urine test

To many ads? Support ODJT and see no ads!
Actually Fred, if it is in the pre-employment drug policy, you can be fired for failing just one test. Many companies are going to zero tolerance policies which lay out exactly that: one test, you're gone. Does not matter if you feel it is a false positive or not. And these policies have held up in court because the employee signed the pre-employment acceptance of the drug policy. They had a choice not to work for a company that had this policy and were informed of it prior to employment.
 
Indeed. Failing a pre-employment pee test means no offer. In my previous response I was referring to tests that are mandated by company policy concerning erratic behavior and/or an injury on the job.

When I worked at the foundry, management did away with pre-employment pee testing altogether. Most of the applicants for that filthy sweatshop job failed 'em anyway. :D
 
oh, I was not talking about pre-employment testing.

I had a friend who was fired from a company after working for them for 4 years because he failed a random test. He challenged it and the firing was upheld because the company's employment manual clearly laid out the zero tolerance policy. A lot of companies are going to this. (mine included).

My two assistants know that if they fail a test, they are out. (And one of them is underage, so that goes for if is he caught drinking too). Same goes for DUI's.

In regards to the cost, it is not that expensive anymore. I can get both my employees tested 4 times a year for $100.
 
ok and guess what I was tested random while losing weight and drinking large amounts of water per day. I got confronted by my Uncle no less that I had failed the test cause they couldnt get a reading from my urine. Screw that I failed nothing my urine was so clean it didnt register with the proper amounts of acids etc. So I got told to go drink a milkshake and eat a greasy burger. I passed with out issue after that. Bah on the accuracy of Drug testing. Why not do the real test hair follicles can detect pot for up to three yrs accurately but gee would we want to hold someone to three yrs?
 
John, there is a difference between not being able to get a reading from urine and failing a test. You are talking about 2 different things there.
 
Jon Tuck said:
Why not do the real test hair follicles can detect pot for up to three yrs accurately but gee would we want to hold someone to three yrs?
Click to expand...

Cost.

The pee test is dirt cheap now, where the hair test is very expensive.

In regards to would I really hold it against someone for what they did three years ago: absolutely.

In my opinion (and here comes the statement that will get me ripped apart:sqwink:), I prefer not to have ANYONE working for me who has ever done illegal drugs. Drugs and alcohol are my hot button topics, and I have zero sympathy for people who do them and I quite simply can not afford to risk my reputation employing someone who has done them in the past, because of the environment I work in.

Although I do not test the bands I work with (obviously), drinking onstage or doing drugs (even weed) will cause me not to renew their contract when it is up. I don't care how good they are or how successful their tours were.

You have to put your principles and morals over business sometimes, and those two issues are my drawing line.
 
I just want to thank everyone who got involved with this. I didn't think it would take off like this.

And no one is arguing. They are discussing. I don't remember the last time that happened somewhere else.

Karl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back