Author Topic: Would You Urinate in a Cup?  (Read 55771 times)

Freedom2016

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 628
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #100 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.

DollarBill

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Austin TX
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #101 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 :).

shotgunwilly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #102 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.

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #103 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.

DollarBill

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Austin TX
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #104 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.

DollarBill

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Austin TX
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #105 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.

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5075
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #106 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?

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Age: 60
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #107 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.

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #108 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.

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4061
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #109 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.

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #110 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.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2014, 01:24:24 PM by Spartana »

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #111 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.

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #112 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.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2014, 01:31:03 PM by Spartana »

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #113 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.

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #114 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!!

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5075
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #115 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.

shotgunwilly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #116 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?

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4061
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #117 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.

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3236
  • Location: WDC
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #118 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.   

shotgunwilly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #119 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.

shotgunwilly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #120 on: September 15, 2014, 02:51:36 PM »
Alright, seriously, how many of y'all are smoking the crack as we speak?

Simple Abundant Living

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 580
    • Simple Abundant Living
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #121 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. 

DeepEllumStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3464
  • Location: Hiding under my desk
  • I came, I saw, I made it awkward
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #122 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.

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #123 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.

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4061
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #124 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.

Beric01

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Age: 29
  • Location: SF Bay Area
  • Law-abiding cyclist
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #125 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.

shotgunwilly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #126 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....

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4061
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #127 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.

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4061
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #128 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?

BlueMR2

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2008
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #129 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.

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #130 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.

totoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #131 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
 


Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #132 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.

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4061
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #133 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!

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #134 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 :-)!

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5075
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #135 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.

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #136 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).

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5075
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #137 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.

Emilyngh

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 892
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #138 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!

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #139 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?

Zamboni

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #140 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.

Emilyngh

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 892
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #141 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. 


« Last Edit: September 15, 2014, 06:16:04 PM by Emilyngh »

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5075
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #142 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.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8838
  • Registered member
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #143 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?

Emilyngh

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 892
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #144 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)?

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #145 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...

seattlecyclone

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5075
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Seattle, WA
    • My blog
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #146 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.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8838
  • Registered member
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #147 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.


Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #148 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. ;-)

Emilyngh

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 892
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #149 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.