Pre-Employment Drug Screening and the Paranoia of False Positives

[Alidar Jarok]

I'll ask you. If they required something with no business justification, such as firing you for speeding, would you be ok with that too?

I would not, as my driving record is irrelevant to my job.

However, I think drug use can be completely relevant, regardless of the work you're doing. If a company doesn't want to hire people who use drugs, I think that should be their right. If a company doesn't want to hire felons, that should be their right. Hell, if a company doesn't want to hire people with a lot of parking tickets, that should be their right, too.

So parking tickets but not speeding tickets? I'm not exactly sure your distinction here is. It seems that you're disagreeing with your initial point.

Drugs can impact the way a person does their job, but not all drugs and only if they use them on the job. There are better remedies than drug testing unless it's the kind of job that requires constant vigilance (and most don't - certainly not office jobs).

Personally, I think it's shitty the way convicted felons get screwed out of jobs and essentially have their lives ruined for a single mistake (especially since it makes rehabilitation for those who want to reform twice as difficult), but that's an entirely different issue. At least that requires due process and a criminal conviction.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

So is religion, and political affiliation.

The difference is, those two things are: 1) legal, and 2) much less likely to affect job performance.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Not necessarily true. Wouldn't whether or not you are pro-choice or pro-life affect your ability to perform your duties at a hospital? Wouldn't your views on religious head garments affect your ability to wear a uniform consistent with everyone else?

Certainly, in the latter category, you are required to accommodate unless there is a compelling business justification otherwise. I don't see why the "compelling justification" standard can't be used for drug tests. If you're a surgeon or a truck driver, it's far different from a paper pusher.

 

[Snaploud]

Speaking of pre-screening, I met with my future boss this morning to finalize the arrangement. I had the worst gas imaginable. I'm surprised I still have the job.

Congrats on the new job, by the way. I remember you mentioned it up-thread, but it must have slipped my mind.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Not necessarily true. Wouldn't whether or not you are pro-choice or pro-life affect your ability to perform your duties at a hospital?

I happened to see the form that one hospital uses to allow new hires to declare such religious convictions. I think that what they do is just get someone else to step in, in the event of an emergency (such as one employee not being able to perform an abortion). They just get it on file so they know exactly what to do quickly, without having to ask.

Wouldn't your views on religious head garments affect your ability to wear a uniform consistent with everyone else?

At least at my job, if someone were to wear the hijab or a turban for religious reasons, it would be considered an acceptable variation on the uniform. In my area we have two ladies who wear skirts instead of pants--in at least one case for religious reasons. They may not be wholly consistent, but at least in the case of the skirts, the company can require that they be the same color (black) as the pants that you would normally wear as part of the uniform.

This is a reasonable accommodation, not hard for the employer to make, and in our line of work the skirt does not present a safety hazard (whereas long necklaces, bracelets, and so on, do, and those are restricted).

There was a time that religious symbols on necklaces were forbidden, but I think either somebody sued or the lawyers figured out that wasn't going to work, so they switched to simply putting a restriction on how long said necklace could be, so that it couldn't get caught in a machine.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

You're describing "reasonable accommodation," not situations where there is no effect on the business, which isn't the standard for drug testing.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Which is why religion/politics and drug use aren't comparable constructs.

The only reasonable accommodation that can be offered to an addict in certain jobs is, if you find they are addicted, accommodating their ability to go to rehab, attend AA meetings, etc. (Once you're in recovery, the addiction is treated as an illness.) But a company does not legally have to hire you if they find out you're doing drugs. The disability accommodation only comes about it happens after the fact.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes I know drugs was mentioned, but a policy about rejecting people based on a criminal conviction (no matter the crime) would surely be found illegal.

It's quite common practice, actually.

Yeah. Would you want your teach to be guilty of child abuse? Would you want your babysitter to be guilty of theft? How could you trust them with your kids/belongings?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Which is why religion/politics and drug use aren't comparable constructs.

The only reasonable accommodation that can be offered to an addict in certain jobs is, if you find they are addicted, accommodating their ability to go to rehab, attend AA meetings, etc. (Once you're in recovery, the addiction is treated as an illness.) But a company does not legally have to hire you if they find out you're doing drugs. The disability accommodation only comes about it happens after the fact.

But why are we necessarily talking about addicts? My whole point is the idea of accommodating recreational drug users - especially of drugs like Marijuana. There's a middle ground between firing people for using marijuana on weekends and allowing people to do lines of cocaine while at work.

 

[clint g]

Drugs can impact the way a person does their job, but not all drugs and only if they use them on the job. There are better remedies than drug testing unless it's the kind of job that requires constant vigilance (and most don't - certainly not office jobs).

This much isn't true, as it is not uncommon for drug addicts to steal in order to feed their drug habit.

For example

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...ling-Guns-Station-Precinct-Cop-162343096.html

Mina was arrested following an investigation by the NYPD Firearms Suppression Unit, Internal Affairs Bureau and Manhattan District Attorney's office. He allegedly confessed to investigators that he stole the guns to support his drug habit.

Granted, people who aren't on drugs steal all the time. By getting rid of people who have possible drug problems however, you get rid of a possible risk factor.

Which is why religion/politics and drug use aren't comparable constructs.

The only reasonable accommodation that can be offered to an addict in certain jobs is, if you find they are addicted, accommodating their ability to go to rehab, attend AA meetings, etc. (Once you're in recovery, the addiction is treated as an illness.) But a company does not legally have to hire you if they find out you're doing drugs. The disability accommodation only comes about it happens after the fact.

But why are we necessarily talking about addicts? My whole point is the idea of accommodating recreational drug users - especially of drugs like Marijuana. There's a middle ground between firing people for using marijuana on weekends and allowing people to do lines of cocaine while at work.

Of course, but when you're running a company and you are at the interview stage, you don't have the time to go into every little detail like that. You trim the fat as quickly as you can. If you really want to get a job, lay of the weed until after you get hired. If you are unable to do that much, at the minimum you are lacking in self-discipline.

 

[MacLeod]

Yes I know drugs was mentioned, but a policy about rejecting people based on a criminal conviction (no matter the crime) would surely be found illegal.

It's quite common practice, actually.

Yeah. Would you want your teach to be guilty of child abuse? Would you want your babysitter to be guilty of theft? How could you trust them with your kids/belongings?

Oh come on, I said no matter the crime. Obviously a case can be made Specific crimes for specific jobs.

 

[SmoothieX]

Speaking of pre-screening, I met with my future boss this morning to finalize the arrangement. I had the worst gas imaginable. I'm surprised I still have the job.

Congrats on the new job, by the way. I remember you mentioned it up-thread, but it must have slipped my mind.

Thank you, sir.

Citizens of portions of CT, MA, and NY, I apologize in advance for the immediate decline in civil engineering talent in your neighborhood. Sewers flow uphill, right?

 

[clint g]

Well, you can't make it any worse

We just had a 100 year old sewer collapse in the middle of Brooklyn

 

[SmoothieX]

Storm or sanitary? Neither sounds like a good time. How big of a main was it?

 

[clint g]

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...et-collapse-79-Street-5-Avenue-164667376.html

Don't know the details but it was pretty freaking big

We've got nothing but geniuses working on the problem

"There's fairly clear evidence that we have a defect in the pipe," said James Roberts of the city DEP.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Which is why religion/politics and drug use aren't comparable constructs.

Personally, I think religion and politics are much more dangerous than drugs. I mean, religion cause the Crusades, the Jihad, and thousand of religious wars. Politics caused WWI and WWII. A few overdoses here and there are just not comparable.

Kidding aside, this is what I read when I translate your comment: I am religious and I don't do drugs, so I care about religious discrimination but nothing else. Personally, I am not religious and I do not use drugs, and I care about discrimination about both.

Yeah. Would you want your teach to be guilty of child abuse? Would you want your babysitter to be guilty of theft? How could you trust them with your kids/belongings?

Won't somebody think of the children??? Is it really difficult to debate this issue without resorting to hysterics?

This much isn't true, as it is not uncommon for drug addicts to steal in order to feed their drug habit.

(...) Granted, people who aren't on drugs steal all the time.

You shot down your own argument. And the "risk factor"? Since when we punish people before they do the crime? "I am sorry, Mr Smith, but you are a white male 25-50. People in your group is much more likely to be serial killers than any other. We just can't risk having your in the office."

 

[RoJoHen]

So parking tickets but not speeding tickets? I'm not exactly sure your distinction here is. It seems that you're disagreeing with your initial point.

No, my point is that I don't care what kind of tests a company subject their applicants to. Businesses are private entities, and I think they should have the right to hire whoever they want based on whatever criteria they see fit.

Drugs can impact the way a person does their job, but not all drugs and only if they use them on the job. There are better remedies than drug testing unless it's the kind of job that requires constant vigilance (and most don't - certainly not office jobs).

I'm a bartender. I got drunk at work tonight.

Personally, I think it's shitty the way convicted felons get screwed out of jobs and essentially have their lives ruined for a single mistake (especially since it makes rehabilitation for those who want to reform twice as difficult), but that's an entirely different issue. At least that requires due process and a criminal conviction.

I think it's shitty, too. I'm not saying I like it, but I also don't think it's anyone's place to tell a company the criteria they're allowed to use when making hiring decisions.

If a business doesn't want drug users on their payroll, especially when said drugs are against the law, that's their call to make.

 

[clint g]

This much isn't true, as it is not uncommon for drug addicts to steal in order to feed their drug habit.

(...) Granted, people who aren't on drugs steal all the time.

You shot down your own argument. And the "risk factor"? Since when we punish people before they do the crime?

They've already done a crime. Using illegal drugs is, well, illegal. It also demonstrates a known risk factor to further commit another crime. Therefore as a precaution an employer doesn't have to hire you. For your argument to be even close to hold weight the person who failed the drug test would have to be placed under arrest for theft because they may steal. That's not what is happening.

 

[SmoothieX]

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...et-collapse-79-Street-5-Avenue-164667376.html

Don't know the details but it was pretty freaking big

We've got nothing but geniuses working on the problem

"There's fairly clear evidence that we have a defect in the pipe," said James Roberts of the city DEP.

Good to know you have a crack squad of experts on it.

 

[MacLeod]

So parking tickets but not speeding tickets? I'm not exactly sure your distinction here is. It seems that you're disagreeing with your initial point.

No, my point is that I don't care what kind of tests a company subject their applicants to. Businesses are private entities, and I think they should have the right to hire whoever they want based on whatever criteria they see fit.

Drugs can impact the way a person does their job, but not all drugs and only if they use them on the job. There are better remedies than drug testing unless it's the kind of job that requires constant vigilance (and most don't - certainly not office jobs).

I'm a bartender. I got drunk at work tonight.

Personally, I think it's shitty the way convicted felons get screwed out of jobs and essentially have their lives ruined for a single mistake (especially since it makes rehabilitation for those who want to reform twice as difficult), but that's an entirely different issue. At least that requires due process and a criminal conviction.

I think it's shitty, too. I'm not saying I like it, but I also don't think it's anyone's place to tell a company the criteria they're allowed to use when making hiring decisions.

If a business doesn't want drug users on their payroll, especially when said drugs are against the law, that's their call to make.

Any criteria?

So a company could have a criteria that all their workers are black females.

And you are saying that is legal?