need Piss Test advice

[grrrr]

I don't. I think drug testing should only be applied in ways that identify actual risk to the employer or public, and do not invade the privacy of the employee in their off hours unless that invasion is for good reason.

And you too fail to answer the question - why should you, or the anyone, decide who and how I hire people?

[rideit]

The Anyone is a powerful MOFO.

[iscariot]

When I was younger, my folks warned me about 2 weeks ahead of time that I had a piss test for life insurance. Of course, I played it safe and smoked right up until the night before. I had a roommate tell me that he chugged a liter bottle of apple cider vinegar and passed no problem. Okay, easy enough, right? Wrong. I took 3 good chugs, fought off the pre-puke hot spits for about 5 minutes and gave up on that idea. I would have to resort to a couple other, ridiculous techniques I'd heard of; peeing through folded up toilet paper (to filter it, I assume) and swirling a potato chip in the piss....this one I have no idea, but I was desperate.

I was handed a cup and allowed to do my own thing. I tried the TP trick, not surprisingly, it fell apart immediately sending TP shards into the cup. I filled to the line, dug out the TP shrapnel and then tried the potato chip. Unfortunately, all we had were Pringles, which don't so much stand up to warm liquids. It also deposited some crumbs, so that, by the time I was done I was holding a cup full of warm, idiot-teenager soup. All I could do was say fuck it and hand it over. The lady didn't even glance at it.

Turns out they weren't even testing for drugs. Go figure.

BWAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAHHHHHAAA!!!! Thanks bagtagley.

[philippeR]

And you too fail to answer the question - why should you, or the anyone, decide who and how I hire people?

Aren't you already bound by a numbers of rules ? re race / gender discrimation, certifications / graduations requisite, that kind of stuff ?
You're not really free in your selection process, aren't you ?

[pappag]

Good thing law firms don't test.

[Spats]

And you too fail to answer the question - why should you, or the anyone, decide who and how I hire people?

Let's say you're a racist and don't like "mud people"...should you be allowed to not hire Blacks, Latinos, or Arabs?

Let's say you're a member of the Church of Euthanasia and you believe having children is immoral...should you be able to hire only childless people and fire them if they have a child?

Let's say you think a woman's place is in the home, and you believe all other religions are heathens...should you be able to only hire Christian males?

Why should anyone get to decide who and how you hire people?

I support functional impairment testing, because it actually detects impairment, and does not discriminate as to why the employee is impaired. Someone whose crying baby kept them up all night is just as dangerous on the job as someone who is drunk or stoned.

Urinalysis does not detect impairment, it detects past use. Someone who tests positive for marijuana has perhaps a 1 in 80 chance of being actually impaired at the time of the test. Repeat that until you understand it.

[soylent green]

Spats, businesses have a right not to hire anyone they believe may not be a good employee or already have a problem. This is completely different than discriminating based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. Repeat that to yourself till you understand it.

woohoo #300

[Art Shirk]

Good thing law firms don't test.

Some do.
http://tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57056


At least the ones you want to stay away from.

[grrrr]

Bingo.

Protected status has been granted to level the playing field. Answer this - is being a stoner really worth protected status?

Why is it you people who are claiming that your freedom is impaired are demanding that someone else's freedom be impaired to suit you? I'm really surprised that Spats is campaigning for a borderline libertarian for president while arguing that you should impose more rules on people...including rules about whether they can choose to hire people who are drug free.

[Jumper Bones]

Let's say you're a racist and don't like "mud people"...should you be allowed to not hire Blacks, Latinos, or Arabs?

Let's say you're a member of the Church of Euthanasia and you believe having children is immoral...should you be able to hire only childless people and fire them if they have a child?

Let's say you think a woman's place is in the home, and you believe all other religions are heathens...should you be able to only hire Christian males?

Why should anyone get to decide who and how you hire people?

I support functional impairment testing, because it actually detects impairment, and does not discriminate as to why the employee is impaired. Someone whose crying baby kept them up all night is just as dangerous on the job as someone who is drunk or stoned.

Urinalysis does not detect impairment, it detects past use. Someone who tests positive for marijuana has perhaps a 1 in 80 chance of being actually impaired at the time of the test. Repeat that until you understand it.

I know what you're saying, but it breaks down to the fact that smoking marri-ja-wanna is illegal, and it's an illegal narcotic just like heroin, cocaine, meth, etc. Completely legal for a company to choose not to hire a meth-head, right? Until Marijuana is decriminalized, that's the way it'll stay.

I guess here's another angle on it...it's a damned good thing I didn't have a drink or two, or a smoke, with you that night we met up here in Bozeman, as I was headed to work and actually ended up hitting an airplane that night in the blizzard (note to Delta - white painted airplanes are hard to see in snowstorms). Right away, usual work accident stuff - go to the hospital to get a DeptTrans drug test, and breathalyzer. Very gratifying to blow a 0.00, because god knows I was tempted to have a drink with it being my last night on that job, and almost did. Good thing I didn't give in.

[Tippster]

Way to go out with a "bang."

[pappag]

Some do.
http://tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57056


At least the ones you want to stay away from.

As Big Blue put so eloquently, FUCK THAT.

A K&E partner in IP lit once told me, "If I didn't smoke everyday to and from work, there's no fucking way I would be able to do this."

And of course he had an RX for it.

[Garrett]

And you too fail to answer the question - why should you, or the anyone, decide who and how I hire people?

Because your impaired employees might kill me, is the most compelling reason.

If your employees aren't in a position to run me over with their truck or fly my aeroplane into the ground, and if you don't care if not testing your employees raises your insurance rates, more power to you in not testing.

[iceman]

wait, Jumper drove into a plane?

[grrrr]

Because your impaired employees might kill me, is the most compelling reason.

If your employees aren't in a position to run me over with their truck or fly my aeroplane into the ground, and if you don't care if not testing your employees raises your insurance rates, more power to you in not testing.

Garrett, you're assuming the wrong side in that question. I am defending the right of a company to test their employees, not the right not to.

[Garrett]

Yeah I was a bit confused. I've reread your posts and I think I agree with you. However, I reserve the right to not want to work for people who choose to invade my privacy for little compelling reason.

[grrrr]

I reserve the right to not want to work for people who choose to invade my privacy for little compelling reason.

As it should be. You have the right to choose who you work for, I have the right to choose who works for me.

[ill-advised strategy]

what always steams me the most in this whole thing is that a person could fail these tests weeks after use on a four day weekend 500 miles from work but meth and crack and alcohol are out of the system right away. It just seems so wrong.

[skibuminwyo]

Second, Yeti. I know quite a few guys that smoke ALOT of weed, but are stone cold sober when they go to work. The residual is crap. In my case, I smoke maybe once a month, maybe. Tonight was my one night. So for 30 days, it's stored, even though I will no longer be under it's affects in the morning? Pure crap.

[Garrett]

what always steams me the most in this whole thing is that a person could fail these tests weeks after use on a four day weekend 500 miles from work but meth and crack and alcohol are out of the system right away. It just seems so wrong.

Agreed. This is why I think that people that are going to do testing should be serious about it and randomly test for impairment on the job, rather than a history of use. AFAIK this is possible for all the drugs of concern, but instead employers just test for metabolites showing a history of use, specifically for the "NIDA 5" drugs.

Past use of weed doesn't mean you are going to be worse on job, but employers IMO have every right to expect you not to be high at work:

Because urine metabolites do not indicate impairment, some scientists measure the parent drug responsible for impairment. Dr. Drummer measured blood THC levels in fatal crashes in Australia and noticed an association between high THC levels and risk of traffic fatality even in the absence of other drugs. Using forensic evidence he determined whether a driver is “culpable” or responsible for the fatal accident and correlated it to blood THC levels. Drummer and colleagues conclude, “Recent use of cannabis may increase crash risk, whereas past use of cannabis does not”.

http://www.alternativesmagazine.com/35/bayer.html

[crstlextrm]

Jeez, where do you work?

Im a nuklear fizzassist.

[iggyskier]

wait, Jumper drove into a plane?

Yup. But I figure he should tell that story.

pretty simple, though. White plane + white out + gabetron = Plane + big scratch.

[IslandSnow]

I support functional impairment testing, because it actually detects impairment, and does not discriminate as to why the employee is impaired. Someone whose crying baby kept them up all night is just as dangerous on the job as someone who is drunk or stoned.

Urinalysis does not detect impairment, it detects past use. Someone who tests positive for marijuana has perhaps a 1 in 80 chance of being actually impaired at the time of the test. Repeat that until you understand it.

One more time for those people who don't get it,Urinalysis does not detect impairment, it detects past use.

[Jumper Bones]

Yup. But I figure he should tell that story.

pretty simple, though. White plane + white out + gabetron = Plane + big scratch.

Yeah, it looked like somebody keyed the fuck out of it. Nice 2 foot long gash/scratch...didn't penetrate very far into the skin, 1/3 of the limit, so the plane still flew on schedule. It got a date with the paint barn though, and I got a date with the piss test/breathalyzer.

Working around white planes in a blizzard can be a bitch. I'm a big fan of open-topped, exposed work equipment now - windshields and roofs are for pussies.

[Hugh Conway]

I don't know a single Silicon Valley software or hardware engineering firm that tests for drugs, except the defense contractors that are federally required to.

As far as the pro-corporate testing argument, since when do corporations get a license to be law enforcement agents? If a corporation said "We send private corporate security to search the houses of all prospective hires for contraband", that would be unquestionably illegal and everyone would be up in arms. A piss test is no different.

Personally, I have always refused to take any job that involves a piss test.

Defense contractors don't either. The only engineering company I've ever known to test was Xerox who sent piss cups with the offer letters