Pre-Employment Uas As An Inco

[Mischa]

I probably can't get a large enough sample for a valid UA nor can I control urination so how do they do drug urine tests as an inco?

[DailyDi]

Blood or hair is easiest. Otherwise you might have to cath or get a clamp.

[Darkfinn]

Generally blood test...

I despise pre-employment drug screenings, they are degrading and a violation of personal privacy.

[Repaid1]

Rubberband Just Kidding...touchy subject. They will probably go for blood..I wouldn't do a Hair unless you have been totally clean for years..Nothing Implied!

[Guitarzan]

I probably can't get a large enough sample for a valid UA nor can I control urination so how do they do drug urine tests as an inco?

Please let us know how this turns out. I'm currently looking for new employment and never had to do a drug test in the past, but know it's coming.

[Angela Bauer]

Although some people do not like the idea of employment drug testing, either before employment or randomly while employed, the fact is in most places the law allows such testing.

So, you either decline the test and will not be hired, or you take the test. Considering the number of urine incontinent adults in the USA the professionals conducting drug tests are experienced in collecting enough urine from incontinent people. If they are not satisfied you provided enough urine, they opt for a blood test.

[square_duck]

YOu have all the stoners and "recreational" drug users for this testing that we all have to endure. And to think there are still people who want to legalize drug use in this country!!!

personally, if I found out a coworker was stoned or high while at work, I would have no hesitation in turning their ass in on the spot! if they care more about getting high than being conscious of my safety and the safety of others, then they deserve what they get. This is a B*I*G pet peeve of mine and so I don't mind the test, if it weeds out the inconsiderate loosers who think they should be able to have things both ways...meaning they can have a high paying 'responsible' job, and get loaded when ever and where ever they want. You can't have both, so do your ^%$#@! job clean and clear, and respect your coworkers and their safety and go get loaded in your own space on your own time.

This drug testing we all have to go through is directly because of Y*O*U!

Thank you Oh-so-much!

[DailyDi]

I have no problem with drug testing as companies invest a lot in training a newb and don't want to waste it on a crack-head.... but I also hate taking drug tests.

[LitlAndy1]

We have random tests where i work, which is fine as I ageee with squareduck. But i do have fun with it....overflow the container and get the sides of it all wet.

[timmyc]

if it weeds out the inconsiderate loosers

guess it does in a roundabout way

[dprtodd]

YOu have all the stoners and "recreational" drug users for this testing that we all have to endure. And to think there are still people who want to legalize drug use in this country!!!

personally, if I found out a coworker was stoned or high while at work, I would have no hesitation in turning their ass in on the spot! if they care more about getting high than being conscious of my safety and the safety of others, then they deserve what they get. This is a B*I*G pet peeve of mine and so I don't mind the test, if it weeds out the inconsiderate loosers who think they should be able to have things both ways...meaning they can have a high paying 'responsible' job, and get loaded when ever and where ever they want. You can't have both, so do your ^%$#@! job clean and clear, and respect your coworkers and their safety and go get loaded in your own space on your own time.

This drug testing we all have to go through is directly because of Y*O*U!

Thank you Oh-so-much!

Duck one quack, er quick, specific question regarding your example, you seem to only focus on the person who is high at work. What about the guy who comes in each day on time, works hard and safe, goes home and instead of a beer he gets high. Certainly this person who is sober at work is putting no one in jeopardy, is not acting in a way that demonstrates a disregard for the well being and safety of their coworkers. What do you think about that person as it relates to their employment, do you think that should be the employers business what they do away from work? What if they were drinking beer after work instead of getting high? If there is a difference do you feel that way because of the legal status of drugs vs alcohol? Or, do you feel the same for the after work drinker?

Now where is my soapbox....

Drug tests are bad policy in many ways

1) Ain't no body's business if you do.

I wouldn't mind if drug testing only caught people who were high on the job. What you do on the employers dime is the employers business and as such is well within an employers perogotive. That said, what folks do in the privacy of their own home, as long as it harms no one but themselves is their own business (provided they do not drive a car or otherwise endanger others - but we already have laws against driving impaired for any reason). Casting aside the tired remnants of early 20th century prohibition hysteria, someone getting high in the evening is essentially no different from someone drinking a beer or two. You don't want people drinking on the job, you don't want people otherwise incapacitated (even some OTC meds make you unsafe for many workplaces) - but what someone does on their time is their business.

2) Drug tests can be very unreliable

Most drug tests have an relatively high rate for registering false positives, some study s believe the rate to be as high as 10%. So 1 in 10 people applying might not get considered for the job because of flawed testing? The cheaper the test, generally, the more unreliable. I firmly believe that it is better a guilty person go free than an honest man to prison, or in this case go to the unemployment line. Now how about someone who looses a job because of a false positive. Sure you can retest, but with a 1 in 10 chance of the test being wrong your chances are pretty good that you might fail again. If you don't fail the second time, I'm sure your professional reputation will be just fine then...

3) Drug screens are often used to provide the appearance of due diligence.

Because drugs metabolize at different rates drug tests are highly ineffective at catching people doing most hard drugs. The clearance times on most hard drugs are under 24 hours with outliers at the 48 hour mark. So the only 'hard' drug user your going to catch this way is junkie who lacks sufficient self control to go 1 day without.

Full disclosure - I am an advocate for ending prohibition on ALL drugs ( so sayeth the Duckey)- let them be sold in liquor stores without the black market violence. No longer will neighborhoods be destroyed by drug gangs or gang violence. The drug cartels in mexico? Gone, problem solved they couldn't compete with a legal drug industry. Let it be taxed and regulated, this will lower the prices to where addicts need not steal or rob to get their fix (Do winos mug someone to buy a bottle of Thunderbird or Nighttrain ? Nope they can panhandle for it) No black market means no financial incentive to get kids hooked, Liquor Stores don't send out beer pushers to the middle schools.

There is absolutely no doubt that many people will choose to destroy their lives, just as they are doing now, using these substances. Only as things stand now, when people choose to ruin their lives, everyone else in this country suffers for it. We the people are spending billions of dollars on an ineffective war on drugs that results in destroyed neighborhoods, millions of people in jail (2.5 million people in the US in prison, ~700,000 non violent drug crimes, $30,000 a year to tax payers to house 1 inmate 1 year = $21 Billion annual from the taxpayers), add to that the billions of lost tax revenue to unregulated dangerous black markets. Without the billions of dollars and countless man hours being wasted on the war on drugs the police will have resources to bolster crime prevention and help make our neighborhoods safer (I don't know of a single city not struggling with paying their emergency responders right now). If we stop jailing people on non violent drug crimes, like simple possession, then there is room to keep real criminals, those who murder and rape, behind bars for longer. We routinly let murderers and violent criminals walk in as few as 7 years, but federal mandatory minimums can put a drug user in jail for 25 or more years (A 25 year conviction costs tax payers more than $900,000.00! Whos being punished here? The taxpayer that's who). Imagine how much money could be raised in taxes, how many jobs would be created and how much better our national debt would be if the black market drug trade were eliminated by controlled cultivation and legal sales?

[babybuhbu25]

Especially with pot, I think it should be legalized. I agree that it shouldn't be done at work, but it really if no different than have a drink. I haven't been able to partake in the pot for the last 10 years, because of random drug test for my job.

I'll share a funny story I had of doing a drug test. The test was at 7 in the morning, so by habit I got out of bed an peed, then went to the test. Couldn't pee, so had to drink 20oz of water and wait for 45 minutes till I thought I had to go. I tried and tried, but the only way I could pee was to poop. Your not supposed to flush the toilet after you pee in the cup, so I went out and handed my sample to the nurse without flushing. I told her what I did and she didn't even bother going in to look, she told me to go in and flush.

[KittenAB]

I once smoked pot ... a long time ago ... won't do it again ... but I also don't care if it's legal or not. Alcohol should be illegal, in my opinion, and we should worry more about people sneaking that into work, it's too easy to get away with.

Yes, I am a bit biased since a lot of my friends have been killed by drunk drivers ... it's more dangerous to be sober and on the road now than be a drunk killing people.

[Mischa]

okay, does anyone have any experiences taking a test?

I wasn't looking for a debate on what's right or wrong, legal or illegal but simply what they will do when I probably can't givea urine sample

[KittenAB]

okay, does anyone have any experiences taking a test?

I wasn't looking for a debate on what's right or wrong, legal or illegal but simply what they will do when I probably can't givea urine sample

I wasn't going to say this, because no matter how I word it, it will sound snide, but take it as experience.

At the doctor I had to give a urine sample ... they do it the same way as a UA from what I understand. They gave me the cup, made sure I was hydrated, and I sat on the toilet until I filled it ... it's probably the same thing for a UA.

[AndB]

Wear cloth that day and squeeze it out?

[Darkfinn]

I'm with Todd on this one.

Nobody says anything about the guy who goes home every night, pounds 12 beers, then beats his wife or kids. But oh heaven forbid somebody chills on the front porch and smokes a blunt after a hard day at work. The only thing in danger there is the food in the fridge.

Pot has been shown time and time again to be less dangerous than alcohol, yet our government spends billions of dollars each year trying to stop pot usage and our prisons are overcrowded with non-violent offenders whose only crime was selling a little weed.

Prohibition should have taught us that when you make something illegal you lose all ability to control it. Legalize the stuff and tax the hell out of it. It would create new jobs, bring in massive amounts of tax revenue (instead of spending it) and junk-food sales would skyrocket as a bonus.

My major issue with pre-employment and random drug testing is that it doesn't check to see if you are high at the time... it shows if you have been high sometime in the recent past. I don't want people coming to work high any more than the rest of you, but employers are going too far if they think they can dictate what people do when they are off the clock.

To draw a parallel and make all you anti-drug people see what is really going on.

Speeding is illegal, yet 90% of the population speeds in excess of 5MPH at some point or another... many people do it every day. So let's have your employer put a GPS device in your personal vehicle and check it at random intervals to see whether or not you have exceeded the speed limit within the past 30 days. If you have been speeding, you get fired.

Now I don't think any of us would put up with that for one second. We would all tell our employers that what we do when we are off the clock and out of the building is none of their business.

So what's the difference?

In fact, a recently published scientific study conducted by Scientists at the University of Victoria, British Columbia LINK has determined "Urine tests have poor validity and low sensitivity to detect employees who represent a safety risk."

According to the study, "urinalysis has not been shown to have a meaningful impact on job injury/accident rates." and "Urinalysis testing is not recommended as a diagnostic tool to identify employees who represent a job safety risk from cannabis use."

So why do we bother at all?

[curiositykilledthecat]

either way they'll have you sit there till you piss so it's not a big deal. Depending on which drug they're checking for they may use a hair folicle alternatively. I gave the poor phlebotomist about four times the amount of urine than she needed.

[Mischa]

aren't phlebotomists the sadists who prick your fingers for blood tests?

either way they'll have you sit there till you piss so it's not a big deal. Depending on which drug they're checking for they may use a hair folicle alternatively. I gave the poor phlebotomist about four times the amount of urine than she needed.

[happyindprs]

Who says the guy doesn't go home and smoke a blunt and beat His wife or Kids? You make it sound like smoking a joint makes everyone mellow. Alcohol can have that same affect as well.

ote name='Darkfinn' timestamp='1285179415' post='346275']

I'm with Todd on this one.

Nobody says anything about the guy who goes home every night, pounds 12 beers, then beats his wife or kids. But oh heaven forbid somebody chills on the front porch and smokes a blunt after a hard day at work. The only thing in danger there is the food in the fridge.

Pot has been shown time and time again to be less dangerous than alcohol, yet our government spends billions of dollars each year trying to stop pot usage and our prisons are overcrowded with non-violent offenders whose only crime was selling a little weed.

Prohibition should have taught us that when you make something illegal you lose all ability to control it. Legalize the stuff and tax the hell out of it. It would create new jobs, bring in massive amounts of tax revenue (instead of spending it) and junk-food sales would skyrocket as a bonus.

My major issue with pre-employment and random drug testing is that it doesn't check to see if you are high at the time... it shows if you have been high sometime in the recent past. I don't want people coming to work high any more than the rest of you, but employers are going too far if they think they can dictate what people do when they are off the clock.

To draw a parallel and make all you anti-drug people see what is really going on.

Speeding is illegal, yet 90% of the population speeds in excess of 5MPH at some point or another... many people do it every day. So let's have your employer put a GPS device in your personal vehicle and check it at random intervals to see whether or not you have exceeded the speed limit within the past 30 days. If you have been speeding, you get fired.

Now I don't think any of us would put up with that for one second. We would all tell our employers that what we do when we are off the clock and out of the building is none of their business.

So what's the difference?

In fact, a recently published scientific study conducted by Scientists at the University of Victoria, British Columbia LINK has determined "Urine tests have poor validity and low sensitivity to detect employees who represent a safety risk."

According to the study, "urinalysis has not been shown to have a meaningful impact on job injury/accident rates." and "Urinalysis testing is not recommended as a diagnostic tool to identify employees who represent a job safety risk from cannabis use."

So why do we bother at all?

[KittenAB]

Who says the guy doesn't go home and smoke a blunt and beat His wife or Kids? You make it sound like smoking a joint makes everyone mellow. Alcohol can have that same affect as well.

Since the OP has been answered more than enough, here's the thing, pot is a downer, it does make you more mellow. Some people however will still be willing to do horrible things during this effect. Alcohol however doesn't act as a tranquilizer for half the people, and many people actually become more violent because of it. Due to the other effect alcohol has of inebriating your decision centers, you are less likely to think about what you are doing. However pot does make people paranoid, in a few cases this could lead to violence but since their muscles are weakened they are very easy to fend off. What the paranoia does though, it keeps them more worried about getting in trouble so they will try to avoid it.

The laws in the US are starting to balance out better, being drunk is no longer an excuse to be violent or kill someone, thankfully. But pot does have uses in the medical field, which have been tested. There is a lot more to the story than "it's illegal, therefore it is bad for us." 90% of the hardest drugs on the planet are legal, you just need to find a doctor to prescribe them.

[d_drew12]

I'm with Todd on this one.

Nobody says anything about the guy who goes home every night, pounds 12 beers, then beats his wife or kids. But oh heaven forbid somebody chills on the front porch and smokes a blunt after a hard day at work. The only thing in danger there is the food in the fridge.

So we should therefor make two bad substances legal? If we have one why not the other? People still hurt people on dope

Pot has been shown time and time again to be less dangerous than alcohol, yet our government spends billions of dollars each year trying to stop pot usage and our prisons are overcrowded with non-violent offenders whose only crime was selling a little weed.

That's probably because more people use alcohol than recreational drugs. Often times, they go hand in hand too. You could also read a dozen stories that will support the opposoite that drugs are more dangerous than alcohol. Also, pot is considered a gateway drug to much more serious drugs.

Prohibition should have taught us that when you make something illegal you lose all ability to control it. Legalize the stuff and tax the hell out of it. It would create new jobs, bring in massive amounts of tax revenue (instead of spending it) and junk-food sales would skyrocket as a bonus.

I do believe one of the biggest reasons for alcohol being legal is for the revenue it brings the states and creates tons of jobs. However, a drinks a drink and can be served anywhere. Smoking is becoming more and more outlawed inside buildings and restaurants anyway.

My major issue with pre-employment and random drug testing is that it doesn't check to see if you are high at the time... it shows if you have been high sometime in the recent past. I don't want people coming to work high any more than the rest of you, but employers are going too far if they think they can dictate what people do when they are off the clock.

I see your point about having it in your system after the effect is gone. Problem is, how else do you check though? It's not like alcohol that wears off. I do however also find it interesting it's still in your system a month later. Makes you wonder then if it has some, even if it's small, effect on you for that month. Why else would it show?

To draw a parallel and make all you anti-drug people see what is really going on.

Speeding is illegal, yet 90% of the population speeds in excess of 5MPH at some point or another... many people do it every day. So let's have your employer put a GPS device in your personal vehicle and check it at random intervals to see whether or not you have exceeded the speed limit within the past 30 days. If you have been speeding, you get fired.

Your comparing apples and oranges. That's like saying murder is equal to speeding. There are different levels of offenses. Yes, you may be doing something illegal but it's different.

Now I don't think any of us would put up with that for one second. We would all tell our employers that what we do when we are off the clock and out of the building is none of their business.

So what's the difference?

In fact, a recently published scientific study conducted by Scientists at the University of Victoria, British Columbia LINK has determined "Urine tests have poor validity and low sensitivity to detect employees who represent a safety risk."

And there's a hundred other reports to detest that.

According to the study, "urinalysis has not been shown to have a meaningful impact on job injury/accident rates." and "Urinalysis testing is not recommended as a diagnostic tool to identify employees who represent a job safety risk from cannabis use."

So why do we bother at all?

Likely to "weed" out the thought of "bad apples". Even though drinkings legal, it's only legal to a point keep in mind. Even if they did legallize pot, what's the restriction going to be? One joint? Two? How do you test? Alcohols a different animal. Easy to test for and there's an over the limit on it. If pot were legal, How baked can you be to drive a car vs. not? Or should you just not drive all together. Then when does it become safe to drive again? The "drug" testers where I work also do alcohol testing so you can still get busted on a currently legal substance. Just keep in mind...alcohol is a legal drug, but to a point so it's still a legal/illegal drug.

[tndyperboy]

As a small business owner I'm with Darkfinn; we don't do pre-employment drug screening, it is a waste of time and money. Now, we do it if there is an industrial/work related accident, but then again those tests are for a host of substances including alcohol. We've only had one accident in 8 years, a deep cut, but the employee otherwise was fine. I often feel companies do pre-employment screening for the same reason they run credit checks, it shortens the list so you don't have to interview so many applicants.

[Mischa]

okay okay okay I'm not asking for a debate on whether it's right or wrong to do preemployment piss tests, it's right in my eyes, and people that defeat them like the crackhead that was hired at walmart instead of me probably spoofed it somehow.

as the OP I'm asking for mods to step in and split off the debate to the rest-of-your-life thread as it has nothing to do with what I'm seeking information on and I've yet to read an answer to my question that's substantive anyway

[KittenAB]

okay okay okay I'm not asking for a debate on whether it's right or wrong to do preemployment piss tests, it's right in my eyes, and people that defeat them like the crackhead that was hired at walmart instead of me probably spoofed it somehow.

as the OP I'm asking for mods to step in and split off the debate to the rest-of-your-life thread as it has nothing to do with what I'm seeking information on and I've yet to read an answer to my question that's substantive anyway

o.O Are you purposely looking for an answer that caters to what you want to be? There are plenty of answers, and all are legitimate and likely. Not one person is going to say "they'll just skip it for your special case" because that doesn't happen, and that's the only thing not yet mentioned.