I've had to do it before every job I've had since college. Its a sad statement about American society I think. Who knows who's doing coke or meth or...
Piss tests really only catch pot smokers...since it stays in your system so long. Coke and other drugs generally are out in 3 days...so unless your a daily user, you can skate by.
I am glad I live in Canada, not that I do drugs but that just seems strange that they do that. Is this for any kind of job? or only certain ones?
That depends - if you are a chronic heavy user and overweight, it will stay longer .......... Most urine test are blank after 2 weeks .......some urine tests can detect it up to 45 days .......as far as I remember I have heard casestories about bloodtests testing positive up to 3 months ......... Then again, I think it can be detected in hairtests for much, much longer ....:m:
I've never known any work place to do a hair test. Probably more expensive and results take longer. I have only heard of them for court cases.
I could imagine employers like DoD defense contractors using such tests. They are marginally more expensive. I managed to find some online in the $75 U.S. range. FWIW though, my previous position in the USAF was classified and they only used urine tests on my co-workers and me.
yust wondering but what are you changes if you don't take the test? I can't imagen that there are any law's forcing you to do this test
I wouldn't want to work at a place like that. As long as it doesn't impact my work, what I do in my free time should be none of my employer's business.
If you had literally only one long drag, the odds are good that the level of THC in your urine will be below the threshold in just a few days. But that is a statistical answer of course. Your results may vary. At the outside I'm confident it will surely be gone in two weeks. This is strictly an American thing. They drug test you to get a job making minimum wage doing physical labor at the supermarket. These days the majority of employers require a drug test as part of the application process, and probably all of the large ones. But that is just a rite of passage, to prove that you can stay off drugs long enough to pass the test. Frankly even though I'm opposed to it, it's not all that bad for that very reason. Some people become "dependent," even if they're not actually "addicted." Very few companies follow up with random testing once you're on board as long as you don't do anything crazy. It's strictly a private agreement. If you don't take the test then they won't consider you for the job. If it's a random test for a job you already have, they you have to check your employment contract. Some places will fire you on the spot, others will put you on probation, send you to counseling, and increase the frequency of testing. Unfortunately, the military will not "fire" a soldier or sailor for smoking a joint. That would be too easy. They'll punish him instead.
What about a job like working at McDonalds? I can maybe see when first hiring someone for a job, depending on the job. After they hire someone though, as long as they are doing a good job, coming to work everyday on time, they should mind their own business. So what if someone wants to smoke up on the weekend or whatever. As long as it doesn't interfere with someones job performance they should butt out of their recreation time.
Every drug test I've taken they have tested for more than pot. It costs money to train an employee ad people would rather have a responsible employee who doesn't do drugs (they assume) over one who breaks the law. And I've had to take a drug test before the interviews, not when I've been offered the job. They don't waste time on interviewing people who are positive.
Here’s a thought… Instead of trying to beat employment urine tests, why not stop smoking it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
One problem with the practice is the class presumption. I have the right to demand your piss sample. If unions could demand piss samples from management it would be different story. See, if it is a valid concern from the employers point of view, it is at least as valid a concern from an employee's point of view. Is some coke head manager going to spend to little time enforcing or spending money on safetry procedures? Is some pot head on the Board of Directors going to suggest questionable accounting practices that will pop me out on the job market at thrity five with the wrong skills when the company goes Enron? The other presumption is that the only problem are false positives. But that is the only problem that is relatively easy to track. What is the message sent to us as humans when the employers have the right to demand our piss and we do not have a similar right in return. Essentially it is a guily until proven innocent pattern. If we don't hand in the piss, they do not hire us. We must prove our innocence. Of course this is not a court situation, but the spirit of it is against the spirit of US law and ethics. You want to test my piss, then I want to watch you and your wife have sex.
Management has to take piss tests too. They may not have to after they get the job, but neither does a factory worker usually. I've never heard of anyone having to take a piss test after they were hired unless they showed up to work high, or there was an accident. If you don't want to take a piss test, then don't. An employer has every right to hire who they want. And for some reason, most employers don't want to hire people engaged in illegal activity. And its not illegal to have sex with a person's wife. It's illegal to do drugs.
Management does not have to take tests as often before employment. Also they are tested by owners - so the class power still holds. Those with more money get to demand demeaning things from those with less money. It is not the union that gets to test incoming management who may hurt or kill the workers they represent. See what I mean? Why should those with more money always get to demean those with less? They have gained the right to demand piss tests. They should not have the right to demand coming in to my personal life. They can check my criminal record or lack thereof. They can ask former employers if they ever had a problem with my behavior, etc. And we all have the right to do many immoral things. I can walk right past an old lady squirming in the gutter where she has fallen down and not help her. That is my right. But I think it is immoral to do so. Obviously companies are within their rights; I am saying it is immoral. And now that it is common practice, the 'you can apply elsewhere' argument is unfair. It is a power issue. It puts people in their place. That was not the point. My point was that the employer is asking me to give up something. Perhaps you cannot sense that. We get used to being treated like shit and then it just seems OK. If some person walked up to me on the street and asked for a jar of my piss so he could test it, I would say no, who the fuck do you think you are. If they came back that it was a nice neighborhood and lots of families with children and they want to know I am not some drug addled addict, well, nope. Sorry. And to ask me to piss in a cup for you is rude and not ethical. Even though I have some sympathy for the motives. If we lived in a more tribal society where resources were more evenly distributed and their was access to a rural self-sufficiency, for example, OK who cares, the employers who do this can just be ignored. What the hell are we teaching our children by approving such drug tests? We are teaching them that people have the right to essentially accuse us of illegal activity and demand that we prove them wrong. We are teaching our children that people with power and money can make demands on people that they would not be willing to satisfy themselves. In fact they would consider it insulting. (and if you want to make a list of other things we are teaching children with this, positive things, these do not erase the bad things we are teaching children) Picture a corporation that has just set up a chemical factory in a town and the local citizens come to the board meeting with little cups to drug test the board of directors. I mean the town has valid concerns. If this company does not take proper precautions and cuts corners, perhaps there will be toxic leaks or worse. If the board puts undue pressure on the CEO to cut corners and is more concerned with profits than safety, well..... You think that Board of Directors is going to take those cups in the bathroom. Forget about it. How dare they? The fucking nerve of those little people. The big dog gets to sniff the little dog's ass. That's how mature this is and that is what it is really about.
And this, for example, is clearly immoral. For many reasons: 1) if he had treated his bosses like the enemy they clearly turned to be, they would not have known where he was going. But because he treated them like human beings, they knew they had a possible way to hurt him. 2) he did not break the law. So he was fired for not breaking the law, but for having a positive test result. How can we test his employers for having slept with prostitutes on their last trip to Japan? (where prostitution is illegal by the way) How can we get them to piss in a cup and find out if they did some creative bookkeeping on pension funds? This practice is about showing who is in control. I can monitor you but you cannot monitor me. I have access to your body fluids, but mine are sacred and private. It is also a sign of laziness and lack of self-trust. They can't even tell who their competent workers are so they have to design intrusive testing. Wankers.
I agree. What he did was legal for where he was at. But it states in the employee handbook that you will be fired for a positive piss test. I know he got a lawyer, but how it turned out.....:shrug:
