When a drug test is required for a 7/11 employee, we've lost the war.

[maxrandb]

Perhaps one of the worst legacies of the “Reagan Revolution” is the way we have come to de-value labor in this country. We celebrate the “wealth”, but have spent the past 30 years ignoring the “labor” that helps to create that wealth.

This became abundantly clear to me when I took a 2ND job at Home Quarter’s Warehouse in 1990. I was on recruiting duty as a Second Class Petty Officer, and needed some extra money. They were opening a new HQ store in the town I was stationed, and the 20-25 hours of part-time work would come in handy when it came to paying the bills. Despite the fact that it was barely above minimum wage, and I was a stellar Sailor, who had taken and passed over 2 dozen random drug tests for the U.S. Navy, I could not be hired for this menial job without a drug test.

So what did I do? I swallowed my pride and peed in a bottle. Soon, drug testing became mandatory for everything from airline pilots (probably necessary) to 7/11 part time clerks (Really?) With this single act of “guilt until proven innocent”, we…the American Middle Class, had surrendered, just for the sake of getting a job. Of course, no one would stand-up for the rights to protect our urine from unreasonable search and seizure. Surely if you objected, you MUST BE DOING DRUGS.
I even had a “wing-nut” friend (who smoked quite a few doobies with me in the 70’s) defend the practice by saying; “well, if a person does drugs, they are more likely to steal from 7/11”.

Try to wrap your head around that statement for a moment. Just let it sink in. We’re not “prosecuting someone we caught stealing from the cash-register”…we’re “assuming someone might steal from the cash-register”.

And do you know what the worst part is…WE ALLOW IT! Now, instead of demanding honest wages for honest work, we are told that we “should be thankful that we have a job”. While we’ve seen executive pay increase from 10-20 times the hourly paid worker, to 200-300 times the hourly paid worker, we can’t get past the “I should be thankful that I have a job” syndrome.

The only thing that will change this, is for the American worker to stand-up and fight. Unfortunately, we are all just “thankful to have a job”.

What a great country!

[Gaedel]

1. HQ

Before they went broke, Hechingers (HQ and Builders Square) were one of the really liberal and 'blue" corporations.

[Dem1988]

131. Coincidence?

Probably not. :(

[Gaedel]

134. Not sure

Mr Hechinger did keep open some functionally obsolete stores that were not earning their way on the basis that the community needed the store and the people needed their jobs. A case in point was the Hechingers in SE Alexandria, VA. Builders Square was a losing proposition when he bought it. The HQ stores were modern and well positioned, but may have been too little and too late to save Hechingers from the competition of Lowes and Home Despot.

[AndyTiedye]

2. K/R

[Javaman]

3. The devil comes in on kittens paws. nt

[indimuse]

85. Do you know how to catch wild pigs?”

Do you know how to catch wild pigs?”
The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the
punch line. The young man said that it was no joke.
“You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in
the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs
find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free
corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put
a fence down one side of the place where they are used
to coming.
When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the
corn again and you put up another side of the fence.
They get used to that and start to eat again. You
continue until you have all four sides of the fence up
with a gate in the last side.
The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to
come through the gate to eat that free corn again.
You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole
herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom.
They run around and around inside the fence, but they
are caught.
Soon they go back to eating the free corn . They are
so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage
in the woods for themselves, so they accept their
captivity.”

PLEASE GO TO: www.congress.org to write or call President Obama and Congress asking them to REPEAL! We must speak up and

protect our liberties or become PIGS! Have you seen what they do to pigs in our country? Get off your ass! ;) la la laaaa

[DURHAM D]

4. In my experience the use of drug tests was to keep down the cost of workers compensation coverage.

[Arkansas Granny]

24. That was the main reason the company I work for has become certified

as a drug-free workplace. It saves us 5% on our WC premiums.

[former9thward]

39. There is always a financial reason for giving up our liberties and dignity.

I'm sure it did save -- or at least they said they saved -- a few bucks for WC coverage. Is that amount of money worth giving up liberties? Sometimes the price is just too high. What if companies turned it around and told the insurance company that if the policy had a employee drug screening demand they would go with another company? I think that drug screening demand would disappear from the insurance document. The insurance company wants your business.

[Ikonoklast]

53. If there is an accident, and someone involved fails the post-accident drug test,

the litigators will have a field day with your company.

A lot of drug-testing has more to do with businesses trying to remove themselves from possible sources of financially punishing litigation than with infringing on personal rights.

Well-run companies will do everything in its power to lower overall costs, and if drug testing its employees lowers insurance, legal, and health care costs, they will certainly implement drug testing to do so.

[former9thward]

54. Pre-employment drug screening does not stop drug use by employees.

So if someone has an accident and they have used drugs litigators will still have a field day. In my social circle, and my professional work (criminal defense) I run into no end of people who have various ways to fool drug screening. In fact I think only those people who don't use drugs are the ones who get honest results.

[Ikonoklast]

58. True, but it shows the employer as being pro-active.

I believe drug testing is also used be employers to try to shift potential blame for negligence from the employer onto the employee.

As you noted, most of drug-testing is a charade anyways, there are a more than a few ways to pass a drug screen.

[MedicalAdmin]

143. I did a quick google check.

There are litterally thousands of companies selling drug test cheats. I wonder if the same assholes forcing the drug testing are also own the drug test cheat companies?

[KittyWampus]

147. LOL! there are also thousands selling get skinny in a week pills.

[reggie the dog]

62. their tests dont even show if you were under the influence when

the accident happened, such tests exist and are used at random checkpoints on the roads in france and belgium, they at least show if someone has smoked in the past 4 hours. the problem is that in france the govt released document about cannabis says the effects last 2 to 4 hours... so there is room to argue, but at least that kind of test would not be positive for someone getting stoned after work. you can also do a blood test which shows active thc and is accepted in court in many states in the usa. i would give saliva or blood after an accident to prove i wasnt stoned at work, but piss proves mainly what i do after work and my cannabis use outside of work has nothing to do with my job performance as there are no hangovers in the morning from after work joint smoking.

[truedelphi]

109. And the other thing - accidents still happen in "drug free, certified"

workplaces because people still drink, and still use prescription drugs and over the counter meds.

So it is really strange to have this sort of thing accepted.

[1955doubledie]

135. Amen.

I literally take "speed" (dextroamphetamine) in heavy doses (60mg/day) for my ADHD symptoms. Simply having a prescription makes it "okay," and not okay for someone else? What if I test positive, and the company fires me or refuses to hire me, even if I have a prescription?
:shrug:

[MedicalAdmin]

142. Unfortunately insurance companies are largely exempt from the rico laws.

They can collude their asses off and they do. There is no other company to go to. There are no alternatives. All insurance companies decided to shift to drug testing at the same time. Coincidence?

[truedelphi]

175. RICO laws now apply to anyone but those people who are so powerful

That RICO is needed the most.

Geithner should have faced RICO laws for the swaps and S___ he did in his final months as New York Federal Reserve President.

And the big Insurers and Big Pharma should be facing those laws as well.

[jtuck004]

70. If they really wanted to do that there would be a coordination test

every day, along with a short psych eval.

Just like checking credit, in many cases it is nothing more than a way to control people.

[DURHAM D]

93. Huh?

The workers compensation insurance requirements (THE LAW) are what they are. Your people control comment doesn't fit with the laws.

The purpose of the laws are to protect employees, as well as employers. gheez

[jtuck004]

113. Against what? Paper cuts?

A driver, sure. Airplane pilots, absolutely. People who operate equipment, etc, ok.

Customer service people on a PHONE? Are we afraid it will slip, fly onto the interstate, and cause a wreck?

Law is just another word for excuse, at least in this case.

[Wednesdays]

136. Spot on. Plus, as was pointed out above

Doing a piss test indicates what has been ingested over a longer period of time, rather than indicating what has been taken recently. So, now we're afraid of office workers getting extra paper cuts because he smoked a joint last night...or even last weekend?
:rofl:

[Hippo_Tron]

124. One of my employers solved this problem by making you pee in a cup if you claimed workers comp

Drug testing wasn't a condition of employment, but a positive test was reason to deny a workers comp claim.

[Atypical Liberal]

139. Probably health insurance, too.

I bet places with drug screening have lower health insurance premiums, too.

[WingDinger]

5. As with so much of our misery, it is the Insurance co. that is the culprit.

[MedicalAdmin]

145. If there is a devil, he runs an insurance company.

[liberalhistorian]

6. It's not just the now-ubiquitous drug tests anymore. It's also

the credit check and those damned ridiculous "psychological" tests they insist on foisting on even the most menial of employees. Credit checks have nothing to do with how you will perform as an employee and they make the assumption that, if you don't have perfect credit, you're more likely to "steal" from the employer when NO empirical or research evidence backs that up whatsoever at all. I've known people with great credit who've been horrible, dishonest employees and I've known people with less than great credit who've been honest, good employees. It's all been a propaganda blitz by FICO and the credit bureaus (private companies!) to greatly increase their business and their influence and it's worked beautifully, to the great detriment of the American worker. When applying for jobs, we are now guilty until proven innocent. Yet, they've done a great job of making it seem as if the workers are always the ones with the problem.

And those damned psychological tests are really designed to see just how compliant you are and will be as an employee. I minored in social sciences, I knew their tricks when I read the tests.

[maxrandb]

9. Could understand the credit checks

if applying for a job that requires a Security Clearance, or bonding, like a bank teller, but other than that, it's all about control.

[MedicalAdmin]

146. When my wife and I hire we NEVER run credit checks or ...

... drug tests or anything. We either like and trust someone or we don't. If we do, they get the job. Innocent until proven guilty.


And we have ZERO problems with theft, dishonesty, etc. Trust your employees and start from that position and you will have no problems IMHO. Start with the assumption of guilt and treat the employees that way and they won't give a shit what happens to company property / reputation / etc. because you treat them like criminals and dirt.

[MedicalAdmin]

148. Luckily, knowing what you do, you can cheat the tests.

Making it appear that you are a good little german ready to shovel anyone into an oven that the CorpFuhrer tells you to.

You are the monkey with a wrench.

[Statistical]

7. Drug user isn't a protected class.

If you feel it should be that is the thing to lobby.

I got no problem peeing in a bottle. Honestly I don't. I guess that means I am part of the problem.

[reggie the dog]

11. it's all about how to pass

use some drugs and you pass easy, heroin, speed, and cocaine are out of your system within 24 hours. cannabis makes you fail a urine test for up to 5 weeks after use. use the drug alcohol and they dont even test your piss for its use. all in all drug tests keep cannabis users from getting jobs but do nothing really to keep crack, heroin, or alcohol addicts from getting jobs.

[Statistical]

14. I agree it is of dubious value.

I was just pointing out drug user isn't a protected class and thus employers are allowed to use it to screen applicants.

Some employers even will not hire someone who uses Tobacco. I don't know of any employer who won't hire alcohol users but they would be legal also.

[reggie the dog]

20. legal in the usa

you have to check in other countries. here in france drug use falls under "health issues" and your employer is not allowed to know your health issues. if you hurt your back for example, over here, you get a letter from your doctor and you are on paid sick leave but your employer only knows the doc gave you a letter, not what it is about. now if you do not work well for any reason you can be fired for non civil servant jobs (civil servants get retrained)so drug testing is a non issue here unless you have an accident at work and they give you a saliva test to see if you smoked in the last 4 hours because you can get fired for being drunk or stoned at work, just not for being like that after work.

[DirkGently]

42. And that's the point. Your medical status is private & non of an employer's business.

[Enthusiast]

129. Are you suggesting there is more "freedom"

in France than in the U.S.A.? :mad:



















:sarcasm: :hide:

[james0tucson]

116. Tobacco

The place where I work does random drug testing for Tobacco (and everything else), and yes, tobacco use / nicotine detected in your system will get you fired.

[Mimosa]

130. What kind of place do you work, James?

I don't smoke and i find that offensive. Last time I checked tobacco was a legal product.

3 or 4 years ago, D.U. would not have as many members defending being turned into serfs.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

45. And of the drugs you listed

Which ones are most likely to compel you to steal? Which ones are most likely to make you miss work because you were on an all night binge? In my experience it's always been the cokeheads who run off with the day's receipts because they're dying for a beam up, and it's the drunks who don't show up to open the store because they're hung over.

[maxrandb]

13. Missing the point

Of course drug "users" are not a protected class, but as far as I know, unless a person has given an indication that they are a drug user, or have been charged with drug use...they are not drug "users".

The problem with these tests is that they presume guilt.

I have no problem with firing someone for drug abuse, if that is proven, but this practice is not about protecting consumers or employees...it's about taking what little power the average worker has away from them.

It's about keeping the American worker scared, frightened and dependent on the "benevolence" of the wealthy.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

15. so

you think people who smoke a little pot after work or on the weekends shouldn't be allowed to have a job? It makes no sense.

[maxrandb]

16. I think it's even worse than that

The poster seems to think that the kid who applies for a job washing cars at a car dealership is a "drug user" and is therefore, not a protected class.

Think about that for a moment.

[Statistical]

21. Please don't put words in my mouth.

You seem to equate "innocent until proven guilty" which is only a Constitutional protection when it comes to criminal trials with some general all applying right.

You have no right to a particular job.
You do have the right to not be discriminated against when it comes to protected classes.

Pure and simple the only mechanism to prevent discrimination against drug users is to make it a protected class.

[MedicalAdmin]

153. Pardon my earlier snark.

You are speaking just to the legal issues. As I am not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, can you speak to any other way to protect said info. Would classifying it as purely a medical issue allow us to, in effect, pull it out of business hands unless and until I becomes a criminal issue?

[Statistical]

18. No that isn't the point.

The point is nobody has a right to work for a particular employer. If employer wants to put conditions on what applicants are accepted they can and it is perfectly legal.

What is illegal is to discriminate based on a protected class. Lets stop beating around the bush. Why whine about employers doing what is legal. Advocate that drug use (notice I said use not abuse) be a protect class.

[Enrique]

22. you don't know what the point of the OP is

you repeat "drug user isn't a protected class" but that doesn't address the OP's point.

[bvar22]

33. There was a time when the Democratic Party believed workers had a RIGHT to jobs.

Of course, that was the old Democratic Party,
not today's "New Democrats".

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Americas own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."--FDR

THAT is what "Democrats" used to sound like.
How far we have fallen.




"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone




"By their works you will know them."

[femrap]

80. We have fallen so far....

I don't think we'll ever get up. Not unless something MIGHTY BIG happens.

Pissing in cups to get a f*cking job...honestly, I'm old and I just couldn't believe it. I still am stunned...and all the young folks don't bat an eye. Anything you want, Big Bro. Such good sheeple.

[reggie the dog]

71. it might be legal, but it aint moral to drug test

whereas my cannabis use is moral yet illegal

[OrwellwasRight]

110. Sorry, but your proposed solution is ridiculous.

"Drug Users" will never be a protected class. And it is not just "drug users" who don't want to be drug tested. I don't use drugs and I would pass any test, but I don't want to take one because it is none of anyone's damn business. I've turned down jobs because they involved drug or lie detector tests. It's simply not right. And we could pass a law saying that employers do not have the right to make it a condition of employment unless it is a safety or financial security situation. There's a bill in Congress right now to make it illegal to credit check someone as a condition of employment unless it actually relates to t he job (like a banker, etc.). Could do the same with drugs. That would be the right thing to do instead of letting employers have private information regarding non-work behavior that is none of their damn business.

Unfortunately, that is unlikely because good ol' Reagan worked up such a frenzy that "drug users" are right behind child molesters and terrorists as dangers to our society. Read a few Supreme Court cases expanding the right to searches without warrants and you'll see how "afeared" Scalia & Co. are of boogeyman "drug users."

[LooseWilly]

119. Protected class isn't the only protection in the Constitution.

There's also the right to privacy.
You know, the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (bold added)

The argument that protection of "protected classes" applies in the private workplace but that basic Constitutional protections do not apply is simply the sort of argument that is screaming for a lawsuit...

I know, next you're going to claim that the rights of the fourth amendment aren't protected in a private business, but only in the face of the powers of the government.

What about the fourteenth amendment protections of due process? Hell, what about the guarantee of citizenship?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Do private businesses have to respect the protections of that portion of the Constitution?... or can they decide that, within the confines of their private business, Asians, for instance, are not citizens and therefore aren't eligible for employment?

"Protected class" you say?... well then what if a company decides that women (not a protected class) aren't citizens, and are therefore not eligible for employment?

Is this the argument that you're offering?

Or, are you just arguing that the wealthy aren't subjected to this bullshit and that the poor don't have the money to pay for a firm of attorneys with the capacity to crucify these employers? And, judging by the tone of your posts ("The point is nobody has a right to work for a particular employer. If employer wants to put conditions on what applicants are accepted they can and it is perfectly legal.") ... could it be that you are arguing an endorsement of these indignities that're blatantly illegal because you really don't consider the dignity of workers who find themselves desperate enough to subject themselves to such bullshit to be worthy of any defense?

[Wednesdays]

138. The crickets are deafening, LOL.

I call it game...set...match.

[Statistical]

172. You called "game set match" on a post that thought women aren't a protected class.

I hope your day job isn't referee.

[Statistical]

170. Where the FUCK did you get the idea women aren't a protected class?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

5 second google search would have made you look less foolish.

Protected Classes
Race - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866
Color - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) - Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex - Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964
Familial status (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing)
Sexual orientation (in some jurisdictions and not in others)
Gender identity (in some jurisdictions and not in others)
Disability status - Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status - Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974
Genetic information - Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

""Protected class" you say?... well then what if a company decides that women (not a protected class) aren't citizens, and are therefore not eligible for employment?" Wow. You really should read up on protected class. If you didn't think women are a protected class what exactly did you think the words mean?

"You know, the Fourth Amendment."
As far as the Constitutional protection in the 4th amendment that restricts the government not other entitities like business and citizens. Your employer for example can video tape you, record calls, copy emails, or observe what you do on employer computers. The government would need a warrant but your employer doesn't. You are aware the bill of rights protects your from the government not other actors? For example if the govt shut down DU that would be a violaiton of the 1st but if Skinner deletes this post I have no Constitutional protection from his actions.

[femrap]

78. Pot is Mother Nature's

way of saying 'relax' after dealing with Corporate f*cking assholes all week! Liquor is such a nasty drug....makes people mean, sad or stupid. I know of no one who has Blacked Out on pot.

[reggie the dog]

123. no black outs

but i have fallen asleep on the couch while listening to a cd of ocean waves and dolphin calls after smoking weed

[SOS]

156. Many years ago I worked in a store with an addict

Every day he stole his drug of choice from the store.

The drug? Alcohol.
Every day he put a case of beer in with the trash.
Later that night he came back to retrieve it out of the dumpster.

Thank heavens he wasn't smoking pot!
He would have failed his "drug test".

[hfojvt]

25. it's not the drug users who are being tested - it is all of us

I still think I should be compensated for my time. I took three drug tests one year. First, IMI Cornelius required it for a temp job that ended up lasting 6 days. Then the post office required it before they would even interview me. Then the new in-house temp service at Kraft required it. Never mind that I just took a drug test a month ago, I had to drive somewhere and take anouther one. Three hours of my time, pissed away (pun intended).

And who pays for all those drug tests ultimately? The customers of 7/11. Our water department, over my objections, just instituted a policy to drug test half their employees every year. About $2000 worth of drug tests every year. Sure, that's only $55 per employee or so, or 20 cents per customer, but twenty years down the road and they will have spent over $50,000. And for what? To satisfy their paranoia that somebody might be using drugs even though you cannot tell by their behaviour. And that does not even include the approximately 1.5 hours of labor time for each worker to drive over to Missouri for testing. There's another $400 a year in costs.

[Statistical]

26. Compensation for time could be a good change.

No problem with that.

[maxrandb]

28. Maybe I should not have used drug tests

but that was just my personal experience. My larger point was to illustrate how much freedom and liberty has been taken from the average American worker.

My bride applied for a job with an accounting firm that required she take a Lie Detector Test. She described it as the most intimidating and humiliating thing she had ever done.

She refused the job after that experience.

[hfojvt]

32. drug testing started in the Reagan administration

the cartoonist who wrote the Kudzu comic strip did an editorial cartoon on it. He drew attorney general Ed Meese taking a whiz on the bill of rights, and Reagan saying to him "No, Ed, you are supposed to pee in the cup."

A number of papers refused to print the cartoon, or maybe his syndicate did, because it refereneced urination.

[closeupready]

37. Drug addicts are, though, aren't they, under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that drug addiction is a disability.

[DirkGently]

44. It's more of a privacy issue than discrimination. Like inquiring into marital status.

It's none of an employer's business what an employee has in his or her system, unless they are impaired at work. It's probably best understood as a medical privacy issue.

The OP is correct that across-the-board drug testing for employment is another needless intrusion and burden imposed by corporations upon workers. Now some want to check your credit, not just for a position involving handling money, but just in general.

It's out of balance. As it becomes harder and harder to get a job and the process becomes more and more intrusive and humiliating, employees have less and less leverage, and those further away from the mainstream are further isolated.

[GoneOffShore]

89. And how do feel about the TSA?

Anything to be safe?

[MedicalAdmin]

150. Are you required to pee in a bottle?

If not, then you having no problem with it isn't surprising. "I ain't guilty so I don't have anything to worry about."

[Statistical]

171. I had to pee in a bottle for 4 of my last 5 jobs as a condition of employment.

The military and any federal govt job absolutely requires a drug screen. Period.

Every govt contractor I have ever seen also requires one without exception.


I have never had random on the job drug testing (except in the military).

[reggie the dog]

8. I have a master's degree

and i am not fit to work at about 65% of jobs in the usa simply because i smoke cannabis after work.

[Mnemosyne]

10. Ex-friend's kid had to take one to wash cars at a car dealer. Ridiculous. n/t

[bhikkhu]

161. Anecdotally, when I worked at a dealership in Seattle -

their health insurance company suggested that they would lower the premiums substantially if the company agreed to drug testing, and a "drug-free company". They had an initial scheduled test and everyone did fine, it seemed like a win-win situation. Then there was a second unannounced test weeks later - the entire detail department (car washers) failed based on alcohol and were fired, and two of the big high-paid techs failed on cocaine. I still remember one of them crying as he packed up his tools.

[Mnemosyne]

176. How very sad. Controlling assholes willing to destroy people's lives

based on things they do privately. I've never heard of the bankers, insurance and pharma CEO's being tested.

:hi:

[XanaDUer]

12. Yes, this angers me big-time

+1

[Angry Dragon]

17. Need random drug tests for congress

to be done by the public.
Sanity tests would be in order also

[femrap]

83. Drug test all CEOs

COOs, CFOs, and their f*cking VPs.

[bvar22]

96. Include alcohol in the CEO drug test.

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug in America.
Its responsible for way more deaths, job related injuries, poor performance, poor decisions, family problems, and health problems than ALL of the other "illegal" drugs combined.

[femrap]

99. I totally agree....

Pot should be legal, liquor....illegal. It makes people violent, sad and/or stupid. A very mean drug.

[SoCalDem]

19. When the general perceptions are that (1)"drugs are illegal",

(2) people who do/take drugs are boundary-testers
(3) drugs make people take risks they might not take otherwise
(4) drug use is expensive
(5) drugs used carelessly can injure/make people ill

and if those drug-tests are cheap enough to process and readily available, are we surprised that employers would use the technology to "weed out" their prospective applicants?

The olden days of references & phone numbers/addresses of contacts are OVER.

Testing is the norm for employee hiring, and it's only going to get worse (employee), better(bosses).

[Ezlivin]

27. Too bad your list is not applied to ALL drug users

Prescription drugs are more deadly and more problematic than illegal drugs, yet no employer can request a list of medications you're on (to my knowledge).

If drug use is so debilitating you'd think they'd want to know about ALL drug use.

[SoCalDem]

30. Patience, Grasshopper... that will come too

But , in fairness, unless you are a rockstar/actor/athlete, society does not care all that much about drugs a DOCTOR gives you..

sad.. those things are every bit as dangerous..maybe more because apparently, the people who get the prescriptions ARE the drug-testers too:(

[LooseWilly]

120. If society doesn't care about DOCTOR given drugs... isn't this all just a morality judgement?

The whole rigamarole is demonstrably not about performance effect-ation... because a quick listen to even just the side effects of prescribed meds makes years of heavy hallucinogen use, and decades of alcohol abuse, seem like a walk in the park.

So, why should anyone believe that employers would ever test for prescription drugs?... or that Phrama lobbyists would ever allow such a practice to be un-sue-able? Ridiculous.

And, if it has nothing to do with performance... that leaves (as far as my limited imagination can extrapolate) only Puritanical judgementalism or Docility index measurements. Two sides of the same coin, perhaps... subscribers of Puritanical values will selflessly give unto their employers, and are thus more easily and fully exploitable; while the Docile won't stand up for themselves, thus making them, also, more easily and fully exploitable.

Your admission, as well as the reality behind it, put the lie to the whole argument for drug testing.

Ohh, and Golden Seal, as well as a host of other "supplements", will readily put the lie to the results of a dirty drug test...

[SoCalDem]

168. Employers (perhaps not a 7-11ish job) DO want to know what drugs you take

and with newer tests, they can "weed out" prospective employees that could end up costing them money when it's time to add them to the company insurance plan. Take Lipitor? perhaps you may end up with an expensive heart attack/stroke... Take Avandia/Glipizide? Diabetics have many health issues.... Take an SSRI? Depressed people may actually want to use the mental health part of insurance.

With computerization of medical records and the signing-away of privacy we all do when we apply for jobs, your life is an open book.

The would-be employers will probably NOT tell you why you were not hired, but if you are an employer and you have two equally qualified applicants, one who takes NOTHING, and is apparently young & healthy, and the other takes multiple drugs (prescribed drugs) for many health issues, you might eliminate the latter just because of the possible future costs. You will find a way to NOT hire them, and they will never really know why.

[MedicalAdmin]

154. They can't ask for it directly, but they can indirectly.

At a drug screening they ask you to list any prescriptions or supplements you might be taking that could provide a false positive so they can factor those influences into the final test results. Hmmmm.... it seems to me that there might be a loophole in there somewhere.

[jp11]

23. I'd guess the point is to make money for drug testing labs

sell companies that drug users are 'bad' they steal, are lazy, have medical conditions, etc all around cost more money than non drug users and you can sell them testing for everyone they hire. It doubles as a mechanism to stop people from using drugs, however you want to view it, in fear that they might not get a job (crappy one to pay bills or stave off homelessness) OR worse not make their career ie doctor/lawyer/etc.

It might even be a 'simpler' way to weed out all the people who want to work from working the limited number of jobs, ie yet another way to get the alleged 'best' since so many people will try for the same job. Whatever edge employers can get, real or not, to get 'the best' will be used if it saves them time/money training or hiring someone to replace the worker they had to fire or just quit.

I certainly agree it is pretty 'stupid' to drug test people for jobs where they probably don't last more than a few months or companies have little to no overhead in training them to do the jobs. How long before more jobs require a complete medical history, entire employment history, how about mandatory personal references, credit check, etc.

Even now, nearly all jobs force a psych/character test on people as a pre-employment screening process, for 'easy' jobs like grocery clerk or stock associate. One day we might face dna testing/screening as a condition of employment, once we surrender to such testing we have no control over how that data is used against us.

Privacy is going out the window and we are 'forced' to comply with it or face losing out on jobs and more significantly careers which are harder to train/skill for not to mention if any data might get 'shared' about your results.

Where is our government in protecting our privacy, several steps behind the times, late, and probably being paid to make it legal.

[smoochpooch]

38. Good post, you touched on one of the bigger issues: in the future, could you be unemployable

because a pre-hiring questionaire revealed that your mother had breast cancer? That seems to be the direction we're being taken.

[OrwellwasRight]

111. not possible -- GINA was signed into law.

Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act--maybe the only good thing Bush ever did.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/108399.php

[Wednesdays]

140. But, if it's already okay to be forced to pee in a cup

and/or give saliva tests, could they not determine DNA information from that? Or, if not, is it too huge a leap for employers to obtain blood samples (under the pretext of ruling out hepatitis, etc.)? From there, they could easily find your genetic information. "Hmm, this one is predisposed to diabetes...better pass on him..."

Sure, there's a law now. How's it going to be enforced? Who's going to enforce it?
You really think some peasant will win such a suit against the mega-corporations?
:rofl:

[OrwellwasRight]

177. People have to enforce it themselves, just

like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, and the ADEA.

[MedicalAdmin]

157. Great law - big loophole.

Yes, insurance companies are not able to discriminate against YOU as an individual, but they are still allowed to charge whatever they want for there services against a registered "class" of people who just happen to demographically match you to a T. Thus they are not discriminating against you personally.

Insurance companies are still driving semi trucks full of the sick and infirm through that loophole.

[OrwellwasRight]

178. Won't be able to rate you on any of those characteristics

not even gender--after 2014.

[MedicalAdmin]

155. This is one of the reason that we advice all patients to

Pay cash for all genetic testing and request that it NOT be added to your medical records or tagged DO NOT RELEASE EVER in the medical files. In our practice we keep certain tests in a restricted part of the file so that they are NEVER released to insurance companies etc.

The reason - insurance companies and others that get access to your medical files are using them to discriminate against people in terms of rejected coverage and in terms of greatly increased premium quotes. And it's a small stretch to assume that we will go from there to employers using that same info. And once a genetic test is out there and out of your control it's open season, despite what HIPPA says.

Keep in mind that a genetic test will only tell what the genetic potential is, not whether or not that potential will be triggered or realized. Let me put it this way, if I was hit by a train, I would rather be hit with potential energy rather than kinetic (realized) energy. One is real. And hurts.

[maxrandb]

29. Just food for thought

but what happens to the urine samples and test results of the people they don't hire?

[Wednesdays]

141. You mean they keep the urine samples of the people they DO hire?

:wow:
:wtf:

[krabigirl]

31. Agree with you.

[tabbycat31]

34. I'd put this in the same category as background and credit checks

Seriously there's no reason to for most jobs (as with drug tests).

If HR can prove that it's relevant to the job then by all means yes (for example a credit check when the employee has access to customer's SSNs, background check for a police officer, etc).

[maxrandb]

35. I agree

If the job entails something like public safety (airline pilots) or dealing with finances, national security, etc., I don't have a problem with it.

It just seems that this is another tool to turn the average American worker into a 2nd Class citizen.

Hmmmm, talking about jobs of import...why aren't Congressman and Senators subject to random urinalysis testing?

[closeupready]

36. During a previous bout with unemployment, I was asked to submit to drug testing; I refused.

I'm not sure (if I were currently looking in this environment) that I could be so bold if I were put in the same position, but I've always been headstrong. I was just like, "I don't want to go down that road, so if a potential employer is asking for that, don't even consider me as eligible."

In fact, the headhunter at the time was incredulous, and told me that I was the first candidate who had refused to submit to drug testing. Mind you, I do not consume recreational drugs; it's just the totalitarianism of it that I object to.

Meanwhile, there was another job I had where a decision was made (not sure whose it was) that all employees would submit biometric information for 'enhanced security' for the building; a memo went out to all employees, case closed.

Well, case NOT closed, as I told them in no uncertain terms that I would NEVER submit to that.

They backed down. Though I WILL say that it was considered a black mark against me. What can I say. I will jump through hoops and walk on water, if you ask nicely; start cracking whips, and you lose me.

[leftstreet]

40. We 'lost' the war? When did we start fighting back?

I missed that part

Good post though
K&R

[maxrandb]

48. Unfortunately

I think that was part of my point. We didn't fight, and we haven't fought.

We've become scared and frightened people who don't want to make waves, lest we risk losing the job our benevolent masters allow us to have.

[femrap]

84. And all those decades of

the US becoming the premier nation of the world and there was no drug testing....not even during prohibition.

Some rich, white dude saw a great business model in 'Drug/Pot Testing' and Raygun and Nancy were all 'Just Say No' and voila...now drug testing is everywhere.

It's a damn shame that pot stays in one's system so long. I thought there were things that could cover it up.

[slay]

41. I feel the same way maxrandb - we give up our privacy - our humanity - in exchange for humilitation

and pee in a cup - which is wrong on so many levels - just to get a "job" that pays $7.50/hr? It's degrading, insulting, an invasion of privacy, humiliating, presumes one guilty not innocent, and most of all it's a power play - showing how little we have, and how much THEY have.

Oh please sir I will pee in a bottle for you if only you will let me risk my life working in your 7/11 store for barely a minimum wage! :puke:

I have no idea why ANYONE thinks kind of behavoir from corporations is OK. People won't stand up and fight though because they know they are screwed at this point. The rich and powerful have everything and we have nothing. Just the way those in power like it. And since Obama does not believe in creating government jobs - even in DIRE circumstances like we find ourselves in today, I don't see things changing anytime soon unfortunately.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

43. The 'thankful to have a job' syndrome has existed for as long as I've been in the work force

I got my very first job in 1983 working for K-Mart, and the "thankful to have a job" mindset was quite apparent there;
Since I was a teenager in a denim jacket and "in need of a haircut" they hid me back in the stockroom dungeon where no customer would ever see me. One day while on break I was in one of the back stairwells and I saw that someone had written 'K-Mart sucks' on the wall. Someone else had written back 'They give you a paycheck don't they? Obviously in your case it's a waste of money'.
WTF? No management-types ever went into that stairwell- or for that matter would ever have dreamed of writing on the walls.

Since then I've had all kinds of experiences... I've gone into place with 'Help Wanted' signs in the window who refused to interview me (presumably because my hair was too long) but never had to take a drug test. I probably would have if I had ever been able to pass one of those fascist "personality tests" that are all the rage these days. You know the one- where there are 'no wrong answers'... just ones that will keep you from getting the job- like if you don't promise effusively enough to rat on all your co-workers.

It's really a bad state we're in these days- it has been for a long time, and indications are it's not getting better any time soon.

[Uncle Joe]

46. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, maxrandb.:thumbsup:

[girl gone mad]

47. rec

[Gin]

50. had a required drug test that was from my hair...the longer the hair..the

longer the history to check..

[reggie the dog]

59. i got hair half way down my back

they would have quite a few years and detect things you had taken say, once or twice over a 5 year period. how would that show anything about by job performance? chemical loyalty oaths is all these tests are, smoke grass, take a little lsd, mdma or even do a line once in 4 or 5 years and you fail a hair test....

[Matariki]

49. The reason that happens is because so many people "swallow their pride" and say yes.

If EVERYONE refused, then it would stop.

[Gin]

52. easy to say...unless its a group hire...that won't happen...

one job I looked into working for a furniture company required a lie detector...same with a store like Kmart (retail)...that is one test I refuse to take.

[Matariki]

68. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about 'group hire' (?)

What I meant was that if everyone, culturally, refused to be treated like they were serfs being purchased - and demand to be treated respectfully, which, imo does NOT involve peeing in a cup in order to supply one's labor - that businesses would have no choice and wouldn't be able to demand such indignities. It just takes EVERYONE saying no. No compromises.

[Gin]

100. I agree with you...example of group hire would be many temps being hired

or something like that...most people who need work go with the program and don't fight it...I never liked it... and the only one I ever refused was the lie detector...I thought that was asking way too much...we all have become sheeple.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

51. It could be about the modern american practice of suing and litigating for anything.

If I were an employer, and thus responsible for my employees actions, I would make sure they were as law abiding and low risk as possible. So as long drugs were illegal I would try to seek out employment NOT likely to have legal issues or come to work high and do something stupid on my watch.

[RegieRocker]

104. Total b.s. Alright you and way too many others say this crap but I

want you to tell me how to do this as a income source. Give me a attorneys name that will sue anyone for anything so I can make over 100k a year. If you can't cough this info up then quit spewing this crap.

[OrwellwasRight]

112. As an employer,

you're only liable for the stupidity of your employees if you knew about it and did nothing. No evidence of drug abuse? You're not negligent. Learn the law instead of being afraid of it.

[MedicalAdmin]

158. I am an employer and OrwellisRight.

Employers are only liable of others actions if they are demonstratably negligent.

[cynatnite]

55. Call me nuts, but I like knowing that some jobs require drug testing...

I don't think 7/11 cashier should be high on the list, either.

Also, I think if they're going to make people pee in a cup, they should blow in a Breathalyzer, too.

But these things should be required for certain professions.

Airline pilots for one, big rig truck drivers, and so on. They operate huge machinery as part of their job and I don't think it's too much to ask to expect them to be free of any drug influence. It doesn't matter if it's alcohol, legal narcotics, or illegal drugs.

BTW, my husband's been a truck driver for many years. He's been subjected to numerous drug tests.

[maxrandb]

56. I agree with you

there are jobs where it is probably a good thing.

Here's the "rub". If I go out on Saturday and drink until I fall down and recover on Sunday, I can come to work on Monday with no evidence that 48 hours ago, I was face-down in a potted plant.

If I smoke a joint on Saturday night, that might stay in my system and be detectable for weeks...longer if they use a hair test.

I could lose my job, even though I make it a point to refrain from smoking a joint while I am on the clock.

It's this entire surrendering what we do in our private time that is insane. I understand it being in the military, because we are told that we are on the clock 24/7. I get that, but, if it does not interfere with my work, and I'm not high on the job, then the employer is controlling aspects of my life that have nothing to do with my employment.

Does that make sense?

[cynatnite]

63. I was thinking about this after I posted...

If someone smoked a joint on a weekend, went to their job on Monday...whose business is it as long as they're sober for the job?

They should really treat pot no differently than alcohol.

[james0tucson]

117. whose business is it

One argument that they use is this: You engaged in criminal activity while under their employ, ostensibly representing them. If you had been arrested, you could have put your employer in a negative light. This is especially a problem in cases where the employer has represented to clients that it is a drug-free workplace or that its employees are of the highest character or whatever.

You see this all the time in aerospace sector.

[Wednesdays]

144. Potential "criminal activity" isn't limited to drug use, you know

If companies are worried about their reputation being sullied by an employee's illegal acts off the clock, then it's okay to have the employee shadowed 24/7 by a private eye, right? I mean, the employee could steal a car, or rob a bank, or something. You know, it could happen...you never know...and the companies can't be too careful about stuff like that...it could damage their reputation.

[reggie the dog]

75. why shouldn't truckers or airline pilots

be able to smoke weed or drink alcohol on days they dont work? oh right they can use alcohol on off days, heaven forbid that they could smoke a joint on an off day. piss tests dont show impairment, they show what you have done in the past month as far as cannabis is concerned, at least they dont have this shit here in france

[cynatnite]

79. Well, I do know it's different with over the road truckers...

They're out on the road for weeks at a time operating a semitruck. They don't have the same luxury to be able to smoke a joint or even have a drink when they're not driving, but are sleeping in their truck. The standards should be different because of that.

I was a dispatcher and I've lost drivers because of a hot piss test. There is an enormous responsibility when it comes to these big rigs and what they're hauling. Many times they're moving hazardous materials and the last thing anyone wants is a driver who may have had a drink or smoked a joint in the last 12 hours.

Not getting a good night's sleep can have horrible effects on driving. I wish that was taken more seriously because it is a bigger problem for truck drivers than testing positive for drugs.

I know this is an unpopular position, but we've been at this quite a while. We've lost friends because trucking companies won't do a better job of health care for their over the road drivers. We've seen some exhausted beyond belief. We've known some who were forced to take speed just so they could make their runs in the time that was demanded of them.

It's a dangerous job and I do wish more care would be taken of truck drivers. It certainly wouldn't be anything like it is now.

[drmeow]

86. I have always considered the

unreasonable run completion times for truckers to be criminally greedy BS - exploit the worker, set him/her up to fail, and when they break the law or cause a problem trying to keep up the company can't be blamed.

[cynatnite]

92. You are exactly right. n/t

[CanSocDem]

102. In the 70's...

...there was wide spread use of cannabis in the trucking industry. Half the trucks on the road displayed a roach clip (cunningly disguised as clip-on hat feather) in full view of cops, DOT scale officers and other drivers. It was openly traded at most truck stops over the CB radio.

"Not getting a good night's sleep can have horrible effects on driving. I wish that was taken more seriously because it is a bigger problem for truck drivers than testing positive for drugs."

Yet, any drug that counteracts 'fatigue' or increases alertness is banned and the driver is considered impaired. Much of our justification for use and tolerance in the day, was that when meeting another truck on a narrow 2-lane highway we wanted that driver to be wide awake and relaxed. We didn't moralize on how he or she achieved that condition as long as they did their job keeping their rig between the lines. Cannabis users were the safest and most courteous drivers and usually the most valued of employees because of their attitude and work ethic.

The Reagans, lacking any other legitimate cause, seized on the hysterical ravings of a driver known at the time as the 20-20 driver, and promoted that notion that "stoned" truckers were everywhere and a monster threat to M/M Fourwheeler.

Once the piss tests became compulsory, there was no magical drop in the number of big rig incidents on the highways. There might have been an increase due to the untreated fatigue that you mentioned. My last job in the industry ended when a pre-employment test didn't arrive in time to prevent the company from sending me out on a six week trip that, in the spirit of abstinence, I did without... only to be run around with little concern for the hours I was putting in doing the company's business at great risk to my own health. Confronted with the results, back in the yard, I choose my health over their rules. Easy choice.

I have over 3 million accident-free miles around North America. Ninety-five percent of that was done before random roadside tests that I would never have passed. But we're all gone now so the motoring public can relax....

[reggie the dog]

122. you have been replaced by tweekers and alcoholics

and there are still trukers who smoke and have fake piss for the tests, one of my buddies does this.

[reggie the dog]

121. We've known some who were forced to take speed just so they could make their runs in the time

this is horrible. and i still say that when these guys are at home they should be able to drink or smoke a joint without losing their job. i can see a no drinking, no drugs policy when they are over the road and sleeping in their truck as they are "on call" if you want, but when they know they have 4 days at home it is a different story.

[era veteran]

57. Get the police to pee in a bottle before a clerk

[CrispyQ]

60. Is it possible for companies to add a pregnancy test for women with that urine sample?

The candidate doesn't fail the drug test, but the employer knows she's pregnant & viola - no job for you sweetie - come back after you've had your baby. How much more would it cost & would the candidates ever know?

[SoCalDem]

64. In June 1970, a HR person at the bank I applied at asked me what kind of birth control I used

and when I planned on having a baby..

[jeff47]

82. No

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can't fire/not hire someone because of pregnancy. And assuming she's clean, she'd know that claiming the drug test was positive would be a lie, which would lead to legal action that uncovered the pregnancy test.

Even if they never used the pregnancy test for that purpose, you can be sure the secret would come out sometime, and result in an expensive lawsuit.

[CrispyQ]

95. They wouldn't never have to mention the drug test -

they could just say, "Sorry. We hired a more qualified candidate," & the woman would never know that she was tested for pregnancy & turned down for that reason.

[jeff47]

114. Except for the second part of what I said

The fact that they are testing for pregnancy would come out, leading to a nice class-action suit by every single woman who took that "drug" test.

The test would have results. Results are a paper trail. Paper trails never truly disappear.

[Wednesdays]

151. How would the fact "come out?"

You think they're dumb enough to surreptitiously do a pregnancy test, and then tell the woman? Or, if the "test results" are required to be revealed, to include the PG test in the results? Unless there's a whistle-blower in the company, to the outside world the test never happened.

No-one can subpoena something they don't know exists.

[jeff47]

174. So your position is that they'd run the test

Yet no one would communicate the results to anyone else.

How exactly would the company find out the results of the test?

Most drug testing is done by an outside firm, so you're saying that the results of a test run by a technician at one company would somehow make it back to the HR department of another company without anyone ever writing anything down, and with everyone involved in this crime happy to cover it up for the rest of their lives.

I submit we need to make sure lightning doesn't destroy the job application form before we worry about something this incredibly unlikely.

[MedicalAdmin]

164. The test doesn't have to have results in printed or electronic form.

They could simply use disposable test strips and then just chuck them. The results could be communicated by a check mark or X or something similar on another form that HR uses.

There doesn't have to be a paper trail. Honestly, do you think crooks like Cheney left paper behind? Other crooks wouldn't either.

[jeff47]

173. The entire point is the communication of the results

"The results could be communicated by a check mark or X or something similar on another form that HR uses."

Plaintiff's attorney: What's this check mark or X in this unlabeled space on this HR form? It only appears for female applicants.

[MedicalAdmin]

160. Easy and cheap once they have the pee.

And yes, it's conceivable. I'm sure it happens more often than it should.

[WillyT]

61. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!! - HUGE K & R !!!

:kick:

[Warren DeMontague]

65. In my experience, if restaurants started doing that, there'd be no one working in them.

Hell, back in the day I worked for a chain of indie video stores. EVERYONE was high. From the owners, on down. At one point we were selling a book called "Baked Potatoes: A Pot Smoker's Guide To Movies"

I can't imagine why it matters if the 7-11 guy is on drugs.

[BobbyBoring]

66. If you have this, no worries!

Warning!!

This is used in the event your watched giving your sample!

http://www.thewhizzinator.com/whizzinator.html

There's more behind the drug testing that makes it more despicable MONEY!!

I go to a pain clinic and they started testing us. $1,500.00!!! to make sure I'm taking my meds and not selling them or using anything else.

[MedicalAdmin]

165. I'm pretty sure this won't work for at least 50% of the population.

[Disintermedia8]

67. As I have said before, in our culture

those with little are always assumed to be criminals and treated as such, those with great wealth are assumed to be good actors who would never act upon an obvious conflict of interest.

[IrishEyes]

69. I had to take a drug test to be a library assistant.

I thought it was silly but I did it. It is the only drug test that I've been asked to take out of all my many part time, full time and volunteer jobs.

[dogday]

72. I remember taking a drug test and an invasive physical

I though this is ridiculous, having some Dr. poke and prod me just to get a freaking job.

[Citizen Worker]

73. Drug testing has more to do with controlling off the job activity then it does anything else.

Having worked for 24 years in a heavy industry and I can say without equivocation that of all the injuries and deaths on the job there was not one that was caused due to drug use by the accident victim or co-worker, not one. I can also say with certainty that among the injuries and deaths the common cause was defective equipment or tools, poor training, lack of personal protective equipment, working in isolated spaces without supervisory checks, hazardous chemicals and other substances, etc. Not once was anyone injured or killed because they or a co-worker was impaired by drugs or alcohol.

Further, drug testing, pre-employment or on the job, tests ONLY for the presence of drugs and does NOT test for impairment. Conversely, a breathalyzer tests impairment.

If employers were concerned about on the job safety they would be amenable to surprise inspections by state and federal safety inspectors instead of demanding prior notification of such inspections. After all, if they have nothing to hide there's nothing to fear, right?

[keepCAblue]

74. My brother-in-law applied to work part-time for 7/11 in the 70's. Had to take a lie detector test.

So 7/11 has been doing this kind of bullsh*t for decades.

[Swampguana]

76. We should stand up for what's right like

in Egypt, but I have a feeling it's going to keep going like this for quite awhile longer.

[femrap]

77. When I had to pee in

my first cup, I asked if they wanted to give me an IQ test as well.

I so wanted to put a little turd in that damn cup.

[defendandprotect]

81. There is a kind of "Just Say No!" kind of hard-headedness which is very naive, imo ...

and I feel it comes from inexperience -- and over trust of government.

It's another one of those FEAR-BASED game-playing things --

Just like CO-INTEL opening your mail -- or wiretapping you --

"Well, I have nothing to hide!" -- was the reply often of the "Reds under Beds"

believers.

When someone wants the right to strip everyone else of their privacy, that blase

response isn't really based on any deep thinking about their own need for privacy --

it's really centered on "getting" someone else.



Americans are as insane to permit this Drug War to keep going as they are insane to

permit our lives/government to be run by MIC/Pentagon -- bankrupting the nation --

destroying the planet!

END THIS FAKE AND PHONY DRUG WAR!!

[Rex]

87. Are you kidding me!? Someone with the late night munchies might

clear the place out! Can't just hire anyone, gotta make sure they won't eat your stash!!!

[eggplant]

88. After having to take one test in the 90s for IBM...

...I've consistently refused to take one since. I've had to turn down potential jobs for it, but I've stood my ground.

I did take one opportunity to go through the entire interview process before telling them that I was sorry, but I was unable to consider them as an employer at that time. It felt pretty good wasting their time and making my point.

[humbled_opinion]

90. The devaluation of Human Beings

is more like it.... Yes we are losing this war and it is for the very soul of humanity. The rich will continue to force these imperious ideas on the population until the population ultimately revolts. This is nothing more then the bourgeoisie having their way with the those whose labor they rape and pillage. Even now the rightwingers are trying to force people that rely on welfare/foodstamps/WIC or any government subsidy to pass drug tests prior to receiving payments. Next up drug tests for unemployment checks, how about drug tests for Healthcare?????

Its insane.

[RandomThoughts]

91. actually nobody having sent beer and travel money to me yet

that is insane

[lib2DaBone]

94. The scum bag fundie politicians are the first to require drug tests...

Drug tests for everything from unemployment to welfare to any kind of job.

But have you noticed that they never include THEMSELVES in these witch hunts?

It would seem to me.. that politicians that control large sums of money and make laws that effect millions.. should be the FIRST to be drug and alcohol tested.

Boehner would fail right away. (It is rumored that Boehner has his Secretary start bringing him Orange Crush and Vodka at 10 a.m.... then he goes to the Tavern for lunch. How this man functions in CONgress is a mystery.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_V704HlITdPc/TUcOfqJDC-I/AAAAAAAATXo/u3XUwXbdz8M/s400/john+boehner+smoking.jpg

[DaveJ]

97. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, GWB, Obama, Clinton, etc etc etc

They've all done drugs. I wouldn't doubt Gates still smokes pot.

Pharmaceutical drugs are legal, but notice that almost every pharmaceutical that makes you feel good is now illegal.

For some reason we respect hard work, high tension, multitasking worker bees, but actually being laid back and enjoying life is a privilege only the elite deserve.

There are people in prison for wanting to feel good. Not allowed.

The basic human impulse says nobody 'beneath' them should enjoy life more. And the basic instinct to distrust anyone different. People who have made different life choices. People who have different drugs of choice. It's a basic human trait to want to be on top, which means finding any excuse to make things more difficult for others.

I actually think that hard drugs are terrible, but at the same time, it is possible to do them responsibly without getting addicted. Unfortunately it seems most do get addicted.

Nevertheless, I believe that at work a person should be judged based on their job performance and nothing else.

[Shagbark Hickory]

98. Nah. When a drug test is required for 7-11 shoppers otoh, youre screwed

[davidthegnome]

101. I would be thankful

If I had a job. I'd be willing to submit to drug testing - they would find nothing but prescription medications that I take as ordered, but I used to smoke pot too (years ago - until it started causing me anxiety attacks). The thing is that some of us are either desperate, or becoming desperate - and I am becoming desperate. I am twenty six, I want to marry my girlfriend who has been waiting for years, I'd like to be able to support a family. I sure as heck can't afford school and would have no way of getting there every day even if I could (gas prices, living in a rural area 45 miles away, no personal vehicle, obviously I'm broke, etc.).

I agree with you - that it's wrong for this to be necessary, that it's absurd that they mandate drug testing for 7/11 employees. There isn't a damn thing I can do about it though. I realize how unfair our system of government and our system of corporate control is, I realize the various abuses of our human rights and dignity. I would however, be willing to go through all of them and more if someone would only hire me. Why? Because I'm sick of being broke in a Country where a great many people judge the worth of the human being based on their financial worth. Because I don't want to live with my parents for the rest of my life and would be eternally grateful for a chance to earn an honest living.

The chances of that happening are slim to none. I may be fortunate enough to find odd jobs for the summer that will pay minimum wage under the table, but that sure as hell won't give me a future. There are many millions of people who are in the exact same position. I'm sure we'd love to fight - if only we knew who to fight or how to. There are simply not enough jobs available and the requirements for even the simplest of them have become absurd.

Don't misunderstand me, it's not that I'm not outraged, it's that I'm powerless to do anything about it. Perhaps the pigs in the cage story could apply to me. I'm not sure I care. I just want to be able to have a chance to finally grow up and live a real life. With our economy in its present state - particularly in a rural area in Northern Maine, that is simply not at all probable for me.

Sorry for the rant - sorry to those of you who have struggled or are struggling with the same issues. But I still maintain - I would submit to drug tests and more for employment. I am only one of millions that desperately wants it - and one of the few fortunate enough to be able to survive without it.

(edited for grammatical errors)

[maxrandb]

107. Way off topic here

but have you looked at some on-line schools? I've taken a lot of courses through Excelsior College of New York. Great on-line program. If you have a computer, you can get a lot of courses done.

[Taverner]

103. This is called "fascism"

can you say that?

I knew you could

[moondust]

105. In 1972 they wanted a lie detector test.

Being young and unsuspecting, I filled out an application. Went in for the interview and at the end they said I needed to take a lie detector test. I laughed and got up and walked out.

[maxrandb]

108. Made my bride

do the lie detector test for a bank job. She didn't take the job.

[MedicalAdmin]

166. You made your bride take a lie detector test?

Weird.

[maxrandb]

169. Good Catch

What was that Bug's Bunny cartoon..."be quiet, he doesnt' have to shoot "you" now". Hmmmm pronoun problems!

I meant that "the bank" made my bride take a lie-detector test. She said it was the most humiliating thing she had ever done and walked out without finishing.

[The Wizard]

106. As Hitler might say

Urine business is mein business.

[bertman]

115. Thank you, maxrandb. REC. nt

[saras]

118. More than one way to fail

I can't pass a pee test. It's not that I use illegal drugs.

My aim isn't good enough ;)

And if you return the bottle with pee on the OUTSIDE, you don't get hired.

They've never explained to me just what part of the job requires urinal accuracy better than toilet radius. Maybe you only need that skill once you have underlings.

[Contrary1]

125. On a job app for a part time job at a dry cleaners...

I was asked if I would submit to a drug test. I couldn't believe it.

But, here's the kicker...they wanted a resume, along with the reason I wanted the job. All explained to me (very politely) by the "manager", who didn't look like she was old enough to buy liquor.

You know, as an approaching the big 60 female, I have held many jobs. But, there is nothing greater that I have aspired to be, than to be working as a part-time clerk in a hot, sweaty dry cleaner joint for minimum wage.

My best friend encouraged me to submit a resume, listing every single job I had ever held... beginning with my first job as a carhop back in the early 60's.

That would have been entertaining. :)

[WCGreen]

126. I thought smoking some dubage was mandatory to work at 7/11

[Lucian]

127. I had to submit to a urine test and a hair drug test before I got hired at Walmart.

I never did drugs in my life, never been convicted, never even tried them. But I had to submit to two drug tests before I got hired.

I still ask myself "why" to this very day. I shouldn't have put up with it.

[Politicalboi]

128. States that allow Medical MJ

Should either exempt piss tests or pay disability. It's also against the law to fool a drug test. Saliva tests are the best, and should always be used instead of urine for EVERYBODY. Even a pilot can smoke a joint the night before and get a good nights sleep for the morning flight with NO hang over. Alcohol gets a pass most of the time, and I am sick of it. If I owned a business, my policy would be NO drinkers. Potheads welcome, but no smoking on the job.

[erebusman]

132. I worked graveyard at a circkle k, i wish they had tested the swing guy

In college I worked GY shift and the Swing shift guy was on drugs, alcohol or both. He left the store a mess, he stole product in the cooler (open beer bottles and caps everywhere) his breath always smelled of alcohol when I relieved him.

I wish they would have random 'tested' him because I'm sure they would have had to let him go and I would have a lot less job either cleaning up after him.... or leaving all the 'evidence' for the manager to see when they come in the morning. It was not a good position to be in for me.

I'm sure it was awesome for him though.

[Renew Deal]

133. Aren't drug users people actively participating in criminal behavior?

And in the worst cases it includes stealing to keep up their habit? 7/11 is a place that handles a lot of cash and merchandise. It makes sense that they want to improve their odds of preventing theft by drug testing people that they really know nothing about.

Of course, 7/11 is so franchised out that I doubt every 7/11 does this.

[RegieRocker]

137. ROFLMAO. You've never taken presecription drugs?

Legal or Illegal get this "IT'S STILL DRUGS!"

[maxrandb]

159. I think your post is part of the problem

Forgive me, and I don't intend to offend, but since when did we allow "employers" to screen for "potential", or "presumed" guilt or criminal activity? I'm not talking about work that requires a security clearance, or impacts public safety, but...A PART TIME EMPLOYEE AT TARGET????? :wtf:

What is wrong with a policy that states, "if you steal, you will be fired and prosecuted"?

That is quite different from; "we think if you use drugs, you may steal from us, so just to make sure, piss in this bottle. We don't know that you do drugs, we have absolutely no proof that you do drugs, even if you do drugs, we don't know that you will steal from us, but...just the same, give us your urine"?

Unfortunately, like sheep, we allow it...hell, we may even encourage it. Guess I thought that at one time in America, working class people were actually a "protected" class.

What's next? How about someone who gambles? What about someone with financial difficulty (a damned lot of us in this current environment), let's test for the "gambling" gene. Let's test to see if someone is predisposed to addictive behavior.

"Hey, that guys a serial masturbator, we can't have him working in an adult video store".

Where do we draw the line, and start demanding to be treated with respect, and not like "serfs".

Unless, of course, we have become "serfs", then it's too late.

[Gato Moteado]

163. you should be allowed to use drugs while working at a 7-11....

....how else could you make it through the day at a job like that?

[WI_DEM]

149. apply for almost any service job these days and it's required--I worked

at Target to earn extra money for Christmas a couple of years ago and had to do a mandatory drug test upon hire.

[Deep13]

152. The boss as law-enforcer: fascism comes to America. nt

[SOS]

162. Drug test results

Person A:

positive for opiates - prescription Vicodin
positive for benzos - prescription for Xanax
positive for alcohol - cocktail with lunch
positive for amphetemines - prescription for ADHD
positive for barbituates - prescription for insomnia

You're hired!

Person B:

positive for cannabis

Sorry, no job for you!

Just follow the money to sort out the "war on drugs".

[dajoki]

167. Sad n/t