knowing my business.

I'm curious to why you think a urine test would be effective in this situation though.  Because unless you're testing every single day, you're not preventing the scenario you outlined.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Beric01 on September 15, 2014, 03:04:32 PM
I do have a problem with people buying and using illegal drugs.  I feel like you have blood on your hands for you are feeding an industry that is guilty of every gross and horrific crime against humanity (and the reason so many young people from Central America are trying to get to the US or die).  It is not a victimless crime.

Have you ever considered that the violence only happens because the drugs are illegal? The only reason there were ever alcohol trafficking cartels shooting people up to defend their turf in America was because Prohibition made the industry illegal, so those participating in it had no reason to respect the rest of the laws. We finally repealed that because it did more harm than good, and I'm happy we seem to be headed in that direction with marijuana as well. Let's tax and regulate the stuff and get rid of the need for a black market.

There may be some truth to that, but I've also heard that in areas where it is legal that there is still illegal drug trade because it's cheaper.  But the net effect is that when you buy drugs from illegal sources, you are supporting violent gangs and drug cartels.

You also have the problem of many of these drugs being extremely addictive, meaning violence is almost due course regardless of whether they're legal or not.

No, I don't want to do a drug test - I think it infringes on my privacy. Would I pass it with flying colors? Yes, as I've never done drugs in my life.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: shotgunwilly on September 15, 2014, 03:47:14 PM
I'm confused.  Every single job I've had, and yes I mean professional jobs, have required a drug test before you are hired.  I don't get the complaints here.  I also don't get the "it should be illegal."  They have a right to hire you or not and you are consenting to take a drug test, not forced.  Don't want to take it? No problem. Go find work elsewhere.

Because it's none of their business?  I wouldn't let them look at my bank account, facebook page, the books I read, whether I ride a motorcycle, or anything else that's unrelated to my job performance either.  Your employer pays you for time at work.  It's a huge line that's crossed when you allow them to dictate how you can spend your time outside of work.

How is it possibly not their business when they are liable for your actions?  If your drug abuse causes a major mishap whether that endangers other people, or even costs a company a lot of money, they shouldn't have a right to screen people to take cautionary measures to avoid that?

So, they can have access to your bank account too, right?  Because if money is tight you'll be stressed out and might mess up your job and they'll be liable.  And they can have access to your facebook account too, right?  Because if your girlfriend dumped you now you'll be horny and more likely to commit sexual harassment with an ensuing costly legal suit.

All of it is verging into "won't somebody think of the children" "sign the patriot act to protect our freedoms" territory.  There are tremendous risks to taking zero risks.  We need to have a continuing conversation about what's reasonable and what's not, not declare carte blanche to do whatever either way.
If you wanted to combine it with a discussion about decreased corporate liability for the actions of an individual employee, that'd be okay too.

The difference is illegal activity.  Government has outlawed certain substances because they find them to be impairing and dangerous to other's healths, or lives. (whether they actually are, and whether certain legal substances are, is another discussion) Employers are just protecting themselves from lawsuits, and defamation, that could be horrendous if an incident occurred involving illegal activity. (i.e. doing illegal drugs)  They are also required to provide a "safe workplace."  Many people here are complaining in the wrong topic.  They should be arguing in a topic about whether these drugs are illegal or not, and complaining about government outlawing them.

Then we're agreed.  Companies are liable for things employees do at work, but not outside of work.  So, assuming I'm not at work, then the company has no business knowing my business.

I'm curious to why you think a urine test would be effective in this situation though.  Because unless you're testing every single day, you're not preventing the scenario you outlined.

I'm speaking of the process of testing in general.  Perhaps we need a better way to discover illegal drug use.  But we're talking about the right to test, aren't we?


By y'alls arguments, people should not be able to check whether daycare workers and babysitters are pedophiles (by asking for consent to criminal history.)  Feel comfortable trusting a crackhead child molester with your kids all day? Oh, he hasn't done it at his work, just last weekend, so we have no right to hold that against him....
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Eric on September 15, 2014, 04:33:06 PM
Then we're agreed.  Companies are liable for things employees do at work, but not outside of work.  So, assuming I'm not at work, then the company has no business knowing my business.

I'm curious to why you think a urine test would be effective in this situation though.  Because unless you're testing every single day, you're not preventing the scenario you outlined.

I'm speaking of the process of testing in general.  Perhaps we need a better way to discover illegal drug use.  But we're talking about the right to test, aren't we?

Wrong.  You need a better way to test sobriety.  Unless you think that everyone who has ever had an alcoholic beverage is a threat to show up to work drunk, there's no reason to think that everyone who has ever used a drug is a threat to show up to work high.  It's nonsensical to separate out illegal drugs from legal drugs when it's not drugs that are the issue but sobriety.

I don't think anyone is disputing that under current law, employers can test.  But it's a stupid way to limit their potential employee pool by ruling out those of us with principles, and of course doesn't actually create a company where no one uses drugs.

Once you start giving away your privacy as an employee, where does it stop?

If we're so willing to give up our privacy to prove we haven't committed this one type of crime outside of work, what other tests should we be willing to submit to in order to obtain employment? Should a job applicant be willing wear a GPS tracker for a week to prove they don't regularly speed or jaywalk? Should a job applicant be willing to submit his/her significant other for a visual inspection to prove there isn't a domestic violence situation going on? Should a job applicant be willing to have their employer audit their finances to prove they haven't cheated on their taxes? If you say no to any of these, what makes a drug test different than tests for any other conceivable crime?

Care to answer these questions? /\


By y'alls arguments, people should not be able to check whether daycare workers and babysitters are pedophiles (by asking for consent to criminal history.)  Feel comfortable trusting a crackhead child molester with your kids all day? Oh, he hasn't done it at his work, just last weekend, so we have no right to hold that against him....

You couldn't work the Nazis in there somehow?  Fail.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Eric on September 15, 2014, 04:45:45 PM
I'm confused.  Every single job I've had, and yes I mean professional jobs, have required a drug test before you are hired.  I don't get the complaints here.  I also don't get the "it should be illegal."  They have a right to hire you or not and you are consenting to take a drug test, not forced.  Don't want to take it? No problem. Go find work elsewhere.

Because it's none of their business?  I wouldn't let them look at my bank account, facebook page, the books I read, whether I ride a motorcycle, or anything else that's unrelated to my job performance either.  Your employer pays you for time at work.  It's a huge line that's crossed when you allow them to dictate how you can spend your time outside of work.

How is it possibly not their business when they are liable for your actions?  If your drug abuse causes a major mishap whether that endangers other people, or even costs a company a lot of money, they shouldn't have a right to screen people to take cautionary measures to avoid that?

Huh?  They are certainly not liable for your actions when you're not at work, so it's impossible for someone not at work to cost their company money.  So I maintain that what I do or don't do when not at work is none of their business.
Seriously?   Perhaps you've heard of the NFL?
Or Mozilla? Eich wasn't at work when he wrote the check.
Or Tiger Woods?
Plenty of things you do while not on the clock affect your employment.   

I was unaware that the PGA was sued for Tiger Woods' actions.  I am also unaware of the NFL or any team being sued because Ray Rice punched his girlfriend or Ray Lewis (didn't) sho(o)t some dude outside of that bar in Atlanta.  If you can point me to these, you'll have a more convincing argument of the employer liability for out of work actions of their employees.


But pre-employment drug screen tests aren't to determine sobriety.  They are to weed out those hires who think the law does not apply to them.

How's the weather up there?  All of us break some law everyday.  If you're driving 56 mph in a 55 mph zone, it's obvious you think the law doesn't apply to you.  Should you be disqualified from employment?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: BlueMR2 on September 15, 2014, 04:48:50 PM
I'm in the financial industry.   I don't operate heavy equipment or have responsibility for public safety in any way, but I don't disagree with the pre-employment drug screen for my job.  In any given population,  there are people who believe the law does not apply to them.  Drug users are a subset of that group and a urine test is a pretty effective way to prevent some people with that mindset from landing on your payroll.

Based on the status of the financial industry, I'd have to say that this has been proven to be ineffective.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sheepstache on September 15, 2014, 04:54:44 PM
I'm confused.  Every single job I've had, and yes I mean professional jobs, have required a drug test before you are hired.  I don't get the complaints here.  I also don't get the "it should be illegal."  They have a right to hire you or not and you are consenting to take a drug test, not forced.  Don't want to take it? No problem. Go find work elsewhere.

Because it's none of their business?  I wouldn't let them look at my bank account, facebook page, the books I read, whether I ride a motorcycle, or anything else that's unrelated to my job performance either.  Your employer pays you for time at work.  It's a huge line that's crossed when you allow them to dictate how you can spend your time outside of work.

How is it possibly not their business when they are liable for your actions?  If your drug abuse causes a major mishap whether that endangers other people, or even costs a company a lot of money, they shouldn't have a right to screen people to take cautionary measures to avoid that?

So, they can have access to your bank account too, right?  Because if money is tight you'll be stressed out and might mess up your job and they'll be liable.  And they can have access to your facebook account too, right?  Because if your girlfriend dumped you now you'll be horny and more likely to commit sexual harassment with an ensuing costly legal suit.

All of it is verging into "won't somebody think of the children" "sign the patriot act to protect our freedoms" territory.  There are tremendous risks to taking zero risks.  We need to have a continuing conversation about what's reasonable and what's not, not declare carte blanche to do whatever either way.
If you wanted to combine it with a discussion about decreased corporate liability for the actions of an individual employee, that'd be okay too.

The difference is illegal activity.  Government has outlawed certain substances because they find them to be impairing and dangerous to other's healths, or lives. (whether they actually are, and whether certain legal substances are, is another discussion) Employers are just protecting themselves from lawsuits, and defamation, that could be horrendous if an incident occurred involving illegal activity. (i.e. doing illegal drugs)  They are also required to provide a "safe workplace."  Many people here are complaining in the wrong topic.  They should be arguing in a topic about whether these drugs are illegal or not, and complaining about government outlawing them.

Ah well there's the confusion, you've never actually said illegality was the cause.  You keep saying corporate liability is the cause.  So, companies should be allowed to bust into your house at random to see if you've stolen company supplies.  Because, after all, stealing is illegal.  Normally they would need probable cause and a search warrant, but according to you, they've signed away this valuable constitutional right against illegal search because they're employed.  I mean, you're pursuing FI so I guess I give you points for consistency.

Quote
Then we're agreed.  Companies are liable for things employees do at work, but not outside of work.  So, assuming I'm not at work, then the company has no business knowing my business.

I'm curious to why you think a urine test would be effective in this situation though.  Because unless you're testing every single day, you're not preventing the scenario you outlined.

I'm speaking of the process of testing in general.  Perhaps we need a better way to discover illegal drug use.  But we're talking about the right to test, aren't we?

You're saying, as far as I can tell, that avoiding the negative consequences of drug impairment is what justifies the right to test.  Eric is pointing out that testing is irrelevant to drug impairment. Therefore the justification for testing falls through.

Quote
By y'alls arguments, people should not be able to check whether daycare workers and babysitters are pedophiles (by asking for consent to criminal history.)  Feel comfortable trusting a crackhead child molester with your kids all day? Oh, he hasn't done it at his work, just last weekend, so we have no right to hold that against him....

Thank you for self-parodying by actually pulling a 'won't somebody think of the children' argument by bringing up the nanny, but as far as I can recollect no one is saying no drug tests across the board but that there must be reasonable cause.  (Side note: note that no one has brought up background checks as a problem. Why do you think everyone is okay with background checks but not drug tests?)  If we were disagreeing over whether truck drivers or elder care workers or etc. should be tested and how often etc., this would be a much more reasonable question.  One with some sharp disagreements probably, but more reasonable. Instead, you appear to be convinced that there is no circumstance under which a drug test wouldn't be okay.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: totoro on September 15, 2014, 05:05:33 PM
Meh, I find it hard to get riled by all this. 

From my perspective infringing on freedom is way too reactionary of a response to legal workplace drug testing for illegal drugs.  Peeing in a cup seems pretty small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.  It has nothing to do with trust of an individual and everything to do with managing risk and liability.   

Reports indicate "employees who abuse drugs are 2.5 times more likely than other non-substance abusing coworkers to be absent for eight or more days. Drug abusers are 3.6 times more likely to be involved in an accident at work and 5 times more likely to file a workers compensation claim. Forty-four percent of abusers have sold drugs to other employees and 18 percent have stolen from co-workers to support their habit.

Studies suggest that substance abuse – which includes drugs and alcohol – costs the United States an estimated $276 billion a year, with much of the cost resulting from lost work productivity and increased healthcare spending.

Drug testing programs have been shown to improve employee morale and productivity; decrease absenteeism, accidents, downtime, turnover, and theft; and lead to better health among employees and family members as well as decreased use of medical benefits.  Organizations with drug-free workplace programs sometimes qualify for state government incentives or workers’ compensation insurance premium discounts."

http://www.questdiagnostics.com/home/companies/employer/drug-screening/testing-reasons/why-drug-test.html
 

Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spartana on September 15, 2014, 05:12:56 PM
well I think the "choice" part is about the choice to do drugs or not. You don't have to do them (and will test negative on a urine test) and can thus get a job. I guess I don't think an employer requesting a person submit to an "illegal" (at the fed level) drug test in order to get hired for a job as unethical.

  The only reason a drug test is plausibly relevant to an employer is where it determines that someone is actively intoxicated and thus unfit to do their job. 
Not neccessarily. They aren't testing to see if you are currently intoxicated, they are testing to see if you are or recently have been taking illegal substances and thus engaging in an illegal activity and thus a person that they would not want to employ. Employers look at many things including criminal records, credit scores, etc... that have nothing what so ever to do with your job at all. They look at those to see if you are a trustworthy upstanding person.  Some jobs require polygraphs and the questions asked don't have to do with your work-related skills, they evaluate your character. To me that is what drug testing is for. They can't do it with alcohol (unless there is a work place incidence  that violates something like safety or negligence) because alcohol is a legal substance.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Eric on September 15, 2014, 05:16:17 PM
http://www.questdiagnostics.com/home/companies/employer/drug-screening/testing-reasons/why-drug-test.html

So the company that makes money by selling drug tests thinks that they're beneficial?  I'm shocked, shocked I say!


Although the "increased morale" is pretty funny.  Who doesn't love to pee in a cup?  It's team building at it's finest!
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spartana on September 15, 2014, 05:20:25 PM
http://www.questdiagnostics.com/home/companies/employer/drug-screening/testing-reasons/why-drug-test.html

So the company that makes money by selling drug tests thinks that they're beneficial?  I'm shocked, shocked I say!


Although the "increased morale" is pretty funny.  Who doesn't love to pee in a cup?  It's team building at it's finest!
Next comes the Pee in a Cup retreats - where you shut your eyes and, instead of falling backwards into the arms of your fellow employees in a team building exercise, you aim for the cup in the direction your fellow team members direct you to pee. Trust building at the finest :-)!
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: seattlecyclone on September 15, 2014, 05:20:54 PM
They can't do it with alcohol (unless there is a work place incidence  that violates something like safety or negligence) because alcohol is a legal substance.

Citation needed. My wife's employer has a policy against smoking, even outside of work hours. I'm sure they get a nice discount on their health plan for that one. I sincerely doubt any law prohibits workplace discrimination against alcohol users.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spartana on September 15, 2014, 05:25:42 PM
They can't do it with alcohol (unless there is a work place incidence  that violates something like safety or negligence) because alcohol is a legal substance.

Citation needed. My wife's employer has a policy against smoking, even outside of work hours. I'm sure they get a nice discount on their health plan for that one. I sincerely doubt any law prohibits workplace discrimination against alcohol users.
Is that an "We will fire your ass if you smoke cigs" thing or a health insurance thing? I have heard many employers are doing biometrics testing and, in order to get health insurance at the company rates, you can not smoke or you must pay more. But yes, I suppose almost all employment is "at will" so an employer can choose to hire who they want based on their own desires - as long as they don't discriminate on the "legal" stuff like race, gender. religion, etc... I've heard of employers firing females for not wearing dresses, stockings and heels and, when it went to court, the law favored the employer. Guess they have the legal right to establish a dress code and if you aren't compliant they can fire you. That probably goes for smoking, drinking, drugs.  Not right IMHO (except the drugs cause they are illegal).
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: seattlecyclone on September 15, 2014, 05:29:35 PM
It's not a differential health insurance rate, it's a blanket policy prohibiting all employees from smoking on pain of termination. I don't know how fiercely it's enforced, but the policy is there nonetheless.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Emilyngh on September 15, 2014, 05:34:15 PM
well I think the "choice" part is about the choice to do drugs or not. You don't have to do them (and will test negative on a urine test) and can thus get a job. I guess I don't think an employer requesting a person submit to an "illegal" (at the fed level) drug test in order to get hired for a job as unethical.

  The only reason a drug test is plausibly relevant to an employer is where it determines that someone is actively intoxicated and thus unfit to do their job. 
Not neccessarily. They aren't testing to see if you are currently intoxicated, they are testing to see if you are or recently have been taking illegal substances and thus engaging in an illegal activity and thus a person that they would not want to employ. Employers look at many things including criminal records, credit scores, etc... that have nothing what so ever to do with your job at all. They look at those to see if you are a trustworthy upstanding person.  Some jobs require polygraphs and the questions asked don't have to do with your work-related skills, they evaluate your character. To me that is what drug testing is for.

The idea that my "character" is any of my job's business (outside of my ability to do a good job) is ridiculous.   If I don't do a good job, fire me.   Otherwise, searching for irrelevant "character flaws" in evaluating one for employment sounds like a way for corporations to pretend that they are somehow some kind of moral authority-ha!
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spartana on September 15, 2014, 05:48:00 PM
well I think the "choice" part is about the choice to do drugs or not. You don't have to do them (and will test negative on a urine test) and can thus get a job. I guess I don't think an employer requesting a person submit to an "illegal" (at the fed level) drug test in order to get hired for a job as unethical.

  The only reason a drug test is plausibly relevant to an employer is where it determines that someone is actively intoxicated and thus unfit to do their job. 
Not neccessarily. They aren't testing to see if you are currently intoxicated, they are testing to see if you are or recently have been taking illegal substances and thus engaging in an illegal activity and thus a person that they would not want to employ. Employers look at many things including criminal records, credit scores, etc... that have nothing what so ever to do with your job at all. They look at those to see if you are a trustworthy upstanding person.  Some jobs require polygraphs and the questions asked don't have to do with your work-related skills, they evaluate your character. To me that is what drug testing is for.

The idea that my "character" is any of my job's business (outside of my ability to do a good job) is ridiculous.   If I don't do a good job, fire me.   Otherwise, searching for irrelevant "character flaws" in evaluating one for employment sounds like a way for corporations to pretend that they are somehow some kind of moral authority-ha!
So if you were hiring someone to watch your child or clean your house or work in your business you wouldn't care what they've done in the past and only about their job related skills? You wouldn't call a former employer and ask about their character - whether they were honest and dedicated or if they had some sort of red-flags on the job (temper, aggression,  tardiness, slothfulness, stealing, etc...)? You wouldn't look at their facebook pages, their credit history, their criminal record? You'd just "trust" that, based only on their qualifications, they would be a good employee?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Zamboni on September 15, 2014, 05:57:26 PM
Wow, firing someone for smoking outside of working hours is pretty extreme.

My relatively large employer has started charging smokers or those who chew tobacco (self reported?) $240 per year extra in health insurance premiums.  They were pretty tricky about it too:  before the increase in rates was announced, they sent us all a survey about whether or not we ever use tobacco products among other things.  It was all couched as part of a wellness benefit, which included things like nutrition consultations, dealing with stress, blood pressure management, smoking cessation, etc.  They even had someone call my personal phone asking if I needed help in any of those areas, because they want me to be personally informed that my wonderful employer has such great wellness benefits.  Next thing we knew, BAM!  We KNOW you smoke now and you have to pay more.  I don't smoke, so doesn't negatively affect me financially, but I'm still amazed by the set up of it all.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Emilyngh on September 15, 2014, 06:13:43 PM
well I think the "choice" part is about the choice to do drugs or not. You don't have to do them (and will test negative on a urine test) and can thus get a job. I guess I don't think an employer requesting a person submit to an "illegal" (at the fed level) drug test in order to get hired for a job as unethical.

  The only reason a drug test is plausibly relevant to an employer is where it determines that someone is actively intoxicated and thus unfit to do their job. 
Not neccessarily. They aren't testing to see if you are currently intoxicated, they are testing to see if you are or recently have been taking illegal substances and thus engaging in an illegal activity and thus a person that they would not want to employ. Employers look at many things including criminal records, credit scores, etc... that have nothing what so ever to do with your job at all. They look at those to see if you are a trustworthy upstanding person.  Some jobs require polygraphs and the questions asked don't have to do with your work-related skills, they evaluate your character. To me that is what drug testing is for.

The idea that my "character" is any of my job's business (outside of my ability to do a good job) is ridiculous.   If I don't do a good job, fire me.   Otherwise, searching for irrelevant "character flaws" in evaluating one for employment sounds like a way for corporations to pretend that they are somehow some kind of moral authority-ha!
So if you were hiring someone to watch your child or clean your house or work in your business you wouldn't care what they've done in the past and only about their job related skills? You wouldn't call a former employer and ask about their character - whether they were honest and dedicated or if they had some sort of red-flags on the job (temper, aggression,  tardiness, slothfulness, stealing, etc...)? You wouldn't look at their facebook pages, their credit history, their criminal record? You'd just "trust" that, based only on their qualifications, they would be a good employee?

Why do people keep asking about nannies?   But, okay...no.   No, I don't care about pretending I'm an arbitrator of the character of someone who works for me, beyond it directly affecting their job.   All I would ask about calling a previous employer would be how good of a job they did.   I would file a nanny who had a temper, was aggressive, tardy, etc as not having done a good job.   I would not care if she smoked pot on her time off, liked to speed in her car in her time off, lied on her taxes, had a lot of credit card debt, had affairs with married men, made a duck face in her facebook photos, etc.   And I sure as fuck wouldn't look at her facebook page (don't like looking at the facebook pages of most of my friends, certainly don't care about hers).

I do not believe that people are as simple as have "good" or "bad" character.   The reality is that given the exact same circumstances, the vast majority of us would do the exact same thing.   Almost all people cheat/break the rules a little when given the chance, but stay within the range where they can still justify their behavior to themselves as moral (see work by Dan Ariely).   The big difference is that depending on culture, background, socioeconomic norms, sometimes this rule breaking is seen as withing the guidelines of acceptable within groups (eg., men sleeping with anyone who'll "let them," drinking, speeding) and sometimes not seen as acceptable in mainstream groups (eg., women acting "slutty", doing crack, not bathing daily).

Oh, and Boom!   500 posts. 


Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: seattlecyclone on September 15, 2014, 06:20:36 PM
Agreed. I would certainly contact references because these folks have first-hand experience with how good this person is at getting their job done. That's what I'm looking for in a hiring situation. The other stuff is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: dragoncar on September 15, 2014, 06:27:02 PM
How much do you value your "won't pee in a cup" principles? How much do you value this job opportunity?  How standard is drug testing in this particular industry?

I would personally pee in the cup and move on but that's just me.

This is the more important question.  I bet most of the people here have a price.

I've never been asked to pee in a cup.  I've had about 6 different employers in engineering and law.  Of course, none of those have safety implications so I can see why it's unnecessary z

I'd pee in a cup for a relatively low price, all things being equal.  For example, if my employer offered me $10k to pee in a cup, I'd do it.  But if deciding between two separate employers offering different salaries, it wouldn't be just an issue of urine.  Instead, I'd worry that the company drug testing has no idea how to keep their desk workers happy, and will just generally be a pain to work for, will not attract the best talent, and will be worst for my career. 

So really, what's the urine worth to you?  Assuming there are no direct safety implications in your job (which is quite a few of you), would you turn down $1 million to pee in a cup tomorrow?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Emilyngh on September 15, 2014, 06:32:58 PM

So really, what's the urine worth to you?  Assuming there are no direct safety implications in your job (which is quite a few of you), would you turn down $1 million to pee in a cup tomorrow?

Oh, I'd pee in a cup tomorrow for much less than a million.  It's not the singular act for me; I would not want to keep working for a company that had such screwed up priorities as to require this.   But, if it were a one-time deal for money that I could then walk away from?-this to me is a very different thing.   

If it's a one-time thing instead of an employment commitment, the question would become: how much would you sell your pee for (assuming the buyer could do what they wanted with it, including drug testing it)?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Daisy on September 15, 2014, 06:39:39 PM
If I had $10k for every time I had to pee in a cup, I'd surely be FIRE by now.

I thought drug tests were the norm for the large companies. I'm not happy about it, but it's really an insignificant thing for me to do. I guess as a non-drug user (or poppy muffin eater ;-) ), then it doesn't bother me.

Interesting thing about character - to get a security clearance, one of the biggest things that can prevent you from getting one is having financial issues. I learned it was because people with financial issues are bribable since they may succumb to a cash payout in return for giving out secret information. Maybe it's the same idea with drug users. Companies might be worried that a drug user may be bribable in order to support their drug habit.

I guess in certain types of jobs this may not be a consideration though if the person has no influence or access to sensitive information. But I think at the big companies, they just want to treat everyone the same so it's safer to have everyone go through the drug tests so that they don't get sued for discrimination. It always comes back to the lawyers...
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: seattlecyclone on September 15, 2014, 06:58:39 PM
I've worked for three companies in the Fortune 50. None of them have required drug tests, so it's far from ubiquitous in "the large companies."

As to my "price," my current job is pretty sweet all things considered. If my boss told me I had to pee in a cup to keep it, I would do it. However, I would view such a requirement as a sign that my employer has embraced mindless policies over common sense. It would certainly not instill feelings of pride that my employer is doing something to weed out the insidious drug users.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: dragoncar on September 15, 2014, 07:16:20 PM

So really, what's the urine worth to you?  Assuming there are no direct safety implications in your job (which is quite a few of you), would you turn down $1 million to pee in a cup tomorrow?

Oh, I'd pee in a cup tomorrow for much less than a million.  It's not the singular act for me; I would not want to keep working for a company that had such screwed up priorities as to require this.   But, if it were a one-time deal for money that I could then walk away from?-this to me is a very different thing.   

If it's a one-time thing instead of an employment commitment, the question would become: how much would you sell your pee for (assuming the buyer could do what they wanted with it, including drug testing it)?

Any drug testing arrangement can be characterized as a series of singular acts.  Sure, if you are deciding between two employers who pay the same, and one drug tests, you pick the one that doesn't drug test.  If the drug-tester pays $10k/year more and tests once per year, then each drug test you submit gets your $10k.  If they only pay $1k/year more and test weekly, then each test gets you $20.

I've worked for three companies in the Fortune 50. None of them have required drug tests, so it's far from ubiquitous in "the large companies."

As to my "price," my current job is pretty sweet all things considered. If my boss told me I had to pee in a cup to keep it, I would do it. However, I would view such a requirement as a sign that my employer has embraced mindless policies over common sense. It would certainly not instill feelings of pride that my employer is doing something to weed out the insidious drug users.

Yeah, I'm sure "the large companies" drug test, but I think it really depends where you are in the organization.  They don't test the engineers, but I'm sure they test the forklift drivers.

Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Daisy on September 15, 2014, 07:18:58 PM
Yeah, I'm sure "the large companies" drug test, but I think it really depends where you are in the organization.  They don't test the engineers, but I'm sure they test the forklift drivers.

At the big companies, everyone gets tested. I'm a software engineer and have been tested multiple times. Even though it can be argued that you could write better software while under the influence. ;-)
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Emilyngh on September 15, 2014, 07:28:07 PM


Any drug testing arrangement can be characterized as a series of singular acts.  Sure, if you are deciding between two employers who pay the same, and one drug tests, you pick the one that doesn't drug test.  If the drug-tester pays $10k/year more and tests once per year, then each drug test you submit gets your $10k.  If they only pay $1k/year more and test weekly, then each test gets you $20.


No.   It's indicative of priorities and a work culture that I would not want to be part of by continuing to work there.   The singular act is not what they'd be paying me for, putting up every day with an environment where the employer regards my rights as a human being less than their paranoia is what the money would be paying for.

   Like I've said, I currently work somewhere where I have the utmost of autonomy; retaining this is important to me.   Pretty sure requiring me to give you my pee so that you can chemically test it to see what I do outside of work does not indicate a workplace where I want to work.  Considering I gave up about 1/2 my previous salary for a much smaller increase in autonomy than this; I wouldn't be selling it for $10k.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: viper155 on September 15, 2014, 07:32:15 PM
I do not take illegal drugs--or even those recently made legal in many areas--and am insulted when a company wants my urine.

It's urine. Ew. That is my first experience of the company? Peeing in a cup?

Seems like a bad way to start a relationship. Anyone else feel the same way?

I don't mind if they want to see if I have bad credit and whatnot, but the urine thing is just gross.

Also, what am I to think of a person who can't tell if someone is a drug addict? I think it's fairly obvious to spot them...

This is really immature. Urine samples are for medical purposes. Your job is not a right. But they have a right to know if you are clean. I wish this same set of rules worked for people who accept government handouts as well.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Emilyngh on September 15, 2014, 07:38:36 PM

This is really immature. Urine samples are for medical purposes. Your job is not a right. But they have a right to know if you are clean. I wish this same set of rules worked for people who accept government handouts as well.

(a) My employer doing whatever-the-hell-they-want to me is not their right, and no, I'd argue they really have no right to know what's in my body if it's not affecting my performance.   

(b) Goood freakin' Lord.   You might want to think for a minute about how stupid this winds up being in reality: "...But in Tennessee, where drug testing was enacted for welfare recipients last month, only one person in the 800 who applied for help tested positive. In Florida, during the four months the state tested for drug use, only 2.6% of applicants tested positive. Meanwhile, Florida has an illegal drug use rate of 8%, meaning far fewer people on services are using drugs than their better-off counterparts. The drug testing cost taxpayers more money than it saved, and was ruled unconstitutional last year."   http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/

Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: totoro on September 15, 2014, 08:02:40 PM
Okay, I'm an employer.  I hire lawyers to work at my firm.  I don't drug test them, but I live in Canada and in no way, shape or form would this be legal.  I do look at social media sites though and, given the character and conduct requirements for lawyers, it would be negligent of me not to imo.

One of the best lawyers I know uses pot in their free time.  When I say the best, I mean likely in the top ten in Canada - the very top legal mind I know of for sure.  This person should be put on a pedestal imo cause they have used their admirable intellect to better social conditions in Canada without regard to financial reward. 

So, I will state for the record that I don't see what rational link smoking pot has with doing jobs that don't, say, operate heavy equipment.  I doubt this lawyer would work at a firm that drug tests and, you know what, I would hire this person in a hot minute and pay the additional premiums if I was in the US.

Moving along to the US, you have a weird (to me) medical system which messes everything up.  The big companies get discounts on their premiums for drug-free staff.  So, drug-free becomes an issue even for non safety-sensitive positions.  If you don't do drugs (like me) so what on a personal level.

Perhaps the legalization of marijuana in some states will impact the situation.  Until then, I don't view it as discriminatory or an imposition on rights and freedoms.  A smart employer looking at a very high value employee will make an exception and do what they can to retain them even if it means paying higher premiums for the whole firm.  There really are not many employees like this in my experience.  If you find them, I say do what it takes to keep them just like google does.   FYI google does not drug test.

For the rest, there is a middle ground where those stats don't support supporting substance use due to negative impacts on performance and premiums.  Most companies are not operating at google level or they have contracts that force drug testing. 

Life is short, make the move that makes the best sense.  It could be a principle thing, but it seems like there is a large middle cohort of employees for whom drug testing might make economic sense in the US.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: dragoncar on September 15, 2014, 08:43:25 PM
Yeah, I'm sure "the large companies" drug test, but I think it really depends where you are in the organization.  They don't test the engineers, but I'm sure they test the forklift drivers.

At the big companies, everyone gets tested. I'm a software engineer and have been tested multiple times. Even though it can be argued that you could write better software while under the influence. ;-)

Eh, as mentioned by others this is far from ubiquitous.  Care to share which big companies you think test every employee?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Daisy on September 15, 2014, 08:51:26 PM
Yeah, I'm sure "the large companies" drug test, but I think it really depends where you are in the organization.  They don't test the engineers, but I'm sure they test the forklift drivers.

At the big companies, everyone gets tested. I'm a software engineer and have been tested multiple times. Even though it can be argued that you could write better software while under the influence. ;-)

Eh, as mentioned by others this is far from ubiquitous.  Care to share which big companies you think test every employee?

I could tell you, but I'd have to...well you know the rest.

I'm not arguing pro-drug-test, but I can see why they would test everyone instead of selecting just a few. Keeps the discrimination lawyers away. You wouldn't want certain people being drug tested and others not. Someone's bound to find a racial or ethnic or gender discrepency in there that just isn't worth opening up for lawsuits.

Right back at you - do you know of large companies that only drug test some people?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: devan 11 on September 15, 2014, 09:12:50 PM
  I would and I do.  It is a company wide measure that requires random drug tests. Drug addiction is a problem where I work. Employees who test positive are given the option of treatment or leaving.  Most of the positive tests are from salaried management.   A number of years ago, the next -in-line to manage the company where I work was sent away for manufacturing meth.  Addiction doesn't care about race, social status, employment or anything else.  I have the genes and personality that I know that alcohol or drugs could be my master.  I don't risk it.

I was initially afraid of a false positive screwing up my life, but there seem to be enough safeguards such as mandatory second sample tests that are independently verified and with gas spectrum tests, I don't worry about false positive tests anymore.   
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: JENRETIRE on September 15, 2014, 09:30:56 PM
http://www.questdiagnostics.com/home/companies/employer/drug-screening/testing-reasons/why-drug-test.html

So the company that makes money by selling drug tests thinks that they're beneficial?  I'm shocked, shocked I say!


Although the "increased morale" is pretty funny.  Who doesn't love to pee in a cup?  It's team building at it's finest!


This information is actually from the National Institutes of Health (but was quoted by Quest diagnostics). The study is pretty interesting from the tidbits I've found online.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: totoro on September 15, 2014, 09:33:21 PM
Yes, I looked at the source of the information before posting the link because self-interest is a big issue on a website like that.  The information is from government studies.  I didn't go further than that so maybe there are other issues.  Not sure.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: DollarBill on September 15, 2014, 10:05:02 PM
Meh, I find it hard to get riled by all this. 

From my perspective infringing on freedom is way too reactionary of a response to legal workplace drug testing for illegal drugs.  Peeing in a cup seems pretty small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.  It has nothing to do with trust of an individual and everything to do with managing risk and liability.   

Reports indicate "employees who abuse drugs are 2.5 times more likely than other non-substance abusing coworkers to be absent for eight or more days. Drug abusers are 3.6 times more likely to be involved in an accident at work and 5 times more likely to file a workers compensation claim. Forty-four percent of abusers have sold drugs to other employees and 18 percent have stolen from co-workers to support their habit.

Studies suggest that substance abuse – which includes drugs and alcohol – costs the United States an estimated $276 billion a year, with much of the cost resulting from lost work productivity and increased healthcare spending.

Drug testing programs have been shown to improve employee morale and productivity; decrease absenteeism, accidents, downtime, turnover, and theft; and lead to better health among employees and family members as well as decreased use of medical benefits.  Organizations with drug-free workplace programs sometimes qualify for state government incentives or workers’ compensation insurance premium discounts."

http://www.questdiagnostics.com/home/companies/employer/drug-screening/testing-reasons/why-drug-test.html

I was so going to give you props for the post but then you posted this:

Quote
Okay, I'm an employer.  I hire lawyers to work at my firm.  I don't drug test them, but I live in Canada and in no way, shape or form would this be legal.  I do look at social media sites though and, given the character and conduct requirements for lawyers, it would be negligent of me not to imo.

So you look at social media sites but smoking pot doesn't fit into character and conduct requirements for lawyers??

Quote
One of the best lawyers I know uses pot in their free time.  When I say the best, I mean likely in the top ten in Canada - the very top legal mind I know of for sure.  This person should be put on a pedestal imo cause they have used their admirable intellect to better social conditions in Canada without regard to financial reward. 

I know we all have misleading thoughts about lawyers...mostly because lawyers are willing to mislead or spin the truth. Some of the highest people we put on pedestals in life do drugs...does it make it right? Comedians are funny on cocaine, athletes do better on steroids, writers better on pot, students study better on Adderall...but I would look at them as cheaters! If I was an employer I personally would not hire them. But it seems like now-a-days people turn a blind eye for a leg up.

I'm not trying to attack you personally just pointing out the irony.   
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Emilyngh on September 15, 2014, 10:12:20 PM
Comedians are funny on cocaine, athletes do better on steroids, writers better on pot, students study better on Adderall...but I would look at them as cheaters! If I was an employer I personally would not hire them. But it seems like now-a-days people turn a blind eye for a leg up.

I'm not trying to attack you personally just pointing out the irony.

I'd love to see some evidence that writers do better on pot, or that it gives lawyers a leg up (anymore than say, having a beer could somehow give a lawyer a leg-up).....
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: totoro on September 15, 2014, 10:56:09 PM
I just happen to know a very accomplished and admirable lawyer who does smoke pot occasionally.  I don't think that is at all related to the superior performance and for all I know it might get in the way - not sure. 

All I know for sure is that this individual is absolutely the bees knees as a human being and a legal mind.  I can't reconcile judging character and conduct of someone who I have observed to be truly a decent person negatively because of smoking once in a while. 

I do understand the confusion in my statements so let me try to set out why I wrote what I did. 

I don't do drugs, nor do I surround myself with people who do.  I'm not really opposed to drug testing because maybe it is not such a big deal because either you don't take such a job or you stop doing drugs and if you can't, maybe you need treatment.  And for safety-sensitive positions, I strongly support testing.

And then I remembered that someone I highly admire might fail that drug test, and I would really like them as an employee and I've never seen them impaired on the job.   The person I'm referencing doesn't have to worry about this anyway because there is no such requirement in Canada for this type of position.  And they would have passed any social media test btw.

So, what I can say is that in my field I would make an exception for an exceptional employee who smoked pot once in a while.  If I was in a different field I might not feel that way.  If I didn't know this person as I do I might not feel this way either.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: DollarBill on September 15, 2014, 11:43:40 PM
I just happen to know a very accomplished and admirable lawyer who does smoke pot occasionally.  I don't think that is at all related to the superior performance and for all I know it might get in the way - not sure. 

All I know for sure is that this individual is absolutely the bees knees as a human being and a legal mind.  I can't reconcile judging character and conduct of someone who I have observed to be truly a decent person negatively because of smoking once in a while. 

I do understand the confusion in my statements so let me try to set out why I wrote what I did. 

I don't do drugs, nor do I surround myself with people who do.  I'm not really opposed to drug testing because maybe it is not such a big deal because either you don't take such a job or you stop doing drugs and if you can't, maybe you need treatment.  And for safety-sensitive positions, I strongly support testing.

And then I remembered that someone I highly admire might fail that drug test, and I would really like them as an employee and I've never seen them impaired on the job.   The person I'm referencing doesn't have to worry about this anyway because there is no such requirement in Canada for this type of position.  And they would have passed any social media test btw.

So, what I can say is that in my field I would make an exception for an exceptional employee who smoked pot once in a while.  If I was in a different field I might not feel that way.  If I didn't know this person as I do I might not feel this way either.

I guess my view is: That this guy has contacts to drugs and decided to act on it by buying drugs so he can put them in his body. Taking a chance to hurt his body/mind, break the law, risk his job. What else is he willing to compromise?? Is he willing to lie to keep someone out of jail? Sorry but I would not want someone to represent me unless I committed a heinous crime and would do what ever it takes to keep me out of jail. I'm about 40 and I only know maybe two people who could get me drugs but I would never want to be seen with them. I just don't understand why you would want someone like that on your team. He may be a good lawyer but what happens if he looses a case and the person who hired him finds out he does drugs? What if it was front page news, would you still stand behind him?

I tend to think a majority of the people fighting the point that Companies should not have the right to give a piss test have never been in a "Leadership Role"...which is different form a Management role.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sol on September 16, 2014, 12:20:39 AM
That this guy has contacts to drugs and decided to act on it by buying drugs so he can put them in his body. Taking a chance to hurt his body/mind, break the law, risk his job. What else is he willing to compromise??

Drugs are clearly a very polarizing issue.  I think the other side of this argument would respond that this hypothetical lawyer's use of drugs is not dangerous or criminal, and thus not a risk or a compromise.  There's a perverse sort of logic in thinking that it's not "really" illegal if so many other people are doing it, and it's not really dangerous if some people can use responsibly.  To them, weekend recreational pot smoking is no different than weekend recreational drinking, and the fact that marijuana is technically illegal is just an oversight on the part of the justice system, soon to be corrected, so they're not really breaking a real law by smoking it.

By contrast, there are people for whom drug use is akin to a swastika tattoo, a clear sign of character deficiency that has to be expected to spill over into other areas of their lives.  For those people, anyone who uses an illegal drugs is by definition a criminal and therefore not to be trusted.

I suspect that practical truth lies somewhere in between these two arguments, but writing them both out like that makes it clear that only one of these positions can see any shades of grey.   On the other hand, you could also say that only one of these arguments adopts the sort of moral relativism that might suggest a willingness to ignore rules or rebel against authority, which is maybe something a drug-testing corporation is just as interested in discovering as the drug use itself.

If you've bought the party line that "drugs are bad, m'kay?" then I understand why you'd judge users: they're self-destructive criminal degenerates.  If you've bought the argument that drug use isn't really harmful and shouldn't be illegal, then penalizing addicts is a form of persecution that you expect our progressive nation to outgrow.

I think most of the privacy-based arguments presented here are ex post facto rationalizations, a convenient shorthand that people adopt because they think it will have traction with the audience.  If you're really such a privacy nut that you think it should be illegal to gather evidence of a crime (remember drug use is still a crime) then I'm sure you also object to TSA body scanners and the Terrorist No-Fly list.  And were also outraged by the Edward Snowden leaks showing government data collection of all US citizens private emails and web traffic.  And I'm sure you protested against Stop And Frisk.  And I'm sure you use PGP for all of your online correspondences.  And I'm sure you would never use gmail or facebook or amazon, because those companies profit from collecting information about you.  Get over yourselves, you're not a privacy nut you're a drug use nut.  Nothing to be ashamed of there, just come out and own it. 

In an era where the rights of corporations are expanding by leaps and bounds every year, it's ludicrous to think that little old you have the right to use illegal drugs and still remain employed by a company that doesn't want you to.  They're literally giving you money to follow their rules, and you're saying you want their money but don't want to follow their rules? 
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spartana on September 16, 2014, 12:43:32 AM
So, I will state for the record that I don't see what rational link smoking pot has with doing jobs that don't, say, operate heavy equipment.  .
Would you feel the same if this person used cocaine, opiates (I.e. even heroin), ecstasy or something other then pot? Drug testing isn't just for pot, it's for a variety of drugs - the ones above and things like barbituates, and serveral types of legal drugs like Oxycontin, vicodin, etc.. I was a public safety employee after I got out of the armed forces and I was tested for many more drugs then just pot alone. I assume it was the same when I was tested while in the service. Here's an example of one set of drugs that employers commonly test for pre-employment:

Employers may use a standard five-panel test of "street drugs" that includes marijuana (THC), cocaine, PCP, opiates (e.g., codeine, morphine) and amphetamines (e.g., methamphetamine). Some employers may elect a nine- or ten-panel drug test that also includes various prescription drugs, such as oxycodone, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, or propoxyphene. Alcohol may also be screened for in the sample. Other more recent drugs of abuse, such as MDMA (ecstacy) may be included. Which drug test is used is dependent upon the private employer, federal requirements, or other workplace guidelines that may be in place.

again, it isn't so much that the person is doing drugs and isn't able to function and do their job (maybe they can), it's that they are engaging in an illegal activity - both by using and procuring illegal drugs - that may compromise the employer or company as well as other employees and clients.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: CerebralPrimate on September 16, 2014, 01:01:33 AM
Not mocking ya, just wondering when the last time barbituates were commonly abused?

Last I heard, perscription opiates and meth were really the big problem. And now the off-shoot/designer stuff is also rapidly growing as a problem... the so called "bath salts" and Salvia and things like that.

Not that I really have a clue... been away from the states too long to really know... and I have no real interest in drugs.

That said, if I did retire to Uruguay where pot is now legal, I might  be tempted to try it again. Last time I had any was just a short 20+ years ago, so I doubt it's something I'd get in to... but I wont swear it off as an experience right now. It certainly couldnt be much worse for me than drinking (back when I used to drink).
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Eric on September 16, 2014, 01:10:54 AM
Excellent post Sol!  I clearly fall on the side of it's no big deal.  I know more people who smoke pot than who don't.  Doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants, programers, musicians, retail workers, blog writers, and every other profession has many people who smoke.  None of these people are worried about it being a black mark on their character.  What they do on their own time has no bearing on their work.  Which of course is why it's ludicrous to think that their employers would somehow benefit from them not working there.


DollarBill, I think you win the Reefer Madness Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness) for this thread for pointing out how marijuana is surely going to ruin the life of everyone it comes in contact with.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spartana on September 16, 2014, 01:18:28 AM
Not mocking ya, just wondering when the last time barbituates were commonly abused?

 
Ha Ha - probably not since the 80's or so (when did LSD go out of fashion?) when the middle class matrons took it for their "nerves". I have heard that they are often used to counter act some of the effects of the newer amphetamines but that may not be true. But really I meant to say Benzodia.. something something... - that is like barbiturates and a fairly common prescription drug that is often abused.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: happyfeet on September 16, 2014, 05:06:11 AM
Nice post Sol.  Son had two EE internships and had pee and hair test each time. Company he hired on with out of college also pee and hair tested and does random testing if your number gets picked. All auto related companies.
As a side note, friends father was responsible for hiring trade people for an apprenticeship and out of 135 people tested only 13 were "clean". They wanted to hire
 30 people
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: shotgunwilly on September 16, 2014, 07:25:11 AM
Wrong.  You need a better way to test sobriety.  Unless you think that everyone who has ever had an alcoholic beverage is a threat to show up to work drunk, there's no reason to think that everyone who has ever used a drug is a threat to show up to work high.  It's nonsensical to separate out illegal drugs from legal drugs when it's not drugs that are the issue but sobriety.

Ok, a better way to test sobriety.

By y'alls arguments, people should not be able to check whether daycare workers and babysitters are pedophiles (by asking for consent to criminal history.)  Feel comfortable trusting a crackhead child molester with your kids all day? Oh, he hasn't done it at his work, just last weekend, so we have no right to hold that against him....

You couldn't work the Nazis in there somehow?  Fail.

You couldn't work an actually useful rebuttal in there somehow? "Fail."
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Timmmy on September 16, 2014, 07:35:13 AM
Every time I've had to do a drug test I have some fun with it.  I double up on my daily vitamin a couple of hours before the test.  It turns my urine in to a bright glowing yellow color.  Handing it over to the test giver usually gets a strange look. 

I don't mind the tests.  You give up pretty much all of your privacy when you take a job anyway. 
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: shotgunwilly on September 16, 2014, 07:47:34 AM

(b) Goood freakin' Lord.   You might want to think for a minute about how stupid this winds up being in reality: "...But in Tennessee, where drug testing was enacted for welfare recipients last month, only one person in the 800 who applied for help tested positive. In Florida, during the four months the state tested for drug use, only 2.6% of applicants tested positive. Meanwhile, Florida has an illegal drug use rate of 8%, meaning far fewer people on services are using drugs than their better-off counterparts. The drug testing cost taxpayers more money than it saved, and was ruled unconstitutional last year."   http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/

Unless, in fact, the ones who did drugs don't go apply for benefits, right?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sheepstache on September 16, 2014, 07:49:55 AM
If you're really such a privacy nut that you think it should be illegal to gather evidence of a crime (remember drug use is still a crime) then I'm sure you also object to TSA body scanners and the Terrorist No-Fly list.  And were also outraged by the Edward Snowden leaks showing government data collection of all US citizens private emails and web traffic.  And I'm sure you protested against Stop And Frisk.  And I'm sure you use PGP for all of your online correspondences.  And I'm sure you would never use gmail or facebook or amazon, because those companies profit from collecting information about you.  Get over yourselves, you're not a privacy nut you're a drug use nut.  Nothing to be ashamed of there, just come out and own it. 

In an era where the rights of corporations are expanding by leaps and bounds every year, it's ludicrous to think that little old you have the right to use illegal drugs and still remain employed by a company that doesn't want you to.  They're literally giving you money to follow their rules, and you're saying you want their money but don't want to follow their rules?

I did reference the TSA.  Which is bullshit.  And I agree with Shotgunwilly that a debate over whether drugs should be illegal or not is a completely different matter.

What I need from the pro-drug-test camp is a bright line explanation of why it goes that far and no further.  That's what's missing. What 'their money their rules' sounds like is a rationalization of anything based on the idea that it's good for productivity and everyone feels safer.

In philosophy/logic, we would ask, 'by virtue of what.'  By virtue of what is drug testing okay?  If you say reason a under conditions y then we say, 'great.  actions q, w, and r would also be justified for reason a under conditions y, so its okay to do them too.'  So you need some reason(s) and some conditions which limit it to drug testing.  I guess employers should have complete access to the financial accounts of pension managers because it's such a huge liability for the company if an employee is embezzling and embezzling is illegal.  I guess employers can conduct random body and household searches of pharmacists because pharmacists' stealing is such a huge risk and drug dealing is just as illegal as taking drugs.

Someone mentioned the rights of the company to watch your email account in case you're cheating, and this was obviously meant as a ridiculous example, but adultery did use to be illegal in the US, so would the legal status change your mind?

The famous mathematician John Nash was fired from his government job when he was arrested for gay sex.  He was working for something like the NSA I believe, so, given cultural attitudes towards homosexuality at that time, it did make sense that he couldn't hold a sensitive position when he was so vulnerable to blackmail, as distasteful as the idea of getting fired for your sexual orientation now seems.

My point is that whether something "feels right" or "seems okay" according to current attitudes isn't a pole star telling us whether it's right or not.

But this was at least an example where the crime was brought to the employer's attention. I don't have a problem with employers refusing to hire someone based on a felony drug conviction in their past (though, again, we get into practical problems if that's ubiquitous). What pro-drug-testers are talking about is not about whether you're allowed to take drugs or not and not whether employers deserve to know or not but they are talking about giving an employer more right to investigate someone and look for signs of illegal activity than the police themselves have. 

And I don't encrypt my email because I'm not particularly bothered by the NSA spying on everybody.  Being bothered by something isn't necessary to know it's ethically wrong.


Btw, OP, you might want to check the laws in your state.  http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter5-3.html
It looks like in a lot of places they can't ask you to be tested without a job offer.

Interestingly, in some places employers are only allowed to test with probable cause.  But if you think someone's doing something illegal, why wouldn't you just report it to the police?  Why would we privatize this aspect of the justice system?  Why couldn't companies just report suspicious behavior to the police and absolve themselves of liability in that way?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: shotgunwilly on September 16, 2014, 07:56:17 AM
I think most of the privacy-based arguments presented here are ex post facto rationalizations, a convenient shorthand that people adopt because they think it will have traction with the audience.  If you're really such a privacy nut that you think it should be illegal to gather evidence of a crime (remember drug use is still a crime) then I'm sure you also object to TSA body scanners and the Terrorist No-Fly list.  And were also outraged by the Edward Snowden leaks showing government data collection of all US citizens private emails and web traffic.  And I'm sure you protested against Stop And Frisk.  And I'm sure you use PGP for all of your online correspondences.  And I'm sure you would never use gmail or facebook or amazon, because those companies profit from collecting information about you.  Get over yourselves, you're not a privacy nut you're a drug use nut.  Nothing to be ashamed of there, just come out and own it. 

Well said.  This has been my point that there are arguments here that should be in a totally different topic, targeting a different policy.

Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: totoro on September 16, 2014, 08:00:15 AM
From what I can tell from real life experience, being a good lawyer and smoking pot recreationally are not mutually exclusive, although maybe for some people there is a negative correlation.

If this individual was charged with possession of marijuana, which seems unlikely given the current state of the laws in our province, there would be a very long line of people standing up to speak on his/her behalf.  I would be one of them.

As far as drug testing goes, I would expect someone subject to a drug test in the workplace should stop taking drugs and if you can't, get some help.

I agree that the black/white thinking re. drug use would mean that an employee who smokes pot is likely to be a bad employee in some way because they are already willing to break the law.  I do find that I have some leaning that way, perhaps because of upbringing.  On the other hand, I speed sometimes which is also breaking the law.  Does that mean I'm a risky employee or bad professional?

In general, I have no problem with drug testing by employers given that the research setting out that drug use is correlated with all sorts of elevated employment-related risks and by drug-testing insurance rates are lowered.  I'm just saying that not all employers will do this and if you are a high value employee who smokes pot you are going to have options.

If I was to institute drug testing of all new hires I probably would screen out candidates who tested positive. 

If I was to do it for existing employees and they were high value employees who tested positive for pot, I would probably ask if they were willing to stop.  If they were not willing to stop and it was recreational pot use, I might make an exception.  Police in our province have recognized it is not worth it to charge for personal possession and now give out cautions and the law will likely change.  It is widely accepted behaviour among all sorts of people and it appears they continue to function at work.  It is still illegal, but I can't reconcile terminating an excellent employee on this basis given that the law is not being enforced for public policy reasons.

Other sorts of drugs and I would let even a high value employee go.  It affects professional standards and I would be concerned about addiction and character/conduct.   
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sheepstache on September 16, 2014, 08:21:46 AM

So really, what's the urine worth to you?  Assuming there are no direct safety implications in your job (which is quite a few of you), would you turn down $1 million to pee in a cup tomorrow?

Oh, I'd pee in a cup tomorrow for much less than a million.  It's not the singular act for me; I would not want to keep working for a company that had such screwed up priorities as to require this.   But, if it were a one-time deal for money that I could then walk away from?-this to me is a very different thing.   

If it's a one-time thing instead of an employment commitment, the question would become: how much would you sell your pee for (assuming the buyer could do what they wanted with it, including drug testing it)?

Any drug testing arrangement can be characterized as a series of singular acts.  Sure, if you are deciding between two employers who pay the same, and one drug tests, you pick the one that doesn't drug test.  If the drug-tester pays $10k/year more and tests once per year, then each drug test you submit gets your $10k.  If they only pay $1k/year more and test weekly, then each test gets you $20.

Ha ha, okay, let's say the employees directly benefit.  The job for 10K more requires a test while the other one doesn't.  Fair enough because there's competition and I have some leverage.  That goes away if it becomes ubiquitous.

Or say the company pays me per drug test.  Every time there are drug tests I can opt out or I can get 1000 bucks.  Good deal.

But let's say companies change the structure so the drug test fee is the bulk of your compensation.  Annual drug test: $60,000.  Annual salary $1.

The good news with that one is they can only leverage you on the one thing.  If they start breaking it up into different chunks for different indignities you still get to pick and choose because you could afford to give up a smaller chunk of your salary.

There aren't always good legal ways to encode what it means to have a choice or what's right, it's interesting to think about.
Given that, regulations will never protect us fully.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Eric on September 16, 2014, 08:25:17 AM
The laissez faire attitude that the NFL has had towards what happens off the field is kicking them in the balls and is going to impact the bottom line.   It may not be a strict legal liability,  but it tarnished the brand.  And I say "may" because the news that 1in3 have evidence of brain injury is eventually going to be made part of one of these cases. 
Again, that's at work.

If you saw the pictures of the marks on that little boy, do you want the face of the guy who did it on your company's cereal box?  Are you buying ad space at the game for the team who hires him? 
Is this the Adrian Peterson thing?  It could be black mark on his personal endorsement deals.  No, the Vikings are not going to lose revenue from it.  The NFL is the most watched event in every local market every week.  If one advertiser pulls out, there's another one to take their place.  There are more advertisers than commercial slots, kind of like journalist jobs.


Outing yourself as one who already flouts the laws and thinks "no biggie" doesn't make you look all that great.  How hard is it to just not smoke?

Do you worry that you won't "look all that great" if you get a parking ticket?  In SF, personal pot possession isn't even a criminal offense.  It's a civil offense.  It's akin to a parking ticket.  In Colorado, it's perfectly legal.  You can purchase it similar to beer.  Do you worry that you won't "look all that great" if someone sees you drinking a beer?

It's easy to just not smoke.  I don't smoke most days.  And yet I don't come to a complete stop at stop signs on a daily basis.  Where is the test for that?  I'm flouting the law way more often in this way and yet my employer doesn't require me to wear an ankle monitor.  Why not?  Would you submit to ankle bracelet monitoring from your employer to make sure you're not a traffic scofflaw?  Where is the line drawn?

Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sheepstache on September 16, 2014, 08:43:46 AM
The laissez faire attitude that the NFL has had towards what happens off the field is kicking them in the balls and is going to impact the bottom line.   It may not be a strict legal liability,  but it tarnished the brand.  And I say "may" because the news that 1in3 have evidence of brain injury is eventually going to be made part of one of these cases. 
Again, that's at work.

If you saw the pictures of the marks on that little boy, do you want the face of the guy who did it on your company's cereal box?  Are you buying ad space at the game for the team who hires him? 
Is this the Adrian Peterson thing?  It could be black mark on his personal endorsement deals.  No, the Vikings are not going to lose revenue from it.  The NFL is the most watched event in every local market every week.  If one advertiser pulls out, there's another one to take their place.  There are more advertisers than commercial slots, kind of like journalist jobs.


The question was about employer liability for outside-work acts.  In the case of that penn state coach who was sexually abusing children, I believe PSU was facing some court cases about it.  They were facing those because it seemed they were aware of the activity and looked the other way.  Everyone has the same liability, though, that has nothing to do with being an employer.  And they were liable for ignoring evidence that they were aware of, not for not pre-emptively running psychological tests on the chance the guy might be a pedophile. Nor is the NFL responsible for Ray Rice because they failed to put surveillance equipment in their players' homes to ensure there's no domestic abuse going on.  It's completely different.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: DeepEllumStache on September 16, 2014, 08:45:22 AM
Every time I've had to do a drug test I have some fun with it.  I double up on my daily vitamin a couple of hours before the test.  It turns my urine in to a bright glowing yellow color.  Handing it over to the test giver usually gets a strange look. 

I don't mind the tests.  You give up pretty much all of your privacy when you take a job anyway.

I'm going to try this next time.  Excellent.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: frugalnacho on September 16, 2014, 08:51:54 AM
I do not take illegal drugs--or even those recently made legal in many areas--and am insulted when a company wants my urine.

It's urine. Ew. That is my first experience of the company? Peeing in a cup?

Seems like a bad way to start a relationship. Anyone else feel the same way?

I don't mind if they want to see if I have bad credit and whatnot, but the urine thing is just gross.


Also, what am I to think of a person who can't tell if someone is a drug addict? I think it's fairly obvious to spot them...

Why is it ok to be invasive on your personal credit but not your urine?  I find both invasive. 

Short answer: I guess I would, because I have.  But, oldtoyota, I have the same icky feelings about it.  It feels like a guilty until proven innocent thing.

I've also known a handful of folks that do recreational drugs "responsibly". (I'm not sure if that's the right phrasing... What I mean is that it does not interfere with their job).

You've known a lot more than a handful.  I guarantee you knew a whole slew of people that used recreational drugs and you never had a clue.

I had to do it for my last job. It didn't really bother me, except for the time that it took. I don't use recreational drugs. However, having to take it with all the rigmarole proved a good indicator of what working for the company would be like.

It does bother me that you can fail the test because you used drugs on the weekend, even if you never are impaired at work. Of course you don't want to hire someone who can't stay off cocaine or alcohol for a couple of days (or is so stupid as to show up for the test with it in their system.) But marijuana leaves traces in your system for a long time after the effects are completely gone.

Quote
Not that they're necessarily LOOKING for it, but couldn't they tell if you were pregnant or not from a urine test?

Drug tests look for certain specific indicators. A pregnancy test looks for different indicators. They don't have one single test that shows everything in your pee--you'd have to run both tests. Which they don't do because it costs more.

Not only are they separate tests but it is illegal for them to test for pregnancy hormones without permission.  If they collect urine for a drug screening they are only legally allowed to test for those drugs.

In college I submitted to one that I was pretty sure I'd fail.  But hey, those things are expensive and fuck them for thinking that it's necessary.  I wanted to see what the results would be, but sadly it was only a pass/fail sort of thing.  A list would've been more interesting.

(note, not a current place I was working)

There's a 0% chance that I'd capitulate today.

They test for the metabolite using a cheaper indicator that basically works like a litmus strip that changes at the cut off level.  Below 50 ng/mL of marijuana metabolite and you get a "negative", above that and you get a "positive".  It's a binary test, it's pass/fail.  It's the same idea for the other drugs (with different cut of levels). If you fail any particular drug then they can use a gas chromatography (GC) unit to verify it's not a false positive, and also quantify the amount.  It costs a lot of money to run a GC though so if they weed out the vast majority using the cheaper pass/fail method, and if you pass then no need to run the expensive test and quantify how much is in it.

Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: garth on September 16, 2014, 09:02:27 AM
God bless the internet.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sheepstache on September 16, 2014, 09:06:03 AM
God bless the internet.

Seriously.  The other active thread I'm participating in is about peanut butter.  This forum is the best.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Emilyngh on September 16, 2014, 09:18:34 AM

(b) Goood freakin' Lord.   You might want to think for a minute about how stupid this winds up being in reality: "...But in Tennessee, where drug testing was enacted for welfare recipients last month, only one person in the 800 who applied for help tested positive. In Florida, during the four months the state tested for drug use, only 2.6% of applicants tested positive. Meanwhile, Florida has an illegal drug use rate of 8%, meaning far fewer people on services are using drugs than their better-off counterparts. The drug testing cost taxpayers more money than it saved, and was ruled unconstitutional last year."   http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/

Unless, in fact, the ones who did drugs don't go apply for benefits, right?

Both of these examples are pretty recent and short-term; it's not they've been in place for years.   So, it is most likely that the vast majority of the people they were testing had already signed up prior to the testing being enacted.   

Possibly drug users are less likely to apply regardless of whether or not they're testing (which could be true, I don't know), but in which case drug testing is still a useless waste of money.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: frugalnacho on September 16, 2014, 09:28:59 AM
I did to work in a hospital setting.  There were strict rules about purses and temperature, but I didn't have to pee in front of anyone.  I'm not sure if that's standard practice somewhere.  I didn't see anything wrong or offensive with it, and if I were a patient, I would want the people working around me to be clean and sober.

I think we all would.  The problem is that drug tests don't measure sobriety.

I meant sobriety by this definition.

"Sobriety is the condition of not having any measurable levels, or effects from mood-altering drugs."
Source- Wikipedia.

I think you have a misunderstanding of how drug tests work.  They don't measure or test for the active drug at all, in any case.  They exclusively test for drug metabolites (the inactive molecules left over after your body metabolized the drug).

You can get high on every drug possible right before a urine test, and still pass the urine test even though you have a lethal amount of illegal drugs in your system.

You can get fucked up on drugs, completely metabolize the drugs and have zero active drugs in your system, and yet still fail a piss test. 

That is the problem with urine testing, especially for marijuana which stays in your system longer than any other drug.  Someone that smoked a joint on friday night will completely fine and sober a few hours later, but will end up failing a drug test 2-4 weeks away because the metabolite stayed in their system.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: frugalnacho on September 16, 2014, 09:32:13 AM
Some of the ignorance in this thread is astounding.  I only made it to page two before my head exploded. 
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: JENRETIRE on September 16, 2014, 11:13:03 AM
Here are few facts from a Department of Labor Study on Drugs in the Workplace.*

Workers Compensation: 38 percent to 50 percent of all Workers Compensation claims are related to substance abuse in the workplace, as substance abusers file three to five times as many Workers Compensation claims.

Medical Costs: Substance abusers incur 300 percent higher medical costs than non-abusers.

Absenteeism: Substance abusers are 2.5 times more likely to be absent eight or more days a year.

Lost Productivity: Substance abusers are 1/3 less productive.

Employee Turnover: It costs a business an average of $7,000 to replace a salaried worker.


I understand that some people are just not willing to submit to a urine test and they obviously have that right. But I think it would be hard to argue that drug using employees (as a whole, I don't care to hear about this person or that person) typically don't help a companies bottom line. So in my mind, weeding out users BEFORE you hire them is a SMART move by companies.

* Source: 'Working Partners', National Conference Proceedings Report: sponsored by U.S. Dept. of Labor, the SBA, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: dragoncar on September 16, 2014, 11:54:01 AM
Some of the ignorance in this thread is astounding.  I only made it to page two before my head exploded.

In a thread like this, you have to read every third comment to prevent head explosion
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Timmmy on September 16, 2014, 12:05:53 PM
Here are few facts from a Department of Labor Study on Drugs in the Workplace.*

Workers Compensation: 38 percent to 50 percent of all Workers Compensation claims are related to substance abuse in the workplace, as substance abusers file three to five times as many Workers Compensation claims.

Medical Costs: Substance abusers incur 300 percent higher medical costs than non-abusers.

Absenteeism: Substance abusers are 2.5 times more likely to be absent eight or more days a year.

Lost Productivity: Substance abusers are 1/3 less productive.

Employee Turnover: It costs a business an average of $7,000 to replace a salaried worker.


I understand that some people are just not willing to submit to a urine test and they obviously have that right. But I think it would be hard to argue that drug using employees (as a whole, I don't care to hear about this person or that person) typically don't help a companies bottom line. So in my mind, weeding out users BEFORE you hire them is a SMART move by companies.

* Source: 'Working Partners', National Conference Proceedings Report: sponsored by U.S. Dept. of Labor, the SBA, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

What's the definition of "substance abusers"?  I know a lot of people that aren't substance abusers (in my definition) that would fail a drug test. 
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Emilyngh on September 16, 2014, 12:07:04 PM
Here are few facts from a Department of Labor Study on Drugs in the Workplace.*

Workers Compensation: 38 percent to 50 percent of all Workers Compensation claims are related to substance abuse in the workplace, as substance abusers file three to five times as many Workers Compensation claims.

Medical Costs: Substance abusers incur 300 percent higher medical costs than non-abusers.

Absenteeism: Substance abusers are 2.5 times more likely to be absent eight or more days a year.

Lost Productivity: Substance abusers are 1/3 less productive.

Employee Turnover: It costs a business an average of $7,000 to replace a salaried worker.


I understand that some people are just not willing to submit to a urine test and they obviously have that right. But I think it would be hard to argue that drug using employees (as a whole, I don't care to hear about this person or that person) typically don't help a companies bottom line. So in my mind, weeding out users BEFORE you hire them is a SMART move by companies.

* Source: 'Working Partners', National Conference Proceedings Report: sponsored by U.S. Dept. of Labor, the SBA, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Since the definition of a "substance abuser" is based on someone having major issues at work or home as a result of over-using drugs *or alcohol,* (see definition below) then of course, a substance abuser is more likely to have major issues at work (or home).  Duh.

 However, someone who uses drugs is no more automatically a "substance abuser" than anyone who drinks should be automatically categorized as a "substance abuser."   

"A definition of substance abuse that is frequently cited is that in DSM-IV, the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) issued by the American Psychiatric Association. The DSM-IV definition is as follows:

A. A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more) of the following, occurring within a 12-month period:
Recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions or expulsions from school; neglect of children or household)
Recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired by substance use)
Recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for substance-related disorderly conduct
Continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences of intoxication, physical fights)"

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=24405
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spartana on September 16, 2014, 12:51:07 PM
God bless the internet.

Seriously.  The other active thread I'm participating in is about peanut butter.  This forum is the best.
Hmmm... Peanut butter and marijuana?? I think I see a link :-)!
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 16, 2014, 01:01:25 PM
Alright, seriously, how many of y'all are smoking the crack as we speak?

One should only partake of the crack during a drunken stupor.

  - Old Canadian Proverb
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: frugalnacho on September 16, 2014, 01:09:31 PM
God bless the internet.

Seriously.  The other active thread I'm participating in is about peanut butter.  This forum is the best.
Hmmm... Peanut butter and marijuana?? I think I see a link :-)!

It's called a firecracker.  http://www.thestonerscookbook.com/recipe/firecrackers
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spartana on September 16, 2014, 01:18:33 PM
You can get fucked up on drugs, completely metabolize the drugs and have zero active drugs in your system, and yet still fail a piss test. 

That is the problem with urine testing, especially for marijuana which stays in your system longer than any other drug.  Someone that smoked a joint on friday night will completely fine and sober a few hours later, but will end up failing a drug test 2-4 weeks away because the metabolite stayed in their system.
Which is why drug testing isn't used to determine sobriety at that moment (unless there has been an accident and an employee is suspect of possibly being high/intoxicated) or even ability to do the job, but to determine recent usage. many companies don't want people who use drugs even recreationally after working hours on the books cause, you know, drugs are bad M'kay! I chose to work in a field that does mandatory drug tests so have no problem with it myself. If I did I'd say screw you guys I'm going home and look for work in another field or stop drug usage.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spartana on September 16, 2014, 01:20:26 PM
God bless the internet.

Seriously.  The other active thread I'm participating in is about peanut butter.  This forum is the best.
Hmmm... Peanut butter and marijuana?? I think I see a link :-)!

It's called a firecracker.  http://www.thestonerscookbook.com/recipe/firecrackers
Ya learn something new everyday :-)! I was more thinking along the lines of peanut butter MJ brownies but firecrackers seem so much better - not that I do any drugs and no I don't even drink - my body is a temple, yadda yadda yadda... :-)!
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: frugalnacho on September 16, 2014, 01:31:46 PM
God bless the internet.

Seriously.  The other active thread I'm participating in is about peanut butter.  This forum is the best.
Hmmm... Peanut butter and marijuana?? I think I see a link :-)!

It's called a firecracker.  http://www.thestonerscookbook.com/recipe/firecrackers
Ya learn something new everyday :-)! I was more thinking along the lines of peanut butter MJ brownies but firecrackers seem so much better - not that I do any drugs and no I don't even drink - my body is a temple, yadda yadda yadda... :-)!

The active ingredient in marijuana is soluble in oil, so you can put it in oil and then put it into anything you want. 

Marijuana is hands down the the safest drug to ever exist.  Orders of magnitude safer than even the most benign drugs that we allow children to consume (like caffeine).
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Spartana on September 16, 2014, 02:03:52 PM
God bless the internet.

Seriously.  The other active thread I'm participating in is about peanut butter.  This forum is the best.
Hmmm... Peanut butter and marijuana?? I think I see a link :-)!

It's called a firecracker.  http://www.thestonerscookbook.com/recipe/firecrackers
Ya learn something new everyday :-)! I was more thinking along the lines of peanut butter MJ brownies but firecrackers seem so much better - not that I do any drugs and no I don't even drink - my body is a temple, yadda yadda yadda... :-)!

The active ingredient in marijuana is soluble in oil, so you can put it in oil and then put it into anything you want. 

Marijuana is hands down the the safest drug to ever exist.  Orders of magnitude safer than even the most benign drugs that we allow children to consume (like caffeine).
Lots of carcinogens from smoking it (similar to cigarettes) as well as possible other potential problems depending on one's overall health, and when combined with other drugs - including prescription drugs someone may be usuing. But yeah, compared to other drugs it may be safer when not smoked but eaten. But then I probably wouldn't give kids caffeine...or sugar :-)!
But the issue isn't so much is it safe or not, but currently it is illegal and so that's more so the issue with employers.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/marijuana/safety/HRB-20059701

I personally would be MUCH more concerned with an employer who tried to force me to stop doing some kind of thing in my free time that was legal to do. Like the cig smoking a poster mentioned above, drinking, eating Oreos, riding my motorcycle, etc... That should not be their business unless those things were illegal
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: kite on September 16, 2014, 03:14:36 PM
The laissez faire attitude that the NFL has had towards what happens off the field is kicking them in the balls and is going to impact the bottom line.   It may not be a strict legal liability,  but it tarnished the brand.  And I say "may" because the news that 1in3 have evidence of brain injury is eventually going to be made part of one of these cases. 
Again, that's at work.

If you saw the pictures of the marks on that little boy, do you want the face of the guy who did it on your company's cereal box?  Are you buying ad space at the game for the team who hires him? 
Is this the Adrian Peterson thing?  It could be black mark on his personal endorsement deals.  No, the Vikings are not going to lose revenue from it.  The NFL is the most watched event in every local market every week.  If one advertiser pulls out, there's another one to take their place.  There are more advertisers than commercial slots, kind of like journalist jobs.


The question was about employer liability for outside-work acts.  In the case of that penn state coach who was sexually abusing children, I believe PSU was facing some court cases about it.  They were facing those because it seemed they were aware of the activity and looked the other way.  Everyone has the same liability, though, that has nothing to do with being an employer.  And they were liable for ignoring evidence that they were aware of, not for not pre-emptively running psychological tests on the chance the guy might be a pedophile. Nor is the NFL responsible for Ray Rice because they failed to put surveillance equipment in their players' homes to ensure there's no domestic abuse going on.  It's completely different.
The comment was more generic than an employer's strict liability.   Quite a few here are taking the position that what you do off the clock is not your employer's business and that it doesn't cost them anything.   That is categorically untrue for a number of jobs.  Mozilla,  Radium One, Penn State,  NYC public schools, A&E, Discovery Channel, Warner Brothers,  CBS, the US Military and every single bank all care about it.  Each has fired or suspended people for doing things on their own time that the employer doesn't like.  Clearly the NFL can't police the behavior of players, no one can.   But even they recognize that they can't adopt a "not my problem" position and retain any level of respectability.
The most bizarre thing in this debate is from those who insist on the right to enjoy the effects of THC coursing through their bloodstream don't seem to respect the right of an employer to say "not on my payroll"
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: maizeman on September 16, 2014, 04:10:05 PM
One of my good friends worked in the marketing department for a major (S&P 500-listed) U.S. company.  Before she started, they demanded not just urine, but a HAIR sample drug test, which apparently lets them test drug use for a much longer time period.  As a casual smoker, she spent a ton of time researching online and had her hair bleached and colored multiple times to basically totally destroy any trace of it.  She passed the test and was one of their best employees.

On average it seems like hair drug test would seem to place a rather unequal burden on women, especially considering the number of guys guys going around with shaved heads these days. If hair grows at a rate of about half an inch a month (looked it up on wikipedia no idea if it's true) passing a hair-based drug test for many women could easily require two years of clean living. Now there are certainly men with long hair and women who shave their heads, but I wonder if a case could still be made...
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Eric on September 16, 2014, 04:36:57 PM
The comment was more generic than an employer's strict liability.   Quite a few here are taking the position that what you do off the clock is not your employer's business and that it doesn't cost them anything.   That is categorically untrue for a number of jobs.  Mozilla,  Radium One, Penn State,  NYC public schools, A&E, Discovery Channel, Warner Brothers,  CBS, the US Military and every single bank all care about it.  Each has fired or suspended people for doing things on their own time that the employer doesn't like.  Clearly the NFL can't police the behavior of players, no one can.   But even they recognize that they can't adopt a "not my problem" position and retain any level of respectability.
I don't really know what happened in any of the cases you're citing, but I'm guessing that other people were harmed?  That doesn't really have anything to do with drugs or not.  Ray Rice isn't a shitstorm because he may or may not have been under the influence.  It's because he struck and injured another. 

The most bizarre thing in this debate is from those who insist on the right to enjoy the effects of THC coursing through their bloodstream don't seem to respect the right of an employer to say "not on my payroll"
Well, again, no one thinks it's okay to smoke while on the job.  I'm personally not paid 24 hours a day, so I don't need to act like I'm at work 24 hours per day.  My employer doesn't like me to sleep while on the payroll, yet I still manage to sleep every single day.

I'm still wondering why you're not lobbying for employers to monitor driving or biking habits for signs of lawlessness.  Surely they don't want people with no respect for the rule of law on their payroll.  A simple GPS ankle monitor could easily weed out all of these lawbreakers and keep your company free from those with no respect for authority.  It seems you'd be okay with wearing one of these, right?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: frugalnacho on September 18, 2014, 09:36:16 AM

The most bizarre thing in this debate is from those who insist on the right to enjoy the effects of THC coursing through their bloodstream don't seem to respect the right of an employer to say "not on my payroll"


Nobody has insisted that.  That's not even how drug tests work.

No employers check for THC coursing through your blood stream.  No employers even check for THC, or any actual drug.  They check for left over inert metabolites only. 

Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: dragoncar on September 18, 2014, 02:34:46 PM

The most bizarre thing in this debate is from those who insist on the right to enjoy the effects of THC coursing through their bloodstream don't seem to respect the right of an employer to say "not on my payroll"


Nobody has insisted that.  That's not even how drug tests work.

No employers check for THC coursing through your blood stream.  No employers even check for THC, or any actual drug.  They check for left over inert metabolites only.

I don't touch pot, but I do smoke the metabolites
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Michael792 on September 18, 2014, 04:26:18 PM
Being in the military, this is a fairly regular occurrence. It's pretty sanitary, all things considered, and it helps maintain a professional workforce. Also, with this testing, you are able to ensure that workers are not making themselves less effective through the use of substances that will alter their minds while at work. While it would be nice to trust everyone, we can't always afford to do that. In short, I think it's a necessary evil for many workplaces. If you don't like it, don't work there. At the same time, realize there is no ill intent and that the process is as sanitary as can be expected.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 19, 2014, 12:32:33 PM

The most bizarre thing in this debate is from those who insist on the right to enjoy the effects of THC coursing through their bloodstream don't seem to respect the right of an employer to say "not on my payroll"


Nobody has insisted that.  That's not even how drug tests work.

No employers check for THC coursing through your blood stream.  No employers even check for THC, or any actual drug.  They check for left over inert metabolites only.

I don't touch pot, but I do smoke the metabolites

Good for you.  Metabo-lites are much healthier than the higher calorie regular metabos.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Gerard on September 19, 2014, 05:03:24 PM
Wow, this is a "Canada and the US are different" thing that I never really thought about. I guess most of it is down to insurance, but maybe drug-o-phobia is involved too.

I've never been tested for drugs for a job; I've never known anyone who has. The only job with drug screening at hiring that I know of is airline pilot, and even then, only for the major airlines. Random employee drug testing is illegal in Canada (well, technically not illegal, but against the Charter of Rights).

Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sheepstache on September 30, 2014, 11:23:02 PM
God bless the internet.

Seriously.  The other active thread I'm participating in is about peanut butter.  This forum is the best.
Hmmm... Peanut butter and marijuana?? I think I see a link :-)!

It's called a firecracker.  http://www.thestonerscookbook.com/recipe/firecrackers
Ya learn something new everyday :-)! I was more thinking along the lines of peanut butter MJ brownies but firecrackers seem so much better - not that I do any drugs and no I don't even drink - my body is a temple, yadda yadda yadda... :-)!

Hahaha! I don't do drugs either but the way things are going I'm pretty sure I shouldn't even click on that link.

The question was about employer liability for outside-work acts.  In the case of that penn state coach who was sexually abusing children, I believe PSU was facing some court cases about it.  They were facing those because it seemed they were aware of the activity and looked the other way.  Everyone has the same liability, though, that has nothing to do with being an employer.  And they were liable for ignoring evidence that they were aware of, not for not pre-emptively running psychological tests on the chance the guy might be a pedophile. Nor is the NFL responsible for Ray Rice because they failed to put surveillance equipment in their players' homes to ensure there's no domestic abuse going on.  It's completely different.
The comment was more generic than an employer's strict liability.   Quite a few here are taking the position that what you do off the clock is not your employer's business and that it doesn't cost them anything.   That is categorically untrue for a number of jobs.  Mozilla,  Radium One, Penn State,  NYC public schools, A&E, Discovery Channel, Warner Brothers,  CBS, the US Military and every single bank all care about it.  Each has fired or suspended people for doing things on their own time that the employer doesn't like.  Clearly the NFL can't police the behavior of players, no one can.   But even they recognize that they can't adopt a "not my problem" position and retain any level of respectability.
The most bizarre thing in this debate is from those who insist on the right to enjoy the effects of THC coursing through their bloodstream don't seem to respect the right of an employer to say "not on my payroll"

I totally get what you're saying about its not being about legal liability but more the company's image being tarred. But as you say, that only applies to a number of jobs, not all of them. Specifically, jobs where the employee represents the company in some very public way. It sounds like you agree this wouldn't apply to every job.

Bear in mind this is a matter of culture and it changes over time. If fans cared that Ty Cobb was a wife-beating psychotic racist, they didn't think the national baseball commission had any responsibility for that. I suppose one of my issues is the feedback cycle going on. The public lays more responsibility than is reasonable on companies to keep their employees in line; companies respond by demanding more right to police the employees. As they gain ability to police behavior that further increases their liability.

What I'm trying to point out is the need for a legal basis for these rights. The grocery store is negatively affecting my bottom line by charging me money, but that doesn't give me the right to go in and take the food I want for free. Companies might lose money if their employees catch bad press, but they aren't actually guaranteed profits by the constitution.

It's important that the judicial system protects our rights against cultural trends and mob mentality. The company's rights end where the individual's begin.

If it helps, I will go ahead and say, yes, you absolutely should not be on drugs while you're at work :) I notice from other threads that you and Spartana have employers that are... a bit more involved than normal. Not being allowed to take side-gigs, background checks for security clearances, etc. That may influence your views. To be clear, I have no problem that some jobs like that exist. You had a choice whether to take them and I assume you decided the compensation was a fair trade.

My concern is that there has to be a framework that prevents us from turning into a country of company towns where the employer enforces church attendance. We can't go to the other extreme either, which some parts of the populace are clamoring for, which says that a job is a right, and other various views that, if enacted in legislature, would completely hobble businesses. I think it's an appropriate use of government to come up with nuanced compromises that will ultimately reflect our ethics.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: oldfierm on October 03, 2014, 08:45:25 AM
Wow, all I can say to the people on this thread is DON'T JOIN THE MILITARY!  I pee in a cup, with the bathroom stall door open, in front of a person who watches me, every two to three weeks, like clockwork.  It never even occurred to me that there would be so many people who would have some kind of moral problem with this. 

Oh and for the record, I'm a lawyer, so I've toured the drug labs.  I'm assuming the civilian labs are similar, but it's not like they are splashing around in your urine or testing for whatever floats their boat that day.  The Navy tests for the same specific drugs each time.  Little pipette (sp?) of urine, GC/MS machine, they do it again if it comes up positive for one of the preset substances. 

Maybe after all these years I'm just numb to having my "rights" taken away, but I do not see this as a big deal. 
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Sofa King on October 03, 2014, 02:48:02 PM
These test are SOOOOOOO easy to beat. I smoke weed ALL THE TIME and have passed these tests numerous times no problem and have ALWAYS gotten the job!!!  Just find someone who can give you their clean pee (not hard for me to do as my wife does not smoke). Put the urine in a unlubricated condom and the tie it off. Place condom under scrotum to maintain proper temp (very important) I just wear some Tighty Whities pulled up a little extra to keep it in place! Then off to the pee test!!! Even if I have to wait in waiting room, putting it under my scrotum will keep it the rite temp indefinitely! Then when called in for the test they ask you to empty your pockets and then you close the bathroom door (I forgot to mention you need a safety pin) and you take out of your sock a hidden safety pin to pierce the condom that is holding the clean piss and then pour into cup! Pour any unused urine in the toilet (i also like to pee in the toilet as well, a nurse/worker is out there listing to hear this to make sure you are really going). Then put pin back into sock and empty condom back in underpants and with 100% CONFIDENCE hand over "your" urine sample and WHALA YOU ARE NOW A 100% A DRUG FREE WORKER READY FOR YOUR FIRST DAY ON THE JOB!!!   I GUARANTEE YOU this will work every time.  The key is to practice at home a few hours before you go to the test. If you do a "dress rehearsal" a few times then you will be much calmer when you are actually doing this. Especially the first time. For women to do this it's actually even easier because they already have a warm place to hide the urine filled condom!  Good luck and enjoy life!!!  :  )
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: KBecks2 on October 05, 2014, 07:11:09 AM
I don't think it is a big deal.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: chasesfish on October 05, 2014, 07:16:26 AM
I'm in finance and had no problem with a drug test.  I have access to money and drug issues can lead otherwise honest people to do very destructive things when it comes to money.

That being said, I don't know if the tests are done as much now since some drugs are legal in many states.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: 87tweetybirds on October 05, 2014, 05:12:59 PM
As a nurse I understand why it is mandatory. Someone who has a narcotic habit is a huge liability to the facility. Someone who already has an addiction would be much more likely to divert medications, as well as knowing how important good judgement and a clear head are in critical situations were I to be a patient I would want my care providers to be as clear headed as possible. On another note, we count the controlled substance drawer twice a day, and if there is ever an unexplainable discrepancy everyone who accessed that cabinet in the previous 24 hours could be suspended until after completion of urinary testing. (If you come back negative they'll pay for hours lost), so it's a big deal, and I can understand why the company would want to limit risks where possible.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sol on October 05, 2014, 05:23:08 PM
we count the controlled substance drawer twice a day, and if there is ever an unexplainable discrepancy everyone who accessed that cabinet in the previous 24 hours could be suspended until after completion of urinary testing. (If you come back negative they'll pay for hours lost),

I figured most people who would steal from a controlled substances drawer were peddlers, not users.  Why risk losing access to your source by using the product yourself?

These test are SOOOOOOO easy to beat... urine in a unlubricated condom.. under scrotum... safety pin... pour into cup... practice at home... enjoy life

You can learn the most interesting things reading the internet.  This isn't exactly what I anticipated learning today when I signed on here.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: sheepstache on October 05, 2014, 05:49:52 PM
Maybe after all these years I'm just numb to having my "rights" taken away, but I do not see this as a big deal.

That is how it often happens, it seems.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Rural on October 05, 2014, 06:57:04 PM
Maybe after all these years I'm just numb to having my "rights" taken away, but I do not see this as a big deal.

That is how it often happens, it seems.


Martin Niemöller said something to that effect, I believe.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: h2ogal on October 05, 2014, 08:40:08 PM
I would never force employees to take a drug test.  Its against my principles.  However, certain industries require it.  Industrial or commercial driving jobs that require a commercial drivers license.  The employer may not want to test employees but may be required to by a regulating state agency. 
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: dhream on October 06, 2014, 11:04:49 AM
I understand Old Toyota was more concerned with their dignity, privacy, and 'Eeew' factor, and by extension, the moral rectitude of said employers.

I've worn many hats in this life. I started out busting users, then became one (a 'social' user and only after I resigned from the cops) contrary to the propaganda, drugs were a lot of fun, and way more fun than getting hammered on alcohol! But I've outgrown most of them. Now it's just prudent to abstain for a variety of reasons, frugality being one!

I also in recent years, worked in an industry that required the 'pee test' on sign-up, and they also have a neat little clause that stipulates that, in the event of an accident or incident, every employee on that shift from management down, is tested as a matter of policy, whether they were involved or not.

So I have seen it from all perspectives. I think it is a necessary procedeure in some industries, but I also think the broader 'war on drugs' is and has been, an insanely costly misstep, and global thinking needs to pivot toward preventive health, regulation, and decriminalisation, without getting into a drug debate here (pointless).

Bottom line is I am now free to make my own decisions, including living in countries where I can enjoy certain substances without harassment, but if I needed to, I would 'pee in the cup' again. Also, having not had time to read this huge thread in full, I wonder if Old Toyata went ahead with it? And are they now employed at the 'cup' place?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: frugalnacho on October 10, 2014, 08:02:41 AM
we count the controlled substance drawer twice a day, and if there is ever an unexplainable discrepancy everyone who accessed that cabinet in the previous 24 hours could be suspended until after completion of urinary testing. (If you come back negative they'll pay for hours lost),

I figured most people who would steal from a controlled substances drawer were peddlers, not users.  Why risk losing access to your source by using the product yourself?

To get high.  Have you ever known a drug addict?
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: bo_knows on October 10, 2014, 08:05:55 AM
I work for a government contractor. I've always had to take a drug test for a new job (along with a polygraph every 5 years).  It does make me slightly sad that I never tried things like weed in college. lol
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Sid Hoffman on October 10, 2014, 10:46:16 PM
On average it seems like hair drug test would seem to place a rather unequal burden on women, especially considering the number of guys guys going around with shaved heads these days. If hair grows at a rate of about half an inch a month (looked it up on wikipedia no idea if it's true) passing a hair-based drug test for many women could easily require two years of clean living. Now there are certainly men with long hair and women who shave their heads, but I wonder if a case could still be made...

Actually I had a family member that worked at a company that did hair follicle testing.  You pay by the millimeter and accuracy goes down as you get to older, more damaged sections of hair.  Generally they pluck hair so they have it from below the surface of the skin.  That area may still give 3-7 days or so, depending on how deep the strands were below the surface, which prevents tampering from things like dye & bleach, as someone suggested earlier in the thread.  Plus, it's worth pointing out apparently it's very easy to tell if the hair has been chemically trashed.

Anyway, you pay by the millimeter, so they only test a section something like 25mm long, starting at the root at the employer my friend worked at.  That was enough to easily cover the last month or two and real junkies can't stay clean that long.  Recreational users aren't your problem (for the most part) so if they've been clean the last two months, that was good enough for this particular employer.

As for the baldies or shaved heads, they can use any hair.  Even if you shave your arms, legs, and *ahem* private areas, they will pluck nasal hairs if that's what's needed.  Apparently this particular employer has never had anyone show up for testing and be unable to provide a sample.  If somebody is genuinely on drugs and doesn't want anyone to know, they will just suddenly pull out of the application process when they find out it's hair follicle testing and not a pee test.
Title: Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
Post by: Fuzz on October 11, 2014, 10:21:07 AM
Piss in the cup. Take their money. Look for other jobs.