Pre-Employment Drug Screening and the Paranoia of False Positives

[iguana_tonante]

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

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.

Uhm:

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Discrimination by Type
Learn about the various types of discrimination prohibited by the laws enforced by EEOC. We also provide links to the relevant laws, regulations and policy guidance, and also fact sheets, Q&As, best practices, and other information.

• Age
• Disability
• Equal Pay/Compensation
• Genetic Information
  
• National Origin
• Pregnancy
• Race/Color
• Religion
• Retaliation
• Sex
• Sexual Harassment

It seems like the government can totally tell a company the criteria they're allowed to use when making hiring decisions.

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.

I meant the crime of stealing. Sorry I wasn't clear.

It also demonstrates a known risk factor to further commit another crime. Therefore as a precaution an employer doesn't have to hire you.

I agree that it would be a precaution not to hire someone if you know they are drug users. It would also a wise precautin not to hire someone who regularly break the traffic laws: it shows a diregard for laws and public safety. Or someone who rips copyrighted DVDs: they don't respect intellectual property. Or cheat on their significant other: they are scumbags. Et caetera. I just don't think it's your right to know (except for specific positions, yadda yadda yadda).

 

[SmoothieX]

I just finalized a new job with my soon to be boss yesterday. He gave me an employee handbook that hit all of those topics.

He said it's just legalese, don't worry about it, but I need to include it to cover my business.

I'm really excited about this job other than the commute.

 

[clint g]

It also demonstrates a known risk factor to further commit another crime. Therefore as a precaution an employer doesn't have to hire you.

I agree that it would be a precaution not to hire someone if you know they are drug users. It would also a wise precautin not to hire someone who regularly break the traffic laws: it shows a diregard for laws and public safety.

But how will that affect the employer? The employer won't spend the time and money investigating traffic violations unless they feel it will impact their business. Employers that have pre-employment drug tests do so because they feel that employees that do drugs can have a negative impact on their business. If an employer feels that your driving record can have a negative impact on their business they can (and many do) investigate it. That said, I am unaware of a correlation between traffic violations and theft. There is however a correlation between drug use and theft as has been mentioned already up thread. If you are a retail company like Target you want to minimize the chance that one of your employees will steal from you.

Or someone who rips copyrighted DVDs: they don't respect intellectual property.

This is a crime and would probably fall in line with the question "Have you ever been convicted of a crime" that pops up on job applications. It should also be mentioned that a crime in many jurisdictions is defined as a misdemeanor or a felony. Traffic infractions are considered a different category of offense, ranked below a misdemeanor.

With all that being said, will a company invest the time and energy into investigating this? It depends on if they believe a person who rips off copyrighted DVDs will have an adverse impact on their business. I would imagine your local retailer won't care because the time to investigate something like that isn't worth the effort and if an employee DOES rip off DVDs, it probably won't have much of an impact on their bottom line.

Or cheat on their significant other: they are scumbags. Et caetera. I just don't think it's your right to know (except for specific positions, yadda yadda yadda).

Most people are scumbags. If you disregarded people for being scumbags you would have no one left.

 

[sidious618]

Two, rather disheartening, things I picked up from this thread:

1) People will really justify anything a company does thanks to the increasing reverence America gives towards big business.

2) People really don't give a shit about those who suffer from addiction. The way they've been spoken about in this thread shows a callous disregard for those who suffer from addiction.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I see your points, and I can even understand most of them.

Still, it reads to me like a list of excuses: "traffic violations are bad, but"; "copyright theft is bad, but"; "cheating is bad, but". It seems to me the reason why drug use (even limited, recreational use of light drugs) is considered worse than all of them is not rooted in rational legislation, but in the emotional appeal that "drugs are the worst. thing. evah".

 

[Alidar Jarok]

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.

OK, that's why I asked for a clarification. So you fall under the category where getting fired for speeding can be justified. I just wanted to double check.

BTW, I wasn't just making up a crazy hypothetical. Any convictions (including speeding violations) are considered by bar associations if you want to become a lawyer.

 

[RoJoHen]

Any criteria?

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

And you are saying that is legal?

I knew the minute I posted that this would be the next argument to pop up, and I get that it's difficult to find a place to draw a line.

Using drugs is illegal. Being a black female is not. I think, as long as the criteria are related to a person's actions that it should more or less be okay for a business to discriminate (obviously there are always exceptions).

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.

OK, that's why I asked for a clarification. So you fall under the category where getting fired for speeding can be justified. I just wanted to double check.

BTW, I wasn't just making up a crazy hypothetical. Any convictions (including speeding violations) are considered by bar associations if you want to become a lawyer.

While speeding tickets may not be relevant to a person's work, I can see how they might reflect on a person's character. If you are constantly getting pulled over for speeding, it shows a history of recklessness and a disregard for authority, which are certainly traits I wouldn't like to find in a potential hire.

 

[Paulcpick]

I think your reaching a bit a there, there is a difference between Speeding, and driving reckless. I'll use myself as an example, I will admit to being a serial speeder, but I don't do it when it would be dangerous. Given, I have literally a few million miles under my ass, and i am a pretty good judge of road conditions and am confident in my driving ability, and my vehicles ability. I don't see anything wrong with speeding when the situation allows it, but like side, if you get caught, don't complain when you get slapped with a high dollar ticket, you were the one speeding....

Random drug tests are just like black and whites, their there to cast a net and see what gets caught.

 

[RoJoHen]

It's not up to you to decide whether or not it's okay to speed. You are knowingly and intentionally breaking the law.

Now, if you have one or two moving violations on your record over a period of, say, 5 years, that's one thing. If you have 20 moving violations in the same amount of time, that's a whole different situation.

Nobody is going to look at your record and go, "Oh, I can't hire you because you got a speeding ticket in 2007," but if they look at you and see that you've gotten 3 tickets since June, they might think twice about your character.

 

[sidious618]

Hmmm...

I think your reaching a bit a there, there is a difference between Speeding, and driving reckless. I'll use myself as an example, I will admit to being a serial speeder, but I don't do it when it would be dangerous. Given, I have literally a few million miles under my ass, and i am a pretty good judge of road conditions and am confident in my driving ability, and my vehicles ability. I don't see anything wrong with speeding when the situation allows it, but like side, if you get caught, don't complain when you get slapped with a high dollar ticket, you were the one speeding....

Random drug tests are just like black and whites, their there to cast a net and see what gets caught.

I think you're reaching and I'll use myself as an example. I do a lot of drugs but I don't do so in dangerous situations. I have a pretty good judge of life conditions and I'm confident in my abilities to check when is and isn't a good time to use drugs. I really don't see anything wrong with doing it if the situation allows.

 

[clint g]

It's not up to you to decide whether or not it's okay to speed. You are knowingly and intentionally breaking the law.

Now, if you have one or two moving violations on your record over a period of, say, 5 years, that's one thing. If you have 20 moving violations in the same amount of time, that's a whole different situation.

Nobody is going to look at your record and go, "Oh, I can't hire you because you got a speeding ticket in 2007," but if they look at you and see that you've gotten 3 tickets since June, they might think twice about your character.

If you have twenty or so moving violations then your license has more likely than not been suspended. If you're caught driving at that point then you have probably committed a crime and may be arrested.

 

[MacLeod]

Last I checked speeding is a crimnal offense,

 

[clint g]

Last I checked speeding is a crimnal offense,

Not in the United States, it's a traffic infraction. Or to be more specific, not in New York State. A criminal offense in NYS is something that is a misdemeanor or a felony. Speeding is a Vehicle and Traffic Law Infraction. Speeding multiple times can cause you to build up points on your license and cause your license to be suspended. Once suspended, if you are caught operating a motor vehicle you can be charged with Aggravated Unlicensed Operator which is a misdemeanor or can even be a felony depending on the circumstances.

This stuff varies from state to state but I doubt you will find too many states where you will find speeding to be a serious offense. It certainly wouldn't rate near drug possession which is almost always an arrest, as opposed to speeding which will usually be a fine and points (unless you're doing something ridiculous like 100 in a 50)

 

[MacLeod]

Sure getting a speeding ticket wouldn't land you a criminal record, (unless it was very serious).

But isn't a criminal offense any action which breaks the law?

 

[Gov Kodos]

It's not the scarlet letter that drugs are. Drugs make you a crazed and perpetual danger to society. Not sure what it would make you if you failed a drug test after having used them somewhere they were legal. But, regulating behavior that is objectionable rather than just worry about actual harm is so much more satisfying. Just look at the roaring success of the war on alcohol that the old temperance movement succeeded in bringing.

 

[RoJoHen]

It's not up to you to decide whether or not it's okay to speed. You are knowingly and intentionally breaking the law.

Now, if you have one or two moving violations on your record over a period of, say, 5 years, that's one thing. If you have 20 moving violations in the same amount of time, that's a whole different situation.

Nobody is going to look at your record and go, "Oh, I can't hire you because you got a speeding ticket in 2007," but if they look at you and see that you've gotten 3 tickets since June, they might think twice about your character.

If you have twenty or so moving violations then your license has more likely than not been suspended. If you're caught driving at that point then you have probably committed a crime and may be arrested.

That really has nothing to do with my point.

 

[clint g]

Sure getting a speeding ticket wouldn't land you a criminal record, (unless it was very serious).

But isn't a criminal offense any action which breaks the law?

nope. Breaking the law does not necessarily mean you committed a crime

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Last I checked speeding is a crimnal offense,

Not in the United States, it's a traffic infraction. Or to be more specific, not in New York State.

It is in Virginia.

The question is, when you challenge it in court, if the state must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's usually the best way to tell.

While speeding tickets may not be relevant to a person's work, I can see how they might reflect on a person's character. If you are constantly getting pulled over for speeding, it shows a history of recklessness and a disregard for authority, which are certainly traits I wouldn't like to find in a potential hire.

For what it's worth, that's precisely the justification of the Bar Association, which looks at it to determine your character and fitness to be a lawyer.

 

[SmoothieX]

Sure getting a speeding ticket wouldn't land you a criminal record, (unless it was very serious).

But isn't a criminal offense any action which breaks the law?

nope. Breaking the law does not necessarily mean you committed a crime

The application usually says have you been convicted of a crime beyond a minor traffic violation.

Doing a 70 in a 65 or double parking isn't a big deal. A history of more serious traffic convictions could make them think you are a risk to the company vehicle and wreckless individual.

The drugs issue is different and more serious. Do you care if your doctor was driving around with an expired registration. Probably not. Do you care if he's totally smashed while he's operating on your kidney, I sure hope so.

If I were to personally get busted on the job for that, I could lose my license to practice and ruin my career. So I am fine with testing. If you're not doing anything wrong, what's a cup full of piss matter.

 

[Paulcpick]

Hmmm...

I think your reaching a bit a there, there is a difference between Speeding, and driving reckless. I'll use myself as an example, I will admit to being a serial speeder, but I don't do it when it would be dangerous. Given, I have literally a few million miles under my ass, and i am a pretty good judge of road conditions and am confident in my driving ability, and my vehicles ability. I don't see anything wrong with speeding when the situation allows it, but like side, if you get caught, don't complain when you get slapped with a high dollar ticket, you were the one speeding....

Random drug tests are just like black and whites, their there to cast a net and see what gets caught.

I think you're reaching and I'll use myself as an example. I do a lot of drugs but I don't do so in dangerous situations. I have a pretty good judge of life conditions and I'm confident in my abilities to check when is and isn't a good time to use drugs. I really don't see anything wrong with doing it if the situation allows.

Sure, I could buy that, if speeding in a situation gave me an irrestible urge to gnaw someones face off...... Or if speeding supported a worldwide criminal network....

And, just for your reading pleasure:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2008/us-crashcause.pdf


If you want to use the argument that speeding is dangerous and will cause a wreck, read thru that, or let me summarize it for you:

US Department of Transportation study finds only five percent of crashes caused are caused by excessive speed.

That means, the guy that just blew by you at 95MPH on the freeway s going to be the least likely person on the road to crash into you.