Napier has it right. Drug testing for WIC

Quote
gailjefferson
Where i work, everyone is subject to random drug testing. Including me, a graphic artist. Seriously? You think they'd WANT us to be on drugs. Even if I came in shit-faced drunk, there's no way I could harm anyone at work, outside of throwing up on them.

I think it's in place to screen out potential insurance liabilities, like cancer, diabetes, etc.

That's my main problem with it. That, and that they can ask you to list each and every medication that you're taking or have taken under the guise of it "might" affect the test. I think that it can be abused on many levels and that it is administered unfairly on many occasions. Also, better methods need to be created that don't require someone to actually watch the urine coming out the hole, among other personally invasive types of things. IMO. I suppose that I have a problem with the potential abuse of it, the method, and the subjectivity of the testing as it is now. Who chooses these "random" employees, for instance? I didn't notice anything on the consent forms that I signed that said specifically what they were testing for and I am CERTAIN that I would have noticed that they would be testing for pregnancy on one of the tests that I took. So, I KNOW that at least that one thing wasn't listed on the consent form. It makes me wonder what ELSE that AIG Insurance now knows about me and for what purpose?

In the case of the employment drug testing that I got, only 3 of the 8 new hires ever got "picked". How is that fair? If it's going to be implemented, then it needs to be at random times, but not supposedly randomly chosen employees while most of the rest remain untested. It may be the best method at this time for testing of employees who have jobs relating to public safety, but it needs improvement and specific boundaries at to WHAT can be looked for on the tests. IMO It does NOT need to be a covert general personal medical information gathering device disguised as a "drug test".

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!

Quote
CF_Amy

Quote

Having clean pee does not make anyone worthy of a job.

To me it does. I'd hire someone who pees clean vs someone who tests positive for THC, opiates, etc. Now, if they VALID and LEGAL prescription for like T4? Fine, doesn't mean they abuse it. But, marijuana is illegal, prescriptions are not. Sorry, but if you pee dirty/hot without a valid prescription, who knows what else you'd do as an employee. Drugs are illegal, plain and simple. Employers have a right to know if their employees are doing anything illegal off the clock.

I don't think employers should have the right to know or control anything employees do outside of work. It won't be long before they go after smokers and overweight people, even though smoking and overeating are not illegal.

Quote
blondie
I don't think employers should have the right to know or control anything employees do outside of work.

I think they should. Picture you running a company, one of your employees gets busted for possession of *insert drug here*, it's in the paper, it brings a bad name to your company, you could get the rep for hiring druggies. I certainly would not want to do business with you. So yeah, I'd love to know if my employees are having smoke-outs or doing lines outside of work.

Quote
blondie
It won't be long before they go after smokers and overweight people, even though smoking and overeating are not illegal.

In some ways, some companies do. In Florida (where I am originally from), you cannot be a firefighter if you use ANY type of tobacco, they make you sign an agreement that you will not. If you're caught, you can be terminated. In EMS, they don't say you can't be overweight, but you must be able to pass a physical agility test. In order to pass it, you have to be in decent shape. I'm not in top condition by any stretch of the imagination, I could lose a few pounds, but I do work out and try to eat healthy. I have no problems with the company's policies. In order to care for people, you should at least be healthy. If you don't like the company's policies, DON'T WORK THERE. So, if these welfare recipients don't want to have to take a drug test, GET A JOB. But oh wait! They require drug tests! Oh no!!!! Another brilliant idea? QUIT DOING DRUGS. If you take away their income, they'll either give up the drugs or starve to death.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is a home without children? Quiet. ~Henny Youngman

I don't want people who want to dance, I want people who have to dance. ~George Balanchine

"I took the batteries out of my biological clock and put them in my vibrator"

Quote
CF_Amy

Quote

Having clean pee does not make anyone worthy of a job.

To me it does. I'd hire someone who pees clean vs someone who tests positive for THC, opiates, etc. Now, if they VALID and LEGAL prescription for like T4? Fine, doesn't mean they abuse it. But, marijuana is illegal, prescriptions are not. Sorry, but if you pee dirty/hot without a valid prescription, who knows what else you'd do as an employee. Drugs are illegal, plain and simple. Employers have a right to know if their employees are doing anything illegal off the clock.

Prescription drugs affect work performance is some cases, even when used as directed. Some companies look for prescription drugs during drug tests and terminate employees as the company deems necessary.

During urinalysis test, all of the prescription medication must be listed on the consent form. Reason for that is certain prescription drugs such as Vicodin are opium derivatives, same stuff that they make heroin from. Urine tests are known for false positives, Vicodin can produce metabolites that resemble those of heroin.

I do not think it is fair to the employee to have to disclose exactly what kind of drug they have been prescribed and are taking. Legally.

On the other hand. Prescription drugs can be misused and abused. Problem is more widespread then meets the eye. Michael Jackson lost his life to legal, prescription drugs. His doctor is still on trial. There are many more cases. Just because someone has a prescription, does not mean that drug abuse is not possible.

Urine drug testing does very little to improve safety. As of right now, companies that really care about safety, do not rely on urine tests. Companies that have outstanding safety records have abandoned urine drug test long time ago. Some have properly trained managers who are able to spot questionable behavior, in other cases, such as for certain aircraft mechanics, aptitude tests are administered, which measure reaction time, judgement, memory skills and so on. Being that there are no mistakes permitted when it comes to servicing aircraft, seeing what state of mind an individual is in is more important then listing what prescriptions they take. A fatigued person can make same mistakes as someone under the influence of alcohol.

Urine drugs testing is a technology of the past, that is not very accurate and outdated.

Quote
CF_Amy
If you take away their income, they'll either give up the drugs or starve to death.

There are people who have no legitimate income and they still do drugs. In fact that is a case for many heavy duty drug abusers. They do not go to work, they go steal, rob, commit burglaries, sell drugs, so on.

Drug testing at work does not deter drug use. Never has.

Quote
CF_Amy

Quote
blondie
I don't think employers should have the right to know or control anything employees do outside of work.

I think they should. Picture you running a company, one of your employees gets busted for possession of *insert drug here*, it's in the paper, it brings a bad name to your company, you could get the rep for hiring druggies. I certainly would not want to do business with you. So yeah, I'd love to know if my employees are having smoke-outs or doing lines outside of work.

Quote
blondie
It won't be long before they go after smokers and overweight people, even though smoking and overeating are not illegal.

In some ways, some companies do. In Florida (where I am originally from), you cannot be a firefighter if you use ANY type of tobacco, they make you sign an agreement that you will not. If you're caught, you can be terminated. In EMS, they don't say you can't be overweight, but you must be able to pass a physical agility test. In order to pass it, you have to be in decent shape. I'm not in to condition by any stretch of the imagination, I could lose a few pounds, but I do work out and try to eat healthy. I have no problems with the company's policies. In order to care for people, you should at least be healthy. If you don't like the company's policies, DON'T WORK THERE. So, if these welfare recipients don't want to have to take a drug test, GET A JOB. But oh wait! They require drug tests! Oh no!!!! Another brilliant idea? QUIT DOING DRUGS. If you take away their income, they'll either give up the drugs or starve to death.

I just saw this!

I can see the reasoning(albeit it weak) behind it not being a good idea for a firefighter to not be actually lighting up tobacco due to the nature of the job, although I don't see why that smoking could just be prohibited while ON the job or even at the fire station, but even smokeless tobacco will get them terminated? How can chewing tobacco affect a firefighter's job performance in any way especially if it's not chewed while at work? This has GOT to be an insurance related thing. So, somebody can be 75 pounds overweight, but as long as they can pass the physical tests then they aren't considered a risk in any way? Many extremely overweight people, younger men especially, are still in pretty good condition as to be able to pass basic physical tests regarding strength and stamina , but that's only because the health related problems associated with obesity likely haven't caught up with them yet. They are every bit as likely to cost health insurance companies money in the future and perhaps more so than a physically fit man of the same age who chews tobacco.

What reasons, if any, do they give for nicotine showing up on the drug test being grounds for termination? When I asked AIG Insurance company about the mandatory drug tests that I took before surgery and why showing positive for nicotine would cause my surgery payment to be DENIED, the reason that they gave was that people who used nicotine took longer to heal. I thought that was a shitty reason, but at least they had one. Do they give you a reason why tobacco use=termination? I am just curious.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!

In a nutshell, if the goal is to reduce amount of money that WIC is consuming, then we need to reduce WIC. Maybe even eliminate it.

If the goal is to expand government spending by sending more money to drug testing companies, then, boys and girls, why stop at WIC recipients? We need to start testing every American Citizen. Period. There should be no exclusions for anyone. We should also set up drug testing check points on interstate highways, airports, train stations, bus stations so on. We should not have people doing illegal drugs and think they can go to a store or a mall.

Also, drug testing companies and people who lobby for them, if asked, would likely indicate that the above mentioned set-up is not only necessary but very well overdue.

Quote
CF_Amy

If you don't want a drug test, don't take a job requiring them. You're told before applying drug testing is mandatory. So it's not unlawful search and seizure because you're TOLD. I've never been drug tested without having to sign a consent form. Even when I got injured doing EMS, you sign a consent form. I also had to sign a form when I got hired saying I understood random drug testing was in the SOP's, if I got injured i'd be tested and I had to take one before I got hired. It's a private business, they can set their own rules. I have no problems with jobs requiring drug testing. I don't want some stoner serving me food at Chili's, operating the AAA tow truck if my car breaks down or taking care of me as a medical worker. Like I said, if you don't want to be drug tested, don't take jobs that requiring it.

Yes, you're told before hire whether or not a drug-test is required, but not necessarily before applying. At one employer, I was told about the drug screen requirement when I got the job offer (after one phone interview, three in-person interviews, and a ride day). Now, I figured that peeing in a cup was a small concession to make in order to get this job, but I can see why someone who feels that drug-testing is a violation of their privacy (not to mention someone who would be concerned about employers testing for anything OTHER than illicit drugs) would be pissed off over this. I've worked at three different companies that required drug testing, and I can tell you that this in no way deterred people from getting fucked up on their off hours. You also can't always tell who uses and who doesn't. Shit, a BOSS of mine would supposedly blaze one up in the parking lot from time to time, and another co-worker of mine died from a drug overdose. By virtue of them being able to get through the hiring process, they should have been drug-free, right? All that a clean piss-test proves in some cases is that the person can stop using long enough to get the job.

I do agree that, in the case of someone receiving benefits (someone who is NOT providing any product or service in exchange for a paycheck), that there should be at least as many, if not more, requirements to receive said benefits as there are for someone that is looking to actually work for pay. However, I have to ask if the drug-screens, credit checks, and a lot of the other Big Brother tactics that corporations like to employ really serve a purpose in most cases. Unless someone is going to be entrusted with other people's lives, or large amounts of money, it seems excessive and intrusive.