IT job without a drug test possible

[Howard]

Originally posted by: KLin

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Sundog

Originally posted by: Soybomb
Okay the guy in walmart cruising over me with a man lift then. Its a hypothetical example, pick a company with heavy equipment and no testing and one with none and testing.

Ahhhh...all I have to say to that is FVCK Walmart.:|

Goodnight all.....I am tired and need to go pee in a cup tomorrow morning.

If they insist on watching, ask them to hold the cup.

"woops, sorry about peeing on your hand. Woops, sorry again!"

Asshole!

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Soybomb
I just finished up my BS and don't have what I think is too terrible job experience. I'm ultimately looking for a network or unix system administrator position. So far I haven't looked too hard and been enjoying my old job and some time off but decided its time to start looking for something a bit better so I can pay off some loans before I go back for another degree. Anyway I live in a rural area so tech jobs aren't everywhere. One of my friends gave me a heads up about a job with a hospital she works at but they require a blood/urine sample for drug testing before employment. I've never even smoked pot so I don't worry about the results but I think thats an invasion of privacy and frankly irrelevant to the job. If it was a job with security clearance needs or using heavy equipment maybe. To restore a raid array and add users to the lan, no.

I partially feel like I'm crazy to turn down a decent job for such a reasonably trivial matter, but I also hate not following my values. I'm just curious what the chances are of getting my dream job in a tech company like google, yahoo, amazon, microsoft, etc is with this thinking. I like to think of tech companies being a little more liberal with employment rules and not being this invasive into someone's personal life, but maybe thats just wishful thinking.

what's invasive about not wanting a crack head working for you?

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: torpid
At least now you have quoted a random figure of 80% so I feel more confident in your opinion. Considering my expertise and my level of expertise, I'd be willing to wager that most companies in fact would re-test me. Especially considering in some (if not all) states, an employer cannot legally ask for a drug test until an offer has been made by the employer, and thus they would likely be receptive to why I might test positive for certain substances due to medications.

Don't be so sure that they aren't legally obligated to comply, considering it may amount to some form of discrimination if their testing methodology rejects sudafed or similar drugs and their testers did not ask the appropriate questions.

No one seems to be saying it's all that effective at reducing drug use in the workplace, only that it's better than nothing at all, and has some benefits other than the actual drug test. It's their money... let them spend it how they choose. I still don't see why you are so gung ho about this. Maybe you're worried about your 15 friends who falsely passed the drug tests.

Also, you seem to originally have said that some places rightfully do drug tests but hospitals aren't one of them. I'm still wondering what those places are since you don't seem to have mentioned any.

pilots. people that work at nuclear reactors. and those taht are in the military all are subject to random testing as well as initial testing. i never quoted 80% anywhere that was your figure. my figure was the bare minimum six sigma qualit assurance standard(67 defects/errors per million), which is greater than 99% but still not acceptable.

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Soybomb
I just finished up my BS and don't have what I think is too terrible job experience. I'm ultimately looking for a network or unix system administrator position. So far I haven't looked too hard and been enjoying my old job and some time off but decided its time to start looking for something a bit better so I can pay off some loans before I go back for another degree. Anyway I live in a rural area so tech jobs aren't everywhere. One of my friends gave me a heads up about a job with a hospital she works at but they require a blood/urine sample for drug testing before employment. I've never even smoked pot so I don't worry about the results but I think thats an invasion of privacy and frankly irrelevant to the job. If it was a job with security clearance needs or using heavy equipment maybe. To restore a raid array and add users to the lan, no.

I partially feel like I'm crazy to turn down a decent job for such a reasonably trivial matter, but I also hate not following my values. I'm just curious what the chances are of getting my dream job in a tech company like google, yahoo, amazon, microsoft, etc is with this thinking. I like to think of tech companies being a little more liberal with employment rules and not being this invasive into someone's personal life, but maybe thats just wishful thinking.

what's invasive about not wanting a crack head working for you?

the interview should suffice in figuring this out.

 

[540mb]

pissing in cups RULES. go for it!

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: gigapet
pilots. people that work at nuclear reactors. and those taht are in the military all are subject to random testing as well as initial testing. i never quoted 80% anywhere that was your figure. my figure was the bare minimum six sigma qualit assurance standard(67 defects/errors per million), which is greater than 99% but still not acceptable.

Re-read your post to see the 80% figure I was referring to.

So you think that pilots being drug tested is worth it, but not people who work in a hospital?

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: gigapet
pilots. people that work at nuclear reactors. and those taht are in the military all are subject to random testing as well as initial testing. i never quoted 80% anywhere that was your figure. my figure was the bare minimum six sigma qualit assurance standard(67 defects/errors per million), which is greater than 99% but still not acceptable.

Re-read your post to see the 80% figure I was referring to.

So you think that pilots being drug tested is worth it, but not people who work in a hospital?

remember now dipsh1t? you said it not me.

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: gigapet
did you not read any of my previous posts....i countered all your statements already.

It is very easy for someone to A) pick up the habit after they have been hired thus negating the efectiveness of the test and B) do something to falsify the test(professional atheletes do it all the time) thus negating the effectivness of the test

and finally

find me data about false positives before you make claims like that.

How are those counters? You are basically saying that since we can't test all the time, we shouldn't test at all. Oh and since some people falsify tests, we shouldn't test at all. Maybe you could talk about why you think we shouldn't do them, rather than attempt to give strange reasoning why doing them isn't perfect. If I'm an employer in a hospital I'm certainly going to do it. There's no negative in my mind. False positives can generally be resolved by re-testing, and people who feel that their privacy is being invaded, well, tough luck. Don't work in a hospital if you don't want people making sure you are on the up and up.

Also, there are other benefits to having it during an employment test. Don't you think an employee would think twice about beginning a job there if they are a recreational drug user and see that they have to take a test before they can even get in?

Why don't YOU find ME data about false positives, since you are the one who claims they are so rampant that tests are meaningless. As far as I know they are at least 80% accurate (google it) and that is probably low considering some of the "failures" are due to OTC or prescription drugs.

and if they are just going to test the hospital workers once then yes i would say its pointless ....if they subjec thtem to random testing as they do in the careers which i previously mentioned then i would say that would be much more effective

 

[torpid]

Keep reading. My 80% figure was not a random one. Yours was. It even began with the qualifier that you were guessing.

 

[Beau]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Beau

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Beau
*waves hand*

no piss testing here (not that I'd be worried about it though)

And IMO it is an invansion of privacy and very humiliating to have to pee in a cup for a stranger.

Guess you don't go to the doctor much.

That's totally different. That's a voluntary action for my health, not an involuntary "piss or your fired" look into my life outside the workplace.

It's not different at all. You're volunteering to apply for a particular job. It's not a "piss or you're fired." It's more of a "piss or you're not hired."

If the company adopts a drug test policy after you're hired, it's "piss or your fired"
Been there, done that, twice. While I didn't get a positive back, they did have to fire 15 individuals at one of those places.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Soybomb
I just finished up my BS and don't have what I think is too terrible job experience. I'm ultimately looking for a network or unix system administrator position. So far I haven't looked too hard and been enjoying my old job and some time off but decided its time to start looking for something a bit better so I can pay off some loans before I go back for another degree. Anyway I live in a rural area so tech jobs aren't everywhere. One of my friends gave me a heads up about a job with a hospital she works at but they require a blood/urine sample for drug testing before employment. I've never even smoked pot so I don't worry about the results but I think thats an invasion of privacy and frankly irrelevant to the job. If it was a job with security clearance needs or using heavy equipment maybe. To restore a raid array and add users to the lan, no.

I partially feel like I'm crazy to turn down a decent job for such a reasonably trivial matter, but I also hate not following my values. I'm just curious what the chances are of getting my dream job in a tech company like google, yahoo, amazon, microsoft, etc is with this thinking. I like to think of tech companies being a little more liberal with employment rules and not being this invasive into someone's personal life, but maybe thats just wishful thinking.

what's invasive about not wanting a crack head working for you?

the interview should suffice in figuring this out.

i dunno, even a drug user can get it together for a few hours of interviews. not every crack head is falling down stupid, regardless of his/her addiction.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Beau

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Beau

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: Beau
*waves hand*

no piss testing here (not that I'd be worried about it though)

And IMO it is an invansion of privacy and very humiliating to have to pee in a cup for a stranger.

Guess you don't go to the doctor much.

That's totally different. That's a voluntary action for my health, not an involuntary "piss or your fired" look into my life outside the workplace.

It's not different at all. You're volunteering to apply for a particular job. It's not a "piss or you're fired." It's more of a "piss or you're not hired."

If the company adopts a drug test policy after you're hired, it's "piss or your fired"
Been there, done that, twice. While I didn't get a positive back, they did have to fire 15 individuals at one of those places.

it's amusing how many people forget someone else is paying YOU to work for THEM. if they don't want drug users working for them they have every right considering drug use is ILLEGAL. you aren't paying someone to show up and do work for them, so why should you get to choose what they ask of you to work there. pretty soon people will be complaining about having to go through the interview process (or how about past crimes, i think asking if i've every murdered someone is an invasion of my privacy!) at all.

anyway, you can't say "it takes place outside the workplace" when it's something that can affect your job. no one is forcing you to take a job, if you don't like the fact that they don't want drug users there, then find another place of employment (and no i'm not ranting at you beau, just in general).

 

[Soybomb]

Random thoughts after reading some of the responses:

Medical testing is not the same as asking you questions. As an employer you also aren't free to choose people you want to work for you on randomo grounds, there are tons of rules regarding what you can and cant ask someone for employment, and what is invalvid grounds for turning someone down (EOE, ADA come to mind). For instance I find it funny that in the state of illinois we forbid most employers from conducting a lie detector test on employees prior to employment, yet we allow them to demand a prospective candidate hand over a cup of bodily fluid, sometimes while being watched. Would you feel any differently if it were a STD test that an employer insisted on. Most people will come up clean, but you still get to have a doctor stick a qtip in your snickerdoodle and see whats cooking. I mean hey, casual and wreckless sex could cause insurance problems, fights at home that could bleed over into work, or maybe you just come to work all tuckered out because of that weekend orgy. No matter as an employer I don't want the promiscious working for me. Okay I'm stretching it a bit on that, but I think the root is what you do in your private time is up to you as long as you don't present a danger to others or until you bring that activity or its associated problems into your work place. NSA crypto guy, may warrant a drug test, cop may warrent a drug test (off-duty carry). If you don't pose harm to others though it is intrusive.

To the guy questioning the reason for pilots and not hospital workers, do you feel justified in testing then the mechanic, flight attendants, and everyone else in the airport too. I'd rather my plane ticket money be spent on better trained guards or something, I'd feel much safer.

Anyway this thread went way off track into a debate on if it is an invasion of privacy or not, but I decided not to apply for the position since I didn't agree with it. If anyone is ever in the position to make that decision for a company I would urge you to argue against it, it will cause well qualified candidates to walk away and you'll still get drug users too. Save the money for the pension fund.

 

[erikistired]

i guess the thing is, having an std is not against the law. using drugs is. and honestly, if qualified candidates are walking away from a job because they have to be screened for drug use they probably aren't the type of people i'd want working for me anyway, as they'll probably find something else to cause a stir over in the future.

 

[torpid]

I questioned pilots but not hospital workers because I think hospital workers should be tested. I don't have an opinion on pilots. But I know how sensitive people are about their records and how much political pressure there is on hospitals, so I don't think it's unusual.

I think you probably made the right decision. You seem like you might have some personal beliefs that would be tested a lot more than just for this drug test if you were to work there. I know I wouldn't want to work for most hospitals or doctors, or the medical field in general.

 

[Soybomb]

fisher: nothing more annoying than people who don't roll over for an employer 'eh? Next thing you know they'd be causing a stink about something crazy medical record privacy. 'er well nevermind.

torpid: I had pretty much decided anyway, just wondered if I'd ever get a job thinking like this. Don't forget you have law on your side, the consequences for bad information security and the like are pretty tough thanks to hiipa. I think demanding more might be asking for too much. I'd like to be sure my burger isn't spit on either, I'd get more bent out of shape about that than someone reading about an ingrown toenail, but I have to rely on the health department and those laws to protect me there as well, not in depth background checks to see if they're the type of person that would do that. It was kinda neat to see in the thread though how most people don't seem to care. Omg omg you might have access to personal records of course you need tested, yet they're turn medical test results to anyone that would give them a job.

 

[BatmanNate]

I had to go through a drug test & an FBI background check, but my job entails dealing with a lot of sensitive financial data.

 

[torpid]

I've never been drug tested before, and I probably have access to SOME sensitive data here. I don't think it's too common to require drug tests. I would be surprised if it was required for a majority of IT jobs. However, it is certainly becomming MORE common. I would probably make the same decision you made if I wanted to work for a company that did not deal with sensitive data and asked me for one.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: gigapet

Originally posted by: dmw16
That's really silly. It isn't an invasion of privacy really. They want to know about the people they are hiring. It isn't like they are taping your phones to find out if you are cheating on your wife, they just want to know if you are breaking the law by using drugs. And beyond that they probably just want to make sure since you need to be reliable and so forth. I had to take a drug test to work at best buy when i was in HS and also to work an IT job I had in HS too. I dont think it is a big deal, if its a good job, take the test and be over with it.

read up on the frequency of false positives.....its astounding that this practice is still in place.

Being a chemist that does this for a living, I would say false positives are so amazingly low they can be statistically rounded to zero.

Originally posted by: scorp00
Drug tests are BS and a waste of time and money. I personally know 5+ people who have passed a piss test when they 100% shouldn't have. There are chemical cleaners that you can buy that are on the order of 99.9999% effective, and they do work. My best friend passed a drug test a few days after i saw him smoking.

No, they are about 00.0001% effective. What happens quite often is that some chemical elutes with THC in the urine and it makes the chromatography look kind of 'funny.' The industry essentially goes by the rule that if the data is not 110% perfect then it will be reported as "Unfit for Reporting" or "Unfit for Analysis" or something similar depending on the specific company. The employer, in most instances, will get notified that the urine sample was less than perfect, however due to the costs or other personal opinions the employer hardly ever chooses to retest. Also technically and legally the test was indeed negative, however realistically it was found to be positive.
Also depending on the amount your friend smoked and his metabolism, the levels of THC metabolite may have been below the acceptable cut-off limit for your employer, being that a few days did pass between him smoking and taking the test.

My point is, that if you think those chemical 'cleaners' are helping you out, they are not doing a thing.


In this particular instance with the OP, I would assume that it is industry policy that all hospital employeers are tested for drugs of abuse.

Also for those nitwits that think it is an invasion of privacy may need to learn something about your civil rights before you moan and groan too much. As many others said, the prospective employee has options. Nobody is forcing him/her to take that job which requires a test.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Originally posted by: gistech1978

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: gistech1978
assume guilt and prove your innocence.
isnt that how america works?

Why shouldn't people run their companies the way they want to?

why shouldnt people run their lives the way they want to?

Amazingly they can! They don't have to work there.

If I ran a hospital I'd require ALL employess to do a drug test as well. You would be working with equipment that stores files that could be of dire consequence if lost as result of your doing something stupid. Also, if you have a history, I don't wanna take risks. You could be the type of guy who gets high on some fvcked up drug at home, then decides to come to work and trash some lab or harass patients in your crazy state...I don't know.

Perhaps if you're doing admin work for a company that ships boxes from A to B or sells product Z, maybe. But when your employer is responsible for keeping people alive, they're not gonna fvck around.

Lastly, you don't think it's possible that some addict is gonna forge a resume and apply simply to try and get access to their stock of drugs? I'm certain it does happen, and who's responsible for when they're out of painkiller A or rare/expensive anti-biotic B and can't treat some critical case because the addict raided the place?

 

[Eli]

Blahblahblah...

I don't care what any of you say. Drug tests "unfairly" single out cannabis users, because THC is the only thing you can test for more than a few days after use. Alcohol, crack, meth, heroin, LSD, mushrooms, etc.. are all out of your system within 72 hours at the very most. Further, it is possible to function 100% normally in society while using cannabis. You can't say the same thing about meth, crank and heroin users.

I say it again. It is none of my employers business what I do on my own time as long as I do my job satisfactory.

If an employer drug tests and I don't give a sh!t about getting the job, I simply won't apply.

If an employer drug tests and I do want the job, I'll smoke a bowl in the parkinglot before going in, and they will get a nice shiney vial of synthetic urine to test.

:|

 

[StageLeft]

I read only thread title, but I've had three iT jobs and never a drug test. One offer I get said that they could ask me to do one, but they didn't, so I guess that would be four.

 

[Linflas]

I have been working in IT since 1984 including 5 years at Naval Research Lab, 1 year at the Pentagon, and 3 years on a DEA contract and have never once been asking to pee in a bottle.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Eli
Blahblahblah...

I don't care what any of you say. Drug tests "unfairly" single out cannabis users, because THC is the only thing you can test for more than a few days after use.

No, there are many drugs of abuse you can test for more than a few days after use.

Alcohol, crack, meth, heroin, LSD, mushrooms, etc.. are all out of your system within 72 hours at the very most.

Possible, but THC can be out of your system within 72 hours as well. It depends on body fat, metabolism, usage, etc so there is not hard and fast rule for any drugs.

Further, it is possible to function 100% normally in society while using cannabis.

That is completely untrue, and deep down you, and people that think like you, know this but love to rattle off rhetoric.
Is being stoned as 'bad' as being drunk with alcohol? Probably not. However to say one can function 100% 'normally' in society is irresponsible. Many people take amphetamines and function 100% in society, hell many people need amphetamines to function 100%.

You can't say the same thing about meth, crank and heroin users.

It is all irrelevent, anyhow. Just because some drugs incapcitate more than others does not justify the abuse of a 'lesser' drug, e.g. pot.

I say it again. It is none of my employers business what I do on my own time as long as I do my job satisfactory.

You are right it is none of their business. However if you show up to work with drugs of abuse in your system, then it is indeed their business.

If an employer drug tests and I do want the job, I'll smoke a bowl in the parkinglot before going in, and they will get a nice shiney vial of synthetic urine to test.

Synthetic urine will not work 100%. Can it? Sure, but there is also a chance of people screwing up making it from powdered form and yes we can determine that.

 

[StormRider]

My current job required a urine test. I was scared as sh!t to take it because I have a tiny pee-pee and I didn't know how a urine test would work. Would the nurse or doctor actually look at my penis while I was peeing?

Thankfully, that didn't happen. They gave me a cup and I was able to do it privately in a closed bathroom.

I made a mistake of drinking too much water before taking the test. I was afraid I wouldn't be able to pee so I drank a lot of water. But the exact opposite happened. I was ready to burst about 15-minutes before I was given the test. I even asked the nurse if I could use the bathroom now but she asked if I could just hold on for a little while.

 

[Eli]

No, there are many drugs of abuse you can test for more than a few days after use.

Like what?

I'm not flaming, I'm asking because I'm curious. I am sure that is true, but AFAIK cannabinoids are the only ones that will bind to fat cells, enabling positive tests up to weeks into the future. Most other drugs are metabolized out of your body extremely quickly, especially amphetamines, at least from what I understand.

Possible, but THC can be out of your system within 72 hours as well. It depends on body fat, metabolism, usage, etc so there is not hard and fast rule for any drugs.

Well, certainly. But if you're really into this stuff for a living, you at least know what I'm saying.

That is completely untrue, and deep down you, and people that think like you, know this but love to rattle off rhetoric.
Is being stoned as 'bad' as being drunk with alcohol? Probably not. However to say one can function 100% 'normally' in society is irresponsible. Many people take amphetamines and function 100% in society, hell many people need amphetamines to function 100%.

WTF??

I absolutely, completely, 100% disagree. How can you say something like that?? You do realize that everybody who drinks isn't drunk 24/7, right? How is relaxing to a bowl after work ANY worse than drinking a few beers after work?? Do you think that ALL drugs, including legal ones are bad? If not, where the hell are you comming from with this?

It is 100% legal to be passed out piss drunk on the night before work, as long as you're able to come to work on time and do your job. So WTF? Do you think that people who drink alcohol aren't able to function in society and are irresponsible? I really don't understand. To me, this is nothing more than clever brainwashing, ie: Drugs that are illegal are bad because we tell you they are, mmmmkay?

It is all irrelevent, anyhow. Just because some drugs incapcitate more than others does not justify the abuse of a 'lesser' drug, e.g. pot.

I can agree with you in principle here, but since the whole premise of some drugs being against the law is based on their bodily effects, it is indeed relevant.

You are right it is none of their business. However if you show up to work with drugs of abuse in your system, then it is indeed their business.

Please. If you really do this for a living, then you know as well as I do that just because you test positive for THC does not mean you're stoned. You know that it is the only drug that I know of that can be successfully tested for weeks after usage has stopped(I'd like to know others if they exist). That's why I said it unfairly singles cannabis users out.

It's not MY fault that THC stays in your system longer than other drugs. That certainly doesen't mean I'm stoned until it's not detectable anymore, that isn't how it works.

Synthetic urine will not work 100%. Can it? Sure, but there is also a chance of people screwing up making it from powdered form and yes we can determine that.

Irrelivant. If I'm going to fail the test anyway, I have nothing to lose..

You probably run dozens of tests a day. I'll take my chances that It'll slip by.