Hiring Hurdle: Finding Workers Who Can Pass a Drug Test
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I don't do any drugs and never been a fan of weed, but I sometimes won't apply for a job if they drug test. I wish I could stick to this every time.
The no-drug-screen screen is actually a good filter. Companies with drug-screening are, on average, more unpleasant to work at.
Just say no to drug screening, kids.
Edit: alright, to be fair, some of those jobs mentioned have good reason. But the jobs that tested me didn't
Likewise, limited use of criminal background checks may be a good idea for certain jobs (a bank robber shouldn't be allowed to work in a bank).
But the idea that these should be general conditions of employment across all industries is a problematic one. It creates an underclass of unemployable people, forcing them to become a drain on society when they could be productively employed (or encouraging them to become productively employed in gray/black market activities).
When I was in school some of the bus drivers were drunk, stoned or tripping on LSD. It really was a lot like the bus driver in The Simpsons.
Back then truckers would do the same and stay awake driving for days; some of the stories I've heard make me wonder how they ever survived long enough to get clean.
>criminal background checks
I know of a woman who became a school bus aide after a background check and she was in prison for attempted murder and human trafficking so I don't put a lot of confidence in these preventing employment, only will cut down on applications.
At the same time, passing a drug test doesn't mean you won't be intoxicated on the job. They don't test everyday, and lots of drugs (alcohol, cocaine, etc) get out of your system very quickly.
I understand the desire (you don't want someone on drugs at work), but drug testing doesn't do a very good job of getting you that.
The situation with weed is certainly the troubling one. You can test positive for it for almost a month after moderate use. Add to that fact its increasing legality and acceptance in the US and you've got a widespread employment problem.
Do you see Bayer or Purdue actively campaigning for removing drug testing? I don't.
These are all the people that will have a very difficult time re-entering the work force due to high prevalence of drug testing.
I've known a few Xanax addicts and meth heads. They're not exactly what I would call employable.
edit: The implication I am making is that this is literally the only (IMO) good reason to have such a policy.
This perversion is degrading, humiliating, and completely unnecessary.
It doesn't sound like testing is required--just telling employees not to use drugs at work, and taking action if they are caught doing so?
The "good reason" is driven by workers compensation insurance, especially with people who drive or operate dangerous machinery.
Any ideas how they get around it? Do AWS engineers get drug tested?
(I realize it wasn't clear in my original comment, but that's why I'm curious about AWS engineers' experience).
I work in manufacturing. We make it easy to pass. Several days from interview to test. That's every place I've been. And as the article suggests, its almost exclusively whites not passing. I figure its a culture thing.
Aside from quoting employers complaining about not being able to find employees, I wish the NYT had covered some more on the topic of, does drug testing even meaningfully help with finding better employees? Yes, it may be mandated or legally required of employers in a few cases, but that's far from universal; so are the rest doing it because it works, or because they just assume it works because everyone else has always done it?
Those who regularly use larger amounts of drugs may need an extra day or two to pass but a week, for instance, should be more than enough for most people's levels to be below the thresholds that are tested against.
So enough for an unknown number of drugs and oh yeah - the most popular drug in the country after caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine?
> as the article suggests, its almost exclusively
> whites not passing.
Anecdata, but a good friend of mine is Mexican and missed out on a good job because of the drug test...
Not enough time to piss clean from Cannabis, but enough for some of the harder drugs.
> And as the article suggests, its almost exclusively whites not passing
Doesn't that make drug tests a racist practice?
I have seen no evidence that drug tests for most jobs are an effective predictor of job performance and do anything beyond giving a cover for racial and class prejudice.
From the article: > In Colorado, “to find a roofer or a painter that can pass a drug test is unheard-of,”
Sure, it makes some sense for a few, select jobs like truck driving. But why would you care what your roofer or painter did last night, as long as the job gets done?
If a prospective customer refused to buy your product unless you could prove no employee used Percocet or Vicodin while working, would you drug test your company for them?
If a prospective customer refused to buy your
product unless you could prove no employee used
Percocet or Vicodin while working, would you
drug test your company for them?
If I'm a roofer, I don't want the guy holding my ladder to be hung over.
Also, at one point (perhaps even still) there were regulations on federal contractors above a certain size promoting drug tests.
Roofers are high turnover, low/moderate skill folks. If the business model requires reliable guys, you may consider it.
No smokers, too. Nicotine withdrawal is hell.
What I find particularly amusing is that its usually some baby boomer who takes 5 different prescription meds a day, smokes cigars and drinks scotch regularly that will say just how evil mj is...
The drug wars are created and controlled black markets for the darker of the global threeletters. Combine that with pharmaceutical self interests and unsetteling profits that the public tends to forget about, our entire idea and classification of medication is extrmely primitive and far too influenced by politics and corruption rather than science.
I know lots of developers who don't do drugs at all who refuse to take the test out of principle.
Prospective professional employees are screened using college degrees or professional experience.
Every single one of my friends smokes weed regularly and are employed despite most of them being subject to drug testing during the hiring process. To me, all a negative drug test shows is that a prospective employee either doesn't use drugs(which is probably a relative rarity these days), or that they do use drugs but are either resourceful enough to find a way to beat the test or disciplined enough to plan ahead. I guess in this sense perhaps the tests do serve some purpose.
My only issue would be with random unscheduled drug testing which to me serves little purpose, outside of jobs were impairment may pose a risk to others.
Far more concerning to me are criminal records or poor credit being used to withhold employment from a large segment of our population.
If your reasoning is impairment in some jobs could cause physical harm - surely a reaction time based test should be implemented for these workers to complete each morning before they turn on this heavy machinery. This would be much more effective in identifying unfit workers, doing it daily ensures that workers are prepared to work for the day when they come in.
Its definitely disappointing seeing a supposedly educated group of people buying in so readily to ages old propaganda. I cant believe how many people think a pre employment drug test is going to keep truckers off meth - let alone completely legal and untested things like nodoz, cough syrup, sleep medicines, etc.
I'd much rather drive around a trucker on marijuana than benadryl, and i'd absolutely rather drive next to a trucker who used marijuana 12 days ago than a trucker who is double dosing cough syrup and taking some nodoz to stay awake.
I don't do any drugs except alcohol and caffeine. But I don't have the right background anymore, so…