Comment by Keverw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Keverw | Hacker News Reader

Companies already want to drug test employees... Which I feel shows you don't trust them. Which some companies make you stand in front of someone watching you pee. When there's less invasive methods such as a spit or hair sample(Maybe they cost more to use or somthing?). Now they want to do genetic testing?

Well my aunt's work does somthing like this, if you get your blood checked once a year you get a discount, but I don't know if the company gets a copy of the results. I would think that would violate HIPPA, but I know if you switch doctors you can sign a release so your new doctor gets the information. So I assume it's all done with your permission(Signing a release with the doctor).

America is the only country that ties health insurance to employment also.

Edit: Looks like some positions only urine tests are allowed by federal law but looks like just DOT jobs. So If you have a desk job or working retail, looks like the companies are free to pick any much any method. https://www.quora.com/How-likely-is-a-hair-drug-test-for-pre...

>> Companies already want to drug test employees... Which I feel shows you don't trust them.

This is more of a liability issue then anything else. If you do something while high the company has some protection from getting the "he was high while on the clock hence you responsible" book thrown at them.

>>America is the only country that ties health insurance to employment also.

It's not. Also, you're free to decline the coverage through your employer and buy your own (or not buy any). Which used to be a viable option until Obamacare kicked in - now you either buy what's called a "short term" insurance OR buy the same coverage and pay 2-3 times more for it. Why would you do that you might ask? Because short-term policies impose tax penalties and can only last up to 6 months so you have to constantly change providers which is an ordeal...

From my experience it's not 2-3 times more, depending on your specific conditions and possibly region. For me, a male over 35 in not very great shape, it's maybe a 20-30% difference IIRC.

From what I've seen it was $100 vs $350 type deal.

My work provided plan is about $350 for a fairly cheap Kaiser plan.

>This is more of a liability issue then anything else

If this was true why shouldn't they also test for alcohol use?

As much as some of them would like to - it's very hard to do so legally (which is their way out of being on the hook legally too) - even in situations where being drunk can realistically cause physical harm, let alone office type job situations.

One company I worked for had a manufacturing operation, talking to their supervisors - they would call the cops sometimes if someone is visibly drunk and the worse case scenario for the employee is they would get sent home w/out pay for a day or something along those lines. They were actually happy when some of those dudes would get drunk AND high at lunch so they can get busted by the cops :) There was also a union involved so that tied supervisor's hands even more.

companies can make you sign all kinds of waivers when giving employment. shits fucked up

Reply on news.ycombinator.com