Urine Test

norm

do these urine tests test for alcohol?.....or is it ok to be drunk on the job?

Smellyman2

Back to the original post.

If people are using government handouts to buy dope then I agree they should take a urine test. We shouldn't be supporting their drug habit.

Who wouldn't want free pot money?

El_Kabong

i'm a regular smoker and i've never failed a urine test...

hippiemom

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

coke and pot are not and should not be in the same category

No, they're not, but I frankly don't give a shit if my pilot did a few lines five days ago. It's none of my business and it doesn't affect his ability to fly a plane today. A hangover would, or a lack of sleep, or a severe head cold, none of which can be detected by a urine test. I think it's an invasion of privacy done primarily to give us a false sense of security.

Dirtie_Frank

The substance does not matter the question is should someone who receives state assistance be scrutinized (spelling?) to a "substance" test as someone who does have to take one and pay for them

Dirtie_Frank

hippiemom wrote:

No, they're not, but I frankly don't give a shit if my pilot did a few lines five days ago. It's none of my business and it doesn't affect his ability to fly a plane today. A hangover would, or a lack of sleep, or a severe head cold, none of which can be detected by a urine test. I think it's an invasion of privacy done primarily to give us a false sense of security.

their right to privacy does not trump my right to safety

gue_barium

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

their right to privacy does not trump my right to safety

a urine test does not make you any safer than no urine test. period. get a clue.

hippiemom

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

The substance does not matter the question is should someone who receives state assistance be scrutinized (spelling?) to a "substance" test as someone who does have to take one and pay for them

And my answer is no ... they should not have to take them, and neither should you.

Dirtie_Frank

hippiemom wrote:

And my answer is no ... they should not have to take them, and neither should you.

You know the funny thing is that i do not agree for tests but i do believe that if people are recieving assistance that they should be held to some sort of accountability for what they spend on. I know again there is privacy violations again but some of the people do not spend the money on what they should like food shelter clothing for them.

bovy_j

hippiemom wrote:

No, they're not, but I frankly don't give a shit if my pilot did a few lines five days ago. It's none of my business and it doesn't affect his ability to fly a plane today. A hangover would, or a lack of sleep, or a severe head cold, none of which can be detected by a urine test. I think it's an invasion of privacy done primarily to give us a false sense of security.

I agree with that statement fully!

Yet, I've never been asked to give a urine test. Or...never heard of anyone who had to give a urine test up here in my part of Canada!

hippiemom

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

You know the funny thing is that i do not agree for tests but i do believe that if people are recieving assistance that they should be held to some sort of accountability for what they spend on. I know again there is privacy violations again but some of the people do not spend the money on what they should like food shelter clothing for them.

Public assistance is barely enough to live on. If that's their total income and they're not starving or homeless, then they're using the money for the proper purposes, and going without a lot of the things that most of us take for granted.

If anyone on public assistance has money to be getting high all the time, they're doing something illegal, and should absolutely be busted for that illegal activity, but you don't catch drug dealers, prostitutes and petty thieves by giving urine tests to millions.

gue_barium

hailhailkc wrote:

Pissing in a cup is a human rights violation? I have no problem with a urine test. It might not make a lot of sense for someone who sits behind a desk, but what about someone who drives a truck or operates construction equipment all day?

Honestly, does it really make a difference? A good driver is a good driver, a good equipment operator is a good EO. Etcetera, etcetera. Simply passing a test on one day does not insure anything about the next day.

chadwick

I can tell you all about a rough time when it comes to failing a UA.
I was not @ this time employed, I was laid off, seafood business does that.
So I go out seeking employment.
I take a pre-employeement UA test for company A.(i am a truck driver)
Two days later I take another pre-employment UA test for company B.
The day I gave my urine to company B, company A's lab calls.
A doctor informs me I failed due to THC in my urine sample.
I elect a re-test, they sent the 2nd tube of urine to CA.
Later that week company B says I am hired and they just cleaned out
a truck for me to jump into.
Later on the lab from company A says I failed the 2nd tube in the retesting
that went to CA.
The state took my CDL license = truck drivers license.
Almost starved, couldn't pay bills on time, this lasted 7 months.
I was rail roaded hardcore.
This story is quite long.(breathe deep)
I knew I needed an attorney.
I was dead broke (no attorney in my corner) (Imagine that).
A nurse told me this, and I quote, (What I am about to tell you, I will deny I said this to you, even in court because I can loose my job and I do need to eat.
Every single trucking company in the USA can pick their own pass/fail score
on the UA testing chart.
Company A had a lower number score on the chart than company B did.
The DOT lets them choose the pass/fail cut off line=number.
All the DOT does then is monitor the said pass/fail scores.
The truck companies can change the pass/fail number/score anytime
they choose too).
End of her quote.
I did not smoke pot for 2-3 months.
I did not see it, smell it, or even hang with anybody smoking it.
This cost me alot of money and 10 yrs or maybe a life time of the
dark shadow that will follow me in this industry.

Collin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

No one should have to take or pass a urine test.

I agree. I had to take a urine test for a summer job but it wasn't a drug test.

smokeabud

a UA is wrong no matter what way someone tries to explain it off.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Urine test?! piss in their face!

decides2dream

hippiemom wrote:

I agree. My work history and my references will tell you all you need to know about what type of employee I am. It's insulting to be asked to prove that you're not a drug addict. I never have and never will work for anyone who asked me to.

i do agree with all of this...well, except for the last sentence.

however, i did submit to a urine/drug test....b/c i was already working for the company as a seasonal employee....liked the company, liked the work environment, etc. only once i was offered a position as a permanent employee did i have to agree/disagree with taking a test. perhaps, as ms. haiku had mentioned earlier....if i had known about it during the interview process, i may've walked away. or not. i don't know now. however, i didn't at that time...and since the company had recently been bought by a bigger corporation...this was all fairly 'new' policy and yada, yada. so yea....i just didn't care. i liked my job. i knew i had no worries for it. so yes, i said ok.


i did think it rather bizarre, for the reasons i listed in my earlier posts. probably one of the 'least important' jobs i have ever held in my life, certainly no worry about me operating machinery or anything like that.....hell, i was in sales/visual merchandising...hahaha. and bottomline, it was my CHOICE. i would agree with the 'revolt' if there were no choice...if everyone HAD to submit to drug tests for any job....but since there ARE so many jobs out there, so many companies who don't require such, i say it does still leave us the option to say NO, and walk away. some will, some won't...so on that level, i don't really have a problem with it.

my husband has been subjected to the idea of random drug testing his entire career. he has, in fact, never been randomly tested. i think? he was required to be tested upon hiring, and when he changed fields/positions....but otherwise, none in 18 years. however, again, he was FULLY aware of all of this, long before he ever applied/accepted a position...so again, his choice.



bottomline...i fully respect anyone who says no, i won't submit to such....on principle alone.....and conversely, i fully respect anyone who does submit to such b/c they want the job and/or feel it is fully worth it. as long as the CHOICE for such exists, i am ok with it.