Drug testing in the IT industry

[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 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.

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! 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) 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.