|
gently caress all pre-employment drug testing. When someone goes home to relax at night, whether they pop a beer or smoke a joint is none of the company's business. Ever. Some of you work in industries where you are required to do it by regulation, and that is what it is, but you should never be supporting or defending any kind of drug testing that goes beyond "is/was this person intoxicated while on the clock?"
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
you're gonna get the small business owners posting in here
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
“Did a lovely job” is not a protected class. No, not even in the US, and you are totally allowed to tell people who are calling you to check a reference that “that guy did a lovely job so we fired him.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:13
|
|
|
Mozi posted:sorry you failed your drug test I've never taken a drug test much less failed one. Not even an alcohol test either for that matter, despite regularly driving for a while (I don't anymore but still). I just think blackballing people is a lovely thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
hawowanlawow posted:you're gonna get the small business owners posting in here they’re welcome to get inhere to get dunked on for having terrible opinions (which they will have)
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
Coxswain Balls posted:I think in the US you generally don't give workers a bad referral because it opens you up to all sorts of litigation. If they sucked at their job you just say they worked there and that's that, so it may be a cultural thing. To get around this, a lot of places will demand references from every past job, and will look really poorly on anyone who cannot, basically assuming that if there's no reference, they were a bad employee. And that's aside from smaller industries where everyone knows everyone and potential employees can get an off-the-record comment on an employee via a phone call so there's no paper trail to subpoena if the person doesn't get the job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:21
|
|
|
It's a matter of defamation, not classes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:22
|
|
|
wolrah posted:gently caress all pre-employment drug testing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:“Did a lovely job” is not a protected class. No, not even in the US, and you are totally allowed to tell people who are calling you to check a reference that “that guy did a lovely job so we fired him.” This is an excellent non-sequitr but largely irrelevant to the current conversation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
I can confirm most places I worked for will only verify if you actually worked for the company. Even if you were a lovely worker having a prior company say that to a new one looks bad on the older company too. Getting a job is bad enough without having to deal with catty rear end companies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:27
|
|
|
This may be a hot take but as a health and safety professional I personally don't like the idea of employees operating heavy machinery while under the influence of drink or drugs. Frankly I'm surprised this is even a contentious issue. Also - and this is probably one of those 'guess it's just me' situations - I wouldn't knowingly hire anybody who was fired/dismissed for any form of health and safety breach. Maybe I just like people going home safe at the end of a working day. And I also hate people having fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 15:52
|
|
|
American employers don’t face much risk of a lawsuit, especially a successful one, for giving a bad reference. But they get nothing at all for providing accurate references to other businesses, so why bother?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:05
|
|
|
It is like there is a line between "smoked crack while operating a crane" and "not willing to piss in a diaper at the amazon warehouse" but I'm not sure I trust companies to define where it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
deported to Canada posted:This may be a hot take but as a health and safety professional I personally don't like the idea of employees operating heavy machinery while under the influence of drink or drugs. Preemployment drug screening doesn't tell you if this has ever been the case and probably has no predictive value as to it will ever be the case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
I get the impression that what got him blackballed was not "didn't pass the drug test" but "wasted everybody's time/money by going through a week's paid training knowing he wasn't going to pass the drug test"
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
I have known people who went in for drug tests and definitely did not pass and nothing happened, you miss every piss you don't take
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:33
|
|
|
deported to Canada posted:This may be a hot take but as a health and safety professional I personally don't like the idea of employees operating heavy machinery while under the influence of drink or drugs. You get a lot of salty pot heads. https://www.addictioncenter.com/drugs/how-long-do-drugs-stay-in-your-system/ Pick a drug, if it's not pot you're free to go on a weekend bender and probably test clear by Weds with a lot of water.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
Keeping secret lists of people with no accountability or method of recourse has historically proven to be a great idea. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
deported to Canada posted:This may be a hot take but as a health and safety professional I personally don't like the idea of employees operating heavy machinery while under the influence of drink or drugs. check this out. you don't have to be high to fail a drug test. I know, I know. It's crazy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:36
|
|
|
deported to Canada posted:This may be a hot take but as a health and safety professional I personally don't like the idea of employees operating heavy machinery while under the influence of drink or drugs. A drug test doesn't prove that someone will be drunk/high on the job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:39
|
|
|
Here in AU pre-employment drug tests are common for the resource and energy industries as well as a bunch of other dumb stuff. Also during-employment drug and alcohol tests are a common thing in mining/off-shore. It's often applied in a very stupid fashion. Some employers if they have positions which require screening they'll just say "gently caress it" and make drug screening mandatory for EVERYONE. My employer has a certain customer which is a state public utility and they've gone the "screen everyone" route which can get funny when my colleagues get picked for project work at that customer but then can't do it because they can't pass the test (My employer has no testing policy so they just go "welp w/e'"). Mine sites are a big deal for during-employment drug testing, I've heard stories but none concrete enough to repeat here. I have done off-shore though which is fun. You need to piss clean for the BOSIET (Basic Off-Shore Induction & Emergency Training) medical but after that unless your employer has some requirement they'll never test you again. Of course Bristow will breathalyser you before letting you fly out and if you blow anything >0% then you're hosed. Also all bags and poo poo are checked so I guess off-shore rigs/vessels aren't exactly filled with drugs, at least in AU waters. Edit: if anyone is interested I flew maybe 10 times off-shore with Bristow on Sikorsky S-90 and Eurocopter EC-225 helis. They're both awful but the latter is slightly better. The trips were always to the same field so about 2 hours, sometimes flying the S-90 it had to land and fill-up north of the heliport before going out to the field. Pile Of Garbage fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I get the impression that what got him blackballed was not "didn't pass the drug test" but "wasted everybody's time/money by going through a week's paid training knowing he wasn't going to pass the drug test" literally no one is talking about this for some reason lol. Turns out if you work in a small industry, people will remember you if you make everyone else’s life harder and might take that into account in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
Pre employment drug tests are because it companies get breaks on insurance if they can prove they at least tried to not hire drug addicts. That's most of why they are for non government jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Yeah, in the US if a potential employer calls up a former employer and the former employer talks poo poo about the employee they absolutely can be sued for it. Anyone can be sued for anything. A former employer could be sued for *not saying good things* about the employee. The suit wouldn't go anywhere, though. The only way a suit against a former employer for talking poo poo about a former employee would have a chance in hell of going anywhere is if: 1. The statement the employer was making were false. 2. He knew they were false. 3. You actually suffered damages from his statements. If a guy does a lovely job and you tell people calling to check is references "He did a lovely job" that is not a thing you will be sued for. Former employers are absolutely allowed to discuss your job performance, your conduct, and if and why you were fired.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
RabbitWizard posted:It is like there is a line between "smoked crack while operating a crane" and "not willing to piss in a diaper at the amazon warehouse" but I'm not sure I trust companies to define where it is. that's pretty much why most of them do not to comment anymore, no one trusts them to do this and rightly so. it protects everyone (including them - MOSTLY them) to simply say 'they worked x dates ok thanks'. anyway drug test guy should have just bought some clean pee and taped it in a bag to his thigh. Short-sighed, my dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Anyone can be sued for anything. A former employer could be sued for *not saying good things* about the employee. it gets more complicated when companies can be liable for hiring a bad employee that injures someone or damages property because they didn't do proper background checks or screenings, and former employers can be held liable if they give a good reference to an employee that omits crucial negative details (such as "this guy carries a gun and talks to himself" or "this guy got drunk during lunch and tried to operate a forklift, even though he didnt work in the warehouse") that later prove relevant some states also have civil immunity laws for employers that give honest references in good faith
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
I get that Phanatics whole thing is being the most Technically Correct person ever, but seriously, that's aggressively missing the point. Yeah, big business is going to win most any defamation lawsuit, just like they'll win any lawsuit, if it goes all that way, but that isn't the point. Giving a bad reference without being asked for one is something that is going to absolutely be litigated and a judge isn't going to just dismiss it as a nuisance if the employee has a lawyer that is worth the name. It's the kind of poo poo that costs a ton to deal with, so there is an absolute real threat of a lawsuit costing the company real money, and that's why they don't do it. As you well know, whether someone has a winning case or is Legally Correct matters very little in that kind of lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
It may be that the states treat this as an entirely different beast. I'm ex-military and have had compulsory drug testing (yes where they stare at your pecker) and I get it, it needs to be done to catch those that are using and to deter those who may be tempted. Is US pre employment screening not the same? Does it not work by and large as a deterent for habitual users to even apply as they know they will be tested? I can understand being opposed to testing if it has absolutely no bearing on their job safety. But we see from road traffic collisions how many people die every year from bellends who are too selfish to take a taxi or walk after having a skin full. These people do exist and they kill people. I mean would you employ somebody to drive a HGV for your company if you knew they had a past drink driving conviction? Would you ever struggle to trust them entirely to be legal behind the wheel? I know people can change and redeem themselves but it must at least be a consideration. I guess my badly made point is that if you want to take drugs recreational then carry on, but if you do a job where you could easily harm others by an act or omission then maybe don't be off your tits while doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
The last thread had several pages of people arguing that no amount of drunk driving should result in someone losing their license. This derail started because some guy had no intention of taking a job but got paid to get trained anyway. Soon we'll be back to talking about how Adam Savage is worse than Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
Ultimately it's two separate issues, drug screening and employee blackballing. I don't really mind the former but the latter is all kinds of bad and makes you a bad person to engage in it IMO. Also who gives a toss about someone getting "a week of free training", if they really wanted to avoid that they should have done the drug rest earlier. Private Speech fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Jul 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:The last thread had several pages of people arguing that no amount of drunk driving should result in someone losing their license. Have you ever seen Adam Savage try to paint?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
It's like showing up on time to an interview and dressing nice. For jobs where you don't run the risk of hurting someone, it's not about anything other than proving that you're willing to jump through hoops and put up with company bullshit. To them, if you can't be bothered to do what it takes to piss clean, you're probably gonna be a pain in the rear end about a million other little things. Drug tests are bullshit and shouldn't be done outside of a much narrower range of jobs, but people should still understand why they're asked to do them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Also who gives a toss about someone getting "a week of free training", if they really wanted to avoid that they should have done the drug rest earlier. yeah that's usually how that works here, and you have a small window to do it seems pretty stupid not to do that if you're going to drug test, but making sense doesn't really have anything to do with it
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:Soon we'll be back to talking about how Adam Savage is worse than Hitler. Sorry, I missed that one. Is there a way to summarize it that won't start the derail all over?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
deported to Canada posted:
The counter is that the tests are not predictive. I've always viewed it like the existence of the hoop you have to jump through is more important than the hoop itself-- if you can't get your poo poo together enough to pass a trivial thing you know is coming, you either don't give a poo poo about the job or you have a serious problem, both of which are big red flags for a potential hire. I understand the gently caress The Corporate Overlords position but I've never heard of a viable alternative filter. Azathoth posted:It's like showing up on time to an interview and dressing nice. For jobs where you don't run the risk of hurting someone, it's not about anything other than proving that you're willing to jump through hoops and put up with company bullshit. To them, if you can't be bothered to do what it takes to piss clean, you're probably gonna be a pain in the rear end about a million other little things. Yeah, what this guy said.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Also who gives a toss about someone getting "a week of free training", if they really wanted to avoid that they should have done the drug rest earlier. employers do lol. if you want to say gently caress it and go work in a new field, by all means get a week of free pay, i dont care. but good luck if anyone asks why you were fired im actually confused lol--are people so used to social atomization that when they encounter a still-functioning social framework within a small industry that theyre surprised that people talk to each other about why someone was fired?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
deported to Canada posted:It may be that the states treat this as an entirely different beast. I'm ex-military and have had compulsory drug testing (yes where they stare at your pecker) and I get it, it needs to be done to catch those that are using and to deter those who may be tempted. Literally no one has said they're cool with people being hosed up on the job. But you shouldn't be unhireable because in your off time you smoke weed. I can get blackout drunk, drive in the next day and piss test, and be fine. But smoked a joint with a buddy two weeks ago? Obviously you're a menace to society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
iwentdoodie posted:Literally no one has said they're cool with people being hosed up on the job. Literally no one is arguing this so who cares
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:theyre surprised that people talk to each other The topic of conversation has nothing to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
I don't think people who don't want to take a drug test really need to be filtered out for like 99% of jobs so it's not a good enough excuse for doing it across the board imo. seeing it as a hoop is pretty fuckin sad when you think about it
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2021 17:36
|
|