Drug testing in the IT industry

[SMOKEU]

I thought I'd ask in this sub forum, since many of you work in this industry. So, if it's a fairly regular entry level office type IT job that doesn't involve working around heavy machinery or driving, is it common for employers to do random drug testing, or to request a drug test pre-employment? Is it a topic that employers are likely to bring up, even with no reason to believe that someone uses illegal substances?

[benhall]

not that ive ever heard of

imo you should be able to do as you please as long as does not effect your performance at work, if so someone should just sit you down and talk it thru and get you some help

[onearmedbandit]

Some insurance companies are now asking for drug tests due to all types of workplace accidents.

[Kickaha]

is it common for employers to do random drug testing, or to request a drug test pre-employment?

Yes it is, we do a drug test as part of a pre employment medical and so do a lot of other industries, wouldn't have picked IT to be one of them though

[SMOKEU]

SWIM (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=swim) just about scored a job today at a very large company, then upon being handed the contract to look at, SWIM was told that a drug test would be required in a few days and if it doesn't come back negative for all drugs, then SWIM won't get the job. SWIM didn't get the job. :facepalm:

I sort of expect drug tests for jobs that are "dangerous" (fuck drug tests, but I don't want to turn this thread into a big debate about the ethics of employers being able to tell what people can and can't do in their spare time, we already have another thread for that), but I was surprised to find out that this is required for an office type job. So if it's not really the norm in this line of work, the SWIM should probably be happy not to work for a bunch of hypocritical pricks like the unnamed company in question.

[jellywrestler]

fuck if they did drug test for prozac no one would get through in the IT industry i'm sure

[haydes55]

Wouldn't expect so. But like several businesses in the recession, the cheapest way to downsize is to drug test staff. No long drawn out firings, no redundancy payouts.

[jellywrestler]

Wouldn't expect so. But like several businesses in the recession, the cheapest way to downsize is to drug test staff. No long drawn out firings, no redundancy payouts.

what if they also race speedway?

[mashman]

I've never heard of anyone being tested, but no doubt it'll be a future requirement to weed out the non-compliants.

[haydes55]

what if they also race speedway?








then only smoke P

[Madness]

then only smoke P

And legal highs, prescription drugs, kava, nutmeg, datura, magic mushrooms, more legal highs (before the race) and half a glass of beer.

[Gremlin]

Haven't come across it, don't have the requirement personally either. Then again, the boss knows I don't drink/drugs etc.

Depends what the "office" job is really. If we're working on a server/firewall/system (which can be done remotely from the office) and it's late at night, the first stupid mistake (no matter how small) is the last. A lot of very important things can be undone (in very severe ways) when not paying enough attention...

[swbarnett]

Haven't come across it, don't have the requirement personally either. Then again, the boss knows I don't drink/drugs etc.

Depends what the "office" job is really. If we're working on a server/firewall/system (which can be done remotely from the office) and it's late at night, the first stupid mistake (no matter how small) is the last. A lot of very important things can be undone (in very severe ways) when not paying enough attention...
Exactly. And you don't need to be on drugs for that to happen. I know of one case where all the company's Solaris servers (70 at the time, a lot of which were mission critical) were taken down at once just because a program was rolled out without being properly tested.

[BuzzardNZ]

I was tested when I joined an IT firm in the States. Never in NZ though.

[unstuck]

Somebody needs to test IT. That fuckers scary.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/123441/2937353-pennywise.jpg

[neels]

The company I work for drug tests everyone pre employment, has just become another H&S tick in the box i.e. taking all practical steps to eliminate a possible hazard.

We don't work in a 'dangerous' environment as such, but there is a big safety component in the service we provide, but even the non-operational staff get tested on entry.

[swbarnett]

The company I work for drug tests everyone pre employment, has just become another H&S tick in the box i.e. taking all practical steps to eliminate a possible hazard.

We don't work in a 'dangerous' environment as such, but there is a big safety component in the service we provide, but even the non-operational staff get tested on entry.
What industry is that?

[Stirts]

A lot of very important things can be undone (in very severe ways) when not paying enough attention...

function stop(){ // stoned, fix later

}

[tigertim20]

SWIM (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=swim) just about scored a job today at a very large company, then upon being handed the contract to look at, SWIM was told that a drug test would be required in a few days and if it doesn't come back negative for all drugs, then SWIM won't get the job. SWIM didn't get the job. :facepalm:

I sort of expect drug tests for jobs that are "dangerous" (fuck drug tests, but I don't want to turn this thread into a big debate about the ethics of employers being able to tell what people can and can't do in their spare time, we already have another thread for that), but I was surprised to find out that this is required for an office type job. So if it's not really the norm in this line of work, the SWIM should probably be happy not to work for a bunch of hypocritical pricks like the unnamed company in question.

leaving ethics aside, its not just about dangerous jobs like say construction etc. Theres also image - plenty of people would go apeshit if they hired a tech to come and fix something, and the guy turned up clearly stoned for example. So largely it's an image and accountability thing. I recognise that what you are talking about here is that someone maybe smokes at home, and never at work, but if said person makes a major fuckup - while totally sober, (hey everyone makes fuckups!) and that fuckup ends up costing the employer a large amount of money, or it costs them a contract / client, or that fuckup has a negative effect on their business' image, then you can understand why that employer might take steps in an effort to reduce the likelyhood of further fuckups.

Personally Im fine with drug testing, mainly because I dont do any, and if it means I get a job over someone else, well, fuck 'em!:laugh: but it seems like the core issue with drug testing seems to be the argument that 'MJ stays detectable in the system for a period of time significantly longer than the effects are actually felt by the user' so it will be interesting to me when/if they can design a simple, affordable test that only measures whether a person is actually affected at the time of testing, whether or not the opponents to drug testing become more willing to do it.

[swbarnett]

leaving ethics aside, its not just about dangerous jobs like say construction etc. Theres also image - plenty of people would go apeshit if they hired a tech to come and fix something, and the guy turned up clearly stoned for example. So largely it's an image and accountability thing.
You don't need random drug testing for this. If the customer's going to notice then chances are a colleauge will first.



you can understand why that employer might take steps in an effort to reduce the likelyhood of further fuckups.
If someone has history of being intoxicated on the job then I can fully understand the need for drug testing. Otherwise, leave well enough alone.


Personally Im fine with drug testing, mainly because I dont do any,
You may have guessed by now that I am opposed. I have never done drugs and never will (I've never even had prescription drugs cause me to be drowsy; and I'm talking tramodol and morphine) and I've only been drunk maybe two or three times in my life.

It's not drug testing per se that I'm against. It the random application of it. All you do is create a culture of fear for no real benifit. The world today is just far too paranoid.

[tigertim20]

You don't need random drug testing for this. If the customer's going to notice then chances are a colleauge will first.



when did I say 'random' drug testing? are you in support of am employer being entitled to request testing if the employer has a genuine reason for beleiving the person may be intoxicated / stoned / whatever?


If someone has history of being intoxicated on the job then I can fully understand the need for drug testing. Otherwise, leave well enough alone.


Nobody should have a 'history' of being drunk / stoned on the job - I would expect someone to be canned pretty fast if they were stoned / drunk at work, and I dont really think thats unfair at all.


You may have guessed by now that I am opposed. I have never done drugs and never will (I've never even had prescription drugs cause me to be drowsy; and I'm talking tramodol and morphine) and I've only been drunk maybe two or three times in my life.

It's not drug testing per se that I'm against. It the random application of it. All you do is create a culture of fear for no real benifit. The world today is just far too paranoid.

Ive worked at a few places that did drug testing. Ive never seen it be truly random. By all means, there may be places that do it differently, but every place I have worked has said up-front when applying that drug testing may be requested - when it is, its generally a good few weeks notice anyway. outside of that, the only time I saw it be requested 'randomly' was when someone was suspected of being off their tits. (they were - boss's wife had walked past the guy smoking a joint, o work time, while on site:facepalm:) but when there is a reason to think someone is stoned, it isnt really random then, is it?

I perhaps wasnt clear in my last paragraph, so I will re-phrase it. I can see that people dont like some of the testing as it can show up things they have done OUTSIDE of work - and that in itself is a fair issue to raise - what I do at home is nobody elses' fuckin business! However I do think that if a test was developed tomorrow that was fast, on the spot, cost effective, and ONLY tested in a way that showed if the person was under the influence at the time of testing, I imagine that the vast majority of opponents would remain opposed, and we would hear all the shit about how the all think they operate better after a relaxing joint etc etc.

I guess that remains to be seen. I do think it is unfair if a person loses their job for a failed drug test because they hot-boxed the garage on Saturday night with some mates though.

[Hoon]

It's not drug testing per se that I'm against. It the random application of it. All you do is create a culture of fear for no real benifit. The world today is just far too paranoid.
The only people with anything to fear is the drug user.
I'm all for it. Not only does it weed out drug users, it can also straighten people out that normally wouldn't. I know a few people that have given up drugs due to workplace drug testing.

[SMOKEU]

The only people with anything to fear is the drug user.
I'm all for it. Not only does it weed out drug users, it can also straighten people out that normally wouldn't. I know a few people that have given up drugs due to workplace drug testing.

Did they give up alcohol, caffeine and tobacco as well?

[3umph]

I have been in charge of people that have smoked at work, one was caught and he was dismissed... and rest warned if they were caught the same would happen and also with there next contract was due random testing was put in.
It was also stated that anyone suspected of being under the influence of a substance may be tested.
This was a job with power tools and machinery involved and the fella who was dismissed thought he had done nothing wrong and his mates at a brake repair shop all did it at work!!! I'm pretty sure my boss when to the head office of that business with what we were told...

When I had my Business I was pretty lucky that my employees were pretty clean... but I would of not had a problem sending anyone home that was as it was MY business they can stuff up with there actions and my company reputation that would of taken the hit.

A few jobs I have applied for was pre employment drug tests and the possibility of random testing while employed... never had a problem with it really...

Some say what I do in MY time is my business...
well if what you do in your own time effects how you perform you duties at your employment then it is your bosses business as thats there time they are paying you to do a job.

Easy solution if you dont like random testing or pre employmet testing then dont applie for those jobs.... more jobs for the rest of us... lol

[3umph]

Did they give up alcohol, caffeine and tobacco as well?

Alcohol at work would be similar to drug testing I think you would find...

Caffeine and tobacco are not illegal substances.... yet

Most places now days you can not smoke at workplace...

[SMOKEU]

Alcohol at work would be similar to drug testing I think you would find...

Caffeine and tobacco are not illegal substances.... yet

Most places now days you can not smoke at workplace...

Caffeine and tobacco are still deadly drugs which kill far more people than cannabis, so anyone who willingly ingests those substances whilst speaking ill of cannabis is nothing more than a hypocrite with no credibility.

[3umph]

Caffeine and tobacco are still deadly drugs which kill far more people than cannabis, so anyone who willingly ingests those substances whilst speaking ill of cannabis is nothing more than a hypocrite with no credibility.

mmm where is your info for caffeine killing more then cannabis?? tobacco yeah should be banned as far as Im concerned but then Im a non smoker from way back..

The main difference is those two are not illegal substances yet... so thats not hypercritical

[scumdog]

Caffeine and tobacco are still deadly drugs which kill far more people than cannabis, so anyone who willingly ingests those substances whilst speaking ill of cannabis is nothing more than a hypocrite with no credibility.

As the man sed: They ain't illegal.

[swbarnett]

when did I say 'random' drug testing?
In the sense that the booze buses conduct random breath testing. It seems pretty random to me to test someone when there is no reason to suspect them of taking drugs.


are you in support of am employer being entitled to request testing if the employer has a genuine reason for beleiving the person may be intoxicated / stoned / whatever?
I'm obviously not communicating well tonight. This was really my point. Yes, where there is a suspicion of intoxication a test could be justified.



Nobody should have a 'history' of being drunk / stoned on the job - I would expect someone to be canned pretty fast if they were stoned / drunk at work, and I dont really think thats unfair at all.
Allright, "history" was too strong a word. "Found intoxicated previously" would've been more accurate. I've heard of cases were a worker turns up drunk for work and are sent home to sober up. They didn't lose their job for the first offence.



Ive worked at a few places that did drug testing. Ive never seen it be truly random.
Testing anyone when there is no reason to suspect drug use is random. I agree that tsting every prospective employee isn't random but it's still a bad way to start a working relationship.


but when there is a reason to think someone is stoned, it isnt really random then, is it?
Now we're on the same page.


I perhaps wasnt clear in my last paragraph, so I will re-phrase it. I can see that people dont like some of the testing as it can show up things they have done OUTSIDE of work - and that in itself is a fair issue to raise - what I do at home is nobody elses' fuckin business! However I do think that if a test was developed tomorrow that was fast, on the spot, cost effective, and ONLY tested in a way that showed if the person was under the influence at the time of testing, I imagine that the vast majority of opponents would remain opposed, and we would hear all the shit about how the all think they operate better after a relaxing joint etc etc.
My objection stems from the principle of presumption of innocence. A culture of fear in a workplace is never a good thing.

[swbarnett]

The only people with anything to fear is the drug user.
And only those with something to hide need to fear an invasion of privacy - not.

[tigertim20]

In the sense that the booze buses conduct random breath testing. It seems pretty random to me to test someone when there is no reason to suspect them of taking drugs.


I'm obviously not communicating well tonight. This was really my point. Yes, where there is a suspicion of intoxication a test could be justified.



Allright, "history" was too strong a word. "Found intoxicated previously" would've been more accurate. I've heard of cases were a worker turns up drunk for work and are sent home to sober up. They didn't lose their job for the first offence.



Testing anyone when there is no reason to suspect drug use is random. I agree that tsting every prospective employee isn't random but it's still a bad way to start a working relationship.


Now we're on the same page.


My objection stems from the principle of presumption of innocence. A culture of fear in a workplace is never a good thing.

ha, I think we might have been largely on the same page after all! as you were

[SMOKEU]

mmm where is your info for caffeine killing more then cannabis?? tobacco yeah should be banned as far as Im concerned but then Im a non smoker from way back..

The main difference is those two are not illegal substances yet... so thats not hypercritical

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=caffeine+pill+overdose+death&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=BpKCUs77LOvC8gf094CYBw


As the man sed: They ain't illegal.

I'm going to sound a bit like Akzle here, but the NZ government telling me that I can't use certain plants put here by God is unlawful, and as such I do not recognize their jurisdiction in that matter assuming the following facts are true:
1. I'm not damaging the environment or harvesting endangered plants.
2. I'm not using poisonous plants to cause harm to another person or animal.

[3umph]

Ffs you can die from water overdose as well in actual fact
Most things are dangerous if you overdose on them

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[SMOKEU]

Ffs you can die from water overdose as well in actual fact
Most things are dangerous if you overdose on them



Exactly, hence the need to differentiate between use and abuse.

[Bassmatt]

Alcohol at work would be similar to drug testing I think you would find...

Caffeine and tobacco are not illegal substances.... yet
.




The main difference is those two are not illegal substances yet... so thats not hypercritical


As the man sed: They ain't illegal.

So is the testing about H&S or ensuring employees aren't breaking the law?
Maybe they should also be allowed to go through your annual accounts and make sure theres nothing dodgy going on, or how about when you turn up at work with a new car or pair of shoes, for example, you must provide reciepts so work knows you havent stolen them.
If it's truly about H&S I'd suggest this http://www.flightdutytimes.eu/?page_id=191 is a much wider problem than drugs.

[swbarnett]

Ffs you can die from water overdose as well in actual fact

Dihydrogen monoxide:

- is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.
- contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
- may cause severe burns.
- is fatal if inhaled.
- contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
- accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
- may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
- has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

- as an industrial solvent and coolant.
- in nuclear power plants.
- in the production of Styrofoam.
- as a fire retardant.
- in many forms of cruel animal research.
- in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
- as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.

[Bassmatt]

Ffs you can die from water overdose as well in actual fact
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Better ban it and start testing for it then cos not enough water could also be dangerous

" a new study shows that even mild dehydration can influence mood, energy levels and the ability to think clearly. "
http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/02/20/dehydration-influences-mood-cognition/35037.html

[SMOKEU]

At one of my previous jobs, I was often forced to work late at night, and then start early the next morning. I was so tired, that mistakes were frequently made, and after repeatedly notifying management of this issue, my requests for different shifts were repeatedly denied. I can say with absolute certainty that a good smoke up at night with a proper sleep leaves me far less impaired the next day than not using any subtances combined with a lack of sleep. So are we going to get tested for sleep deprivation any time soon? Obviously not since it's in the "too hard" basket.

[Bassmatt]

Actually it seems there is a reasonable basis for including caffiene in the drug testing regime, along with rationing it in the workplace...
The Mayo Clinic says :
Although moderate caffeine intake isn't likely to cause harm, too much can lead to some unpleasant effects. Heavy daily caffeine use — more than 500 to 600 mg a day — may cause:

Insomnia
Nervousness
Restlessness
Irritability
Stomach upset
Fast heartbeat
Muscle tremors
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/caffeine/NU00600

So we get a tired, nervous, pissed off IT guy with a stomach upset and muscle tremors " working on a server/firewall/system (which can be done remotely from the office) and it's late at night, the first stupid mistake (no matter how small) is the last. "
But he passes the drug testing so thats ok then. Oh and it's not illegal

[SMOKEU]

Actually it seems there is a reasonable basis for including caffiene in the drug testing regime, along with rationing it in the workplace...
The Mayo Clinic says :
Although moderate caffeine intake isn't likely to cause harm, too much can lead to some unpleasant effects. Heavy daily caffeine use — more than 500 to 600 mg a day — may cause:

Insomnia
Nervousness
Restlessness
Irritability
Stomach upset
Fast heartbeat
Muscle tremors
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/caffeine/NU00600

So we get a tired, nervous, pissed off IT guy with a stomach upset and muscle tremors " working on a server/firewall/system (which can be done remotely from the office) and it's late at night, the first stupid mistake (no matter how small) is the last. "
But he passes the drug testing so thats ok then. Oh and it's not illegal

Don't forget the hangover from the alcohol consumption from the night before, and the synthetic cannabis smoked before work, and you have the perfect storm. Oh, and the P smoking on Friday after work (it's only detectable for a couple of days after consumption).

[Bassmatt]

Don't forget the hangover from the alcohol consumption from the night before, and the synthetic cannabis smoked before work, and you have the perfect storm. Oh, and the P smoking on Friday after work (it's only detectable for a couple of days after consumption).

Yeah thats my point, Smoke. There is shitloads of things that can affect your safety and performance in the workplace, many of which can be tested for, but "they" have decided to choose an easy target and ignore everything else, eg myself on Monday running at about 80% due to a very heavy alcohol session on the Saturday. I would have passed the drug test tho.
Also the cannabis metabolite issue makes a mockery of the whole thing. I'd be happy if it was based on some sort of impairment test first with a follow up drug/stress/general health test afterwards.

[imdying]

I thought I'd ask in this sub forum, since many of you work in this industry. So, if it's a fairly regular entry level office type IT job that doesn't involve working around heavy machinery or driving, is it common for employers to do random drug testing, or to request a drug test pre-employment? Is it a topic that employers are likely to bring up, even with no reason to believe that someone uses illegal substances?Oh, hell no.


Wouldn't expect so. But like several businesses in the recession, the cheapest way to downsize is to drug test staff. No long drawn out firings, no redundancy payouts.Nah, all sorts of unfair/improper dismissal cases come from things like that. Then you have to give them a fat check and rehire them.

IT could give two shits about things like that. Programmers are basically given a free reign to do what it takes to get the job done, and whilst you'll be sacked for getting high at work, what you do in your own time is your own business... generally the hours you keep are your own business too.

Being a programmer is the closest you'll ever come to a paid holiday... all the sugar you can consume, good equipment (chairs/desks/computers etc), unlimited internet, flexi-time, $50-100 an hour, at least a months holidays, paid training time... recommended.

[Bassmatt]

all the sugar you can consume, .

Sugar is goin on the list, you better get some help for that.

"Too Much Sugar Makes You Stupid!

The rats fed fructose syrup showed significant impairment in their cognitive abilities—they struggled to remember their way out of the maze. They were slower, and their brains showed a decline in synaptic activity. Their brain cells had trouble signaling each other, disrupting the rats' ability to think clearly and recall the route they'd learned six weeks earlier. " http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/02/fructose-affects-brain-health.aspx

Sounds like an accident waiting to happen!

[imdying]

Can't make them too stupid... everything you use everyday on an electronic device was made by a sugar and caffeine fueled programmer :D

[tigertim20]

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=caffeine+pill+overdose+death&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=BpKCUs77LOvC8gf094CYBw



I'm going to sound a bit like Akzle here, but the NZ government telling me that I can't use certain plants put here by God is unlawful, and as such I do not recognize their jurisdiction in that matter assuming the following facts are true:
1. I'm not damaging the environment or harvesting endangered plants.
2. I'm not using poisonous plants to cause harm to another person or animal.

this is going off topic here a little, but fuck it, Ill bite.
before you make the point about about things being put here by an imaginary sky pixie ('god') and being natural, go do a quick google on the amount of naturally occurring poisons and toxins, there are a shitload out there, of which many are restricted by law in terms of use / production etc.

yes yes yes, you're now going to make a point about how its YOUR right to choose, and Ill point out how badly peoples health could be affected if information and restrictios werent shared / used.
Youll then say thats fine, but argue about where the line should be drawn, and the conversation will go in circles from there . . .


At one of my previous jobs, I was often forced to work late at night, and then start early the next morning. I was so tired, that mistakes were frequently made, and after repeatedly notifying management of this issue, my requests for different shifts were repeatedly denied. I can say with absolute certainty that a good smoke up at night with a proper sleep leaves me far less impaired the next day than not using any subtances combined with a lack of sleep. So are we going to get tested for sleep deprivation any time soon? Obviously not since it's in the "too hard" basket.

Sleep deprivation is already targeted as a danger in many lines of work. Truck drivers have to use and fill out log books, and stick to very strict rules about driving times, there are rules on how many hours you can work in a row (differs for general haulage vs taxis) without having a break. there are rules about how long that break has to be to be classed as an actual ''break". there are rules about haw many maximum hours can be worked in a 24 hour period. there are rules about how many minimum hours must be observed as rest between shifts. there are rules about how many hours can be worked maximum in a given period (day and week). failure to observe these rules, and correctly document them results in substantial fines, and often, instant loss of licence which can last a fair while depending on the severity. Te log books themselves are the 'test' or 'proof', and yes, like any test it can be faked etc, but the point is, that sleep deprivation IS targeted, and ''tested'

[scumdog]

Don't forget the hangover from the alcohol consumption from the night before, and the synthetic cannabis smoked before work, and you have the perfect storm. Oh, and the P smoking on Friday after work (it's only detectable for a couple of days after consumption).

And the forgetfulness caused by an overindulgence of Gods safest drug...;)

[Bassmatt]

Sleep deprivation is already targeted as a danger in many lines of work. Truck drivers have to use and fill out log books, and stick to very strict rules about driving times, there are rules on how many hours you can work in a row (differs for general haulage vs taxis) without having a break. there are rules about how long that break has to be to be classed as an actual ''break". there are rules about haw many maximum hours can be worked in a 24 hour period. there are rules about how many minimum hours must be observed as rest between shifts. there are rules about how many hours can be worked maximum in a given period (day and week). failure to observe these rules, and correctly document them results in substantial fines, and often, instant loss of licence which can last a fair while depending on the severity. Te log books themselves are the 'test' or 'proof', and yes, like any test it can be faked etc, but the point is, that sleep deprivation IS targeted, and ''tested'

Knowing how many hours someone has worked in a given period is NO indication of how much sleep they have had or how fatigued they are.
You've never been out too late on a worknight?

[Trade_nancy]

I have worked in IT for 27 years and have never found it necessary for my drugs to be tested.

[swbarnett]

Can't make them too stupid... everything you use everyday on an electronic device was made by a sugar and caffeine fueled programmer :D
Boy, does that explain a lot.

[huff3r]

I would just like to mention that a lot of employers probably use drug testing as an indirect h&s check. As in if said employee is willing to break the law by using illicit substances, then what other laws/rules/guidelines might they choose to ignore?

Not saying it's necessarily right, but that it is another viewpoint to consider. I realise the whole because he speeds means he might assault people too is quite far from the truth, but job seeking is a competitive environment. Culling the competition makes choosing easier.

Same as how the RNZAF won't take pilots without the required NCEA results. 1000s of applications for 3 jobs a year need to be culled somehow.

[tigertim20]

Knowing how many hours someone has worked in a given period is NO indication of how much sleep they have had or how fatigued they are.
You've never been out too late on a worknight?

for fuck sake did you read the whole paragraph? or just leap into a response?
As I alluded to, no 'test' is perfect. staying up late is something that isnt accounted for, just like the drug tests currently used will not detect a variety of other drugs, fuck, Ive known driver to run dual log books - theres another way around the system.

My point was, in reply to Smokey, that sleep deprivation IS a focus in regard to H&S and employment etc