Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
The Lone Badger
Sep 24, 2007



So basically you're testing people before they start work for the day to ensure they are currently safe to operate heavy equipment? And the same person will get tested again tomorrow by someone else at a different site?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Ugly In The Morning
Jul 1, 2010

Dang dicknose don't tuck that money under your eyelids!


Pillbug

The Lone Badger posted:

So basically you're testing people before they start work for the day to ensure they are currently safe to operate heavy equipment? And the same person will get tested again tomorrow by someone else at a different site?
If they go to a different site the next day, yeah, pretty much any heavy equipment operator will do it if they’re starting with a new GC/site, and very few work for the GC directly so they’re basically always considered a new hire.
As for every day- the thing is trying to test all 1200 people at a heavy construction site every day isn’t really feasible. For my biggest client I’ve ever worked with, everyone was tested after their orientation, since that’s one or two times a week and less than 40 people, they finish at 2ish so getting them all done by 5 is easy. This eventually flipped to before orientation because of issues with people trying to drag out tests.

Then there’s the reasonable suspicion and post incident tests, which are exactly what they sound like. Most places typically have a pretty ironclad set of paperwork for these that two managers/foremen have to sign off on.

The randoms aimed for 10 percent of the site population a month, and we’d try to get the heavy equipment people like crane operators either first thing or after lunch, since that was the highest potential for someone being unfit for duty. If you tested more than three times in a month something was going seriously wrong, because that would be like a pre-employment+a random+ a reasonable suspicion.

I have only ever had one reasonable suspicion come up negative, usually people are pretty good about spotting someone being clearly messed up.

PT6A
Jan 5, 2006

ASK ME WHY THE HYUNDAI KONA IS THE GREATEST CAR ON GOD'S EARTH, I HAVE STRONG OPINIONS ON THIS SUBJECT


Were people seriously having lunch-beers when operating heavy equipment?

I love a beer as much as the next guy [who really loves beer], but I'm strict about being stone-cold sober when I need to be.

The Lone Badger
Sep 24, 2007



How often do you run into somebody hosed up on some new research-chemical that you don't even have a test for yet?

Are the new opiod analogues (carfentanyl etc) a challenge to test for given how low a concentration is needed to make someone unsafe to work?

Ugly In The Morning
Jul 1, 2010

Dang dicknose don't tuck that money under your eyelids!


Pillbug

PT6A posted:

Were people seriously having lunch-beers when operating heavy equipment?

I love a beer as much as the next guy [who really loves beer], but I'm strict about being stone-cold sober when I need to be.

On the “working EHS” side of things I once busted six people having a “happy hour” in the afternoon with the Budweiser margaritas on the side of a heat recovery steam generator like 150 feet up.

The Lone Badger posted:

How often do you run into somebody hosed up on some new research-chemical that you don't even have a test for yet?

Are the new opiod analogues (carfentanyl etc) a challenge to test for given how low a concentration is needed to make someone unsafe to work?

Thats one of those things where it would be hard to know since you don’t know what ones you’re missing, but, as far as the opioid analogues, the testing can be so incredibly sensitive I’m not tooooo concerned. The THC metabolite test has a cutoff of 50 nanograms/mL. If someone is regularly using an opioid analogue they’ll still come up. The RCs are where it gets dicey, since there’s so many and they change so much it’s unlikely there will ever really be tests for anything but the most common ones.

BiggerBoat
Sep 26, 2007

I'm sorry, everyone.

Ugly In The Morning posted:

Employment tests are basically always for active impairment. You see metabolites (AKA the 80-hour test) in parole/probation/DCFS tests which are something I don’t really deal in.

After a while you get to notice the difference between the “few too many” and the “drank before they came in’s”. Construction also tees heavy drinkers up for the few too many issue with the hours- if you’re working 7-7, and then get blasted after work, you easily, easily can come in at a .04 the next day. The cutoff is .02, so it’s easier to come in over that from overdoing it than if it was .08. .040-.050 was my most common positive reading by far in 2019 and I think that held up for 2020 but I haven’t crunched those numbers yet.

Interesting.

I think that's my biggest bugaboo with testing for weed as well. That there's no way to differentiate between someone who smoked over the weekend and someone who got high before or during a shift. My understanding of the matter is that even if you have a legit medical marijuana card, you can still get clipped from your job at the employer's discretion but I expect more challenges to that as we move forward and as MM becomes more commonplace and mainstream.

I don't typically work in areas where safety is a huge concern but do sometimes run large cutters, plotters and flatbed printers. Most of my work is in Adobe CS and the only thing I might crash is my hard drive but my last boss randomed everyone and called weed "garbage". Just seems hosed up that if you have a legal script for, say, Xanax, pain medicine or pot that a company can deny you employment at their sole judgement but I think it varies by state.

Like, what if you take an anti seizure medicine (like my son does) or have manic, anxiety or depression issues and some HR manager decides he doesn't want to hire people with epilepsy, bipolar disorder or arthritis? What if you took birth control or legally prescribed steroids and some person didn't like it? Seems like it's a wide open discrimination case to me.

This is a cool thread.

Ugly In The Morning
Jul 1, 2010

Dang dicknose don't tuck that money under your eyelids!


Pillbug

BiggerBoat posted:

l

Like, what if you take an anti seizure medicine (like my son does) or have manic, anxiety or depression issues and some HR manager decides he doesn't want to hire people with epilepsy, bipolar disorder or arthritis? What if you took birth control or legally prescribed steroids and some person didn't like it? Seems like it's a wide open discrimination case to me.

This is a cool thread.

Those are all protected health information, so if you have a perscription for it all an MRO report will say is negative. It won’t say that anything came up on the test, though obviously an MRO report means something did (on a non-DOT test). The medical marijuana and opiates are the two main exemptions, one because it’s federally illegal and the other because there’s a demonstrable safety risk involved.

I would blow Dane Cook
Dec 26, 2008


We've heard a lot about the opiod crisis in America, how did you see that play out? Did you notice more and more people with opiods in their system as it got worse?

Ugly In The Morning
Jul 1, 2010

Dang dicknose don't tuck that money under your eyelids!


Pillbug

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

We've heard a lot about the opiod crisis in America, how did you see that play out? Did you notice more and more people with opiods in their system as it got worse?

That had fully kicked in by the time I started doing it, but there’s definitely more positives from states that were hit harder like NY/MA/KY/FL.

I would blow Dane Cook
Dec 26, 2008


Ugly In The Morning posted:

That had fully kicked in by the time I started doing it, but there’s definitely more positives from states that were hit harder like NY/MA/KY/FL.

Have you noticed trends in drug use before they get reported in the media?

Ugly In The Morning
Jul 1, 2010

Dang dicknose don't tuck that money under your eyelids!


Pillbug

Not really, since I by and large just test for standard stuff (one place makes me test for ketamine, but that’s the only oddball.) I guess I would notice if Quaaludes were making a comeback since those are in the ten panel but no one in the US has done that in like thirty years and I don’t think you can even get them here anymore.

The Lone Badger
Sep 24, 2007



I know you're limited in how much you can talk about this, but does the standard bulk test include various biomarkers to confirm that this is real bodily fluid from an actual live human being? Or is that a 'deluxe' feature?

Ugly In The Morning
Jul 1, 2010

Dang dicknose don't tuck that money under your eyelids!


Pillbug

The Lone Badger posted:

I know you're limited in how much you can talk about this, but does the standard bulk test include various biomarkers to confirm that this is real bodily fluid from an actual live human being? Or is that a 'deluxe' feature?

Density and creatinine, with a strip to detect oxidizers like bleach. That’s really it.

mobby_6kl
Aug 9, 2009

"You are the best poster... do not let anyone say otherwise."


Since you've presumably done a quite a few tests, what's the best drug?

JacquelineDempsey
Aug 6, 2008


Do you watch the people pee? And are there any rules/policies in place that ensure the testee is comfortable with the gender of who's watching them?

Ugly In The Morning
Jul 1, 2010

Dang dicknose don't tuck that money under your eyelids!


Pillbug

JacquelineDempsey posted:

Do you watch the people pee? And are there any rules/policies in place that ensure the testee is comfortable with the gender of who's watching them?

Typically no, unless one of the clearly defined reasons to has come up.

quote:

The employee attempts to tamper with his or her specimen at the collection site.
The specimen temperature is outside the acceptable range;
The specimen shows signs of tampering ~ unusual color / odor / characteristic; or
The collector finds an item in the employee’s pockets or wallet which appears to be brought into the site to contaminate a specimen; or the collector notes conduct suggesting tampering.
The Medical Review Officer (MRO) orders the direct observation because:
The employee has no legitimate medical reason for certain atypical laboratory results; or
The employee’s positive or refusal [adulterated / substituted] test result had to be cancelled because the split specimen test could not be performed (for example, the split was not collected).
The test is a Follow-Up test or a Return-to-Duty test.
2. The observer must be the same gender as the employee.

3. If the collector is not the observer, the collector must instruct the observer about the procedures for checking the employee for prosthetic or other devices designed to carry “clean” urine and urine substitutes AND for watching the employee urinate into the collection container.

The observer requests the employee to raise his or her shirt, blouse or dress / skirt, as appropriate, above the waist, just above the navel; and lower clothing and underpants to mid-thigh and show the observer, by turning around, that the employee does not have such a device.
If The Employee Has A Device: The observer immediately notifies the collector; the collector stops the collection; and the collector thoroughly documents the circumstances surrounding the event in the remarks section of CCF. The collector notifies the DER. This is a refusal to test.
If The Employee Does Not Have A Device: The employee is permitted to return clothing to its proper position for the observed collection. The observer must watch the urine go from the employee’s body into the collection container. The observer must watch as the employee takes the specimen to the collector. The collector then completes the collection process.
4. Failure of the employee to permit any part of the direct observation procedure is a refusal to test.


Those are the DOT procedures and basically any employment test somewhere reputable will follow those even if it’s not a DOT test. Parole/DCFS tests are often always observed.

JacquelineDempsey
Aug 6, 2008


Thanks for the thorough reply!

I had to do random pee-testing during counseling after my DUI, and the way that worked was the counselor sat outside the bathroom door, with the door cracked. She could theoretically peek to make sure you weren't ripping a piss-filled condom off your thigh, but generally we had "privacy but you never know if she was looking". To my knowledge no one in my group ever tried anything shifty.

I was wondering also because: what if you're stealth trans? Being trans has its own host of problems with getting employment without having to worry about being outed due to a pee test. Has a situation like that come up for you, or do you have any anecdotes on how that's handled?

The Lone Badger
Sep 24, 2007



If i'm reading those guidelines correctly the proctor doesn't actually see the donor's genital area, just their thighs. So you could stay stealth.

Ugly In The Morning
Jul 1, 2010

Dang dicknose don't tuck that money under your eyelids!


Pillbug

The Lone Badger posted:

If i'm reading those guidelines correctly the proctor doesn't actually see the donor's genital area, just their thighs. So you could stay stealth.

Nope, everything is lowered to mid-thigh.

quote:


and lower clothing and underpants to mid-thigh and show the observer, by turning around,

It’s not a situation ive run into yet.

Roumba
Jun 29, 2005


Buglord

How much do you know about the employer side of tests?

For example, why would a video editing studio, bagle shop or any other business without heavy machinery/medical kinds of immediate risks care about drug testing when hiring? The "common knowledge" is that some insurance demands it for unspoken reasons, but is that real? If so, why do they only care when hiring and not any time after?

Spikes32
Jul 25, 2013


Insurance often does demand it on hiring for lower rates, and the reason comes down to money. If someone can get it together and not do drugs for long enough to pass a drug test, they are X% less likely to be fully addicted and X% less likely to cause a workplace incident requiring a payout.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Ugly In The Morning
Jul 1, 2010

Dang dicknose don't tuck that money under your eyelids!


Pillbug

Spikes32 posted:

Insurance often does demand it on hiring for lower rates, and the reason comes down to money. If someone can get it together and not do drugs for long enough to pass a drug test, they are X% less likely to be fully addicted and X% less likely to cause a workplace incident requiring a payout.

It’s exactly this. And you would be shocked the ways hosed up people can find ways to mangle themselves even in places you would think are completely safe. A huge amount of serious workplace injuries (both what most people would consider serious and the OSHA definition of serious) are from same-level falls.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply