Drug Testing

[bjorn_skurj]

Even if drugs aren't legal, pre-employment alcohol and drug testing could be viewed as a human rights issue.

 

Canadian Human Rights Policy on Alcohol and Drug Testing

(This summary is from 2002, but I couldn't find anything more recent, so perhaps not much has changed.)

More food for thought...

Is there a form I can fill out to reclaim my mom's mom's ancestors' Canadian citizenship?

[awatt]

Absolutely!! I'd love to move up here for all kinds of reasons! My mom was born in Windsor, Ontario, so I'm looking into citizenship. I found out that I even have a cousin who's some old-foggie, much-beloved politician here.

 

I'd never work for any company doing drug-testing.

 

[Dreamin']

I knew that drug testing in Canada was very rare, but I actually wasn't sure what our policy was until this thread piqued my curiousity. I thought it was interesting that the human rights perspective seems to fit with what most people here have been saying all along.

 

Hopefully, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives won't f' things up too much before the (thieving but more progressive) Liberals are re-elected. Until then, I take nothing for granted.

[Is Chicago Is Not Chicago]

let me reinstate my position. I use to smoke 2 or 3 times a week if not more during the school year august - may, now that i'm out i've only been doing it a couple of times a month. Last weekend I smoked a little bit on a friday night and a on saturday night. I need a drug test for my job giving me roughly 2 weeks since I last smoked. I have been drinking about 8 bottles of water a day if not more, as well as ocasionally drinking green tea and yesterday and for the rest of the week I plan to run on the treadmill for 20 mins. I am 5'10 and about 215 pounds. Will this and this alone put me in the clear?

[parisisstale]

You're in the clear, but you should definitely lay off the Ring Dings.

 

just kidding

[M. (hristine]

let me reinstate my position. I use to smoke 2 or 3 times a week if not more during the school year august - may, now that i'm out i've only been doing it a couple of times a month. Last weekend I smoked a little bit on a friday night and a on saturday night. I need a drug test for my job giving me roughly 2 weeks since I last smoked. I have been drinking about 8 bottles of water a day if not more, as well as ocasionally drinking green tea and yesterday and for the rest of the week I plan to run on the treadmill for 20 mins. I am 5'10 and about 215 pounds. Will this and this alone put me in the clear?

A friend that works in the HR department of a major corporation says that this stuff works:

 

 

And samorama recommended this site: http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_testing.shtml.

 

Take some of the advice that has been given, or do more research on your own. The bottom line is no one on a message board is going to be able to give you a guarantee on a clean piss test, ya know?.

[watch me fall]

Also, my guess is plenty of potential (and qualified) employees who have kids have been passed over for jobs because they are parents.

 

Not sure what kind of policy is in place where you work, but here we aren't allowed to ask such questions of a potential employee, neither can we ask about marital status. If they want to bring it up in the interview, that's fine but not that many do (and I'm speaking totally based on my own experience). In fact, I had a new employee start last week and just through casual conversation she mentioned something about her daughter. First I had even heard about it.

[jenbobblehead]

i'm pretty sure it is against the law to not hire someone because they are parents. Certainly in some cases, being a family man or woman works in your favor because it implies that you follow through on things (like having a college degree, no matter what it is in) however, you are not allowed to ask marital status, or status of family in an interview.

 

I am always shocked, however, at the kind of information people put on their resumes and in their cover letter. Letters that say you are changing jobs because you want a quieter environment and you're looking to start a family isn't a good move especially if you're a woman. While i certainly believe that child-bearing age women have every right to go for jobs, and expect to raise a family, i still have a bad taste in my mouth from the woman hired at my last place of employment for a very high level, high visability job who was pregnant but didn't say anything and went out on leave 6 months later, only to return part time and then leave all together, so basically the company was out of a Director Of Communications for the time waiting for her to leave her other job, then in and out while she was having a difficult pregnancy, then out for four months, and then back for 4 months part time and then gone altogether with 2 weeks notice. I would have rather we hired the pot smoker (btw, this job didn't require blood testing.)

 

my point continues to be that a drug test doesn't really tell you who is going to be productive or not in the job. I suppose if you found 15 different opiates then yeah, ok, maybe this person is a risky hire, but i've worked in a lot of jobs, in a lot of industries and the things (in my opinion) that make people unproductive is outside legal commitments, like family, and outside, legal influences, like a drinking, or gambling, neither of which a company can test for.

[EL the Famous]

my earlier point wasn't really relative to a first job interview, but more so once you are actually working for a company and it becomes common knowledge that you have kids. futhermore, when the question comes up how mobile you are for relocation and/or can you travel for work on the drop of dime, etc...when you have kids, that may become an issue. point being, you can take advantage of not having the additional responsibility, provide better focus on your job and reap the benefit of being a strong performer.

 

i'm not complaining that my kids are a disadvantage, you make choices when you decide to become a parent...i'd rather provide more focus on my kids than my career, but still perform to my best to make sure what i'm supposed to do gets done.

 

as far as people taking off work so much for their kids, would things be different if they were taking off work to attend to an ailing spouse, parent or sibling? in the final year of my father-in-law's life, Yvette had to take tons of time off to help her Mom and go to the hospital. is that wrong that she did that?

[jenbobblehead]

as far as people taking off work so much for their kids, would things be different if they were taking off work to attend to an ailing spouse, parent or sibling? in the final year of my father-in-law's life, Yvette had to take tons of time off to help her Mom and go to the hospital. is that wrong that she did that?

of course it isn't wrong, but someone had to pick up the slack at work so she would have the freedom to do that, that we agree on, right? It isn't wrong to have kids who need care and to love your family more than your job (how i think it should be, btw,) but to assume that someone who smokes pot or hash occasionally or does X at some club a few times, is potentially less productive than anyone else (and i used the example of someone who has kids because the fallout of someone not being around because of their duty to their family is the one i'm most familiar with) is simply false.

 

Disclosure: i am the most relentful person when it comes to drugs. I have no room in my life for them, or people who do them generally--just not my bag--don't want to be involved, but unless one of my employees' work suffers on the job because of a drug problem, i don't care what they do on their own time.

[EL the Famous]

I understand what you're saying, but to say someone who smokes pot or hash occasionally or does X at some club a few times, isn't potentially less productive than anyone else is incorrect. someone who doesn't do any of those things at all, is potentially more productive in the way there is no risk of them being arrested and therefore miss work. to show that you have disregard for the law, whether you agree it's a just law or not, shows the potential of risk and/or disregard for policy (i.e. coming into work).

 

granted, you can say that this person up against someone who has a hardcore drinking problem is less of a risk or someone who engages in risky sex and on and on and on...but say there is no potential for unproductivity is silly.

[Guest ScottHoward]

Some of my most productive months/quarters/years were when I was completely off the reservation.

[jenbobblehead]

unproductive people are so because of many reasons but you're really stretching now to say that folks who smoke a little dope are/can be less productive because they might get arrested. I seriously doubt you can find the numbers that prove that pot arrests cause more problems in the workplace in the form of absences than child care issues. By your own logic anyone who would opt to have children while trying to pursue a career would show a disregard for work because children will be their first priority. You're not really saying THAT are you?

[watch me fall]

By your own logic anyone who would opt to have children while trying to pursue a career would show a disregard for work because children will be their first priority. You're not really saying THAT are you?

 

I had an employee say that to my face once. Needless to say, she left soon after for another job.

[jenbobblehead]

I had an employee say that to my face once. Needless to say, she left soon after for another job.

she said she disregarded work because kids were more important, or did she say that people who have kids show a disregard for work?

[Guest ScottHoward]

My favorite part about all of this is that there are people who collectively (counting aliases), have 30,000 posts on this message board (the majority of which were probably posted from work) arguing about productivity.

[watch me fall]

she said she disregarded work because kids were more important, or did she say that people who have kids show a disregard for work?

 

She had come to me because other employees were being promoted ahead of her and she didn't think it was fair because she had more experience. The rule around here is that you have to have an MBA or a CPA for promotion, no exceptions (a rule that I don't agree with but I don't make the rules around here). She told me that she would never attain those designations because her kids came first. She had also told me on several occasions after she missed certain deadlines (because of kid-related issues) that work wasn't important to her. I can understand her feelings, but as a manager, what am I supposed to say to that?

 

My favorite part about all of this is that there are people who collectively (counting aliases), have 30,000 posts on this message board (the majority of which were probably posted from work) arguing about productivity.

 

Maybe they don't have jobs.

[Guest ScottHoward]

...but as a manager, what am I supposed to say to that?

"Go get your fuckin' shinebox."

 

or

 

"I hope your kids like government cheese."

[jenbobblehead]

She had come to me because other employees were being promoted ahead of her and she didn't think it was fair because she had more experience. The rule around here is that you have to have an MBA or a CPA for promotion, no exceptions (a rule that I don't agree with but I don't make the rules around here). She told me that she would never attain those designations because her kids came first. She had also told me on several occasions after she missed certain deadlines (because of kid-related issues) that work wasn't important to her. I can understand her feelings, but as a manager, what am I supposed to say to that?

Maybe they don't have jobs.

 

well i am one of those people who honestly don't believe you can have it all. I think you make choices and sacrifices for the things that you want, be it a high powered career or three little kids. I think that when you try to have both, one or both suffer. I wish that there wasn't a Mommy Track, but there is. I think there's a new Daddy Track as well. I know some peeps on it. Life is about making choices, and if choosing (or not) to have kids isn't the biggest one on the list, then i don't know where anyone's priorities are.

 

I don't know what you should have said to that woman. She clearly wasn't promotion material aside from her kid related issues, right? I guess i would have just said "no MBA, no corner office, babe." It is very hard to come down on someone who has kid-related issues. If we don't get this big EPA grant i will have to cut someone's hours to half time and while i will be thinking it, i won't be able to say "this is because you disappeared when we needed to get this grant out the door." If that employee had gone on a bender or disappeared to the casino for two or three days, she would have been fired. But, its awfully hard to fire someone for being an attentive parent.

 

and i can post from work because 1/ i'm the boss and 2/ i do a lot of work off hours like at night or on the weekends and 3/ I get my job done and no one has to do it for me.

[Dude]

Maybe they don't have jobs.

Or maybe, for reasons that defy logic, they've been on this board for years.

[watch me fall]

well i am one of those people who honestly don't believe you can have it all. I think you make choices and sacrifices for the things that you want, be it a high powered career or three little kids. I think that when you try to have both, one or both suffer. I wish that there wasn't a Mommy Track, but there is. I think there's a new Daddy Track as well. I know some peeps on it. Life is about making choices, and if choosing (or not) to have kids isn't the biggest one on the list, then i don't know where anyone's priorities are.

 

I don't know what you should have said to that woman. She clearly wasn't promotion material aside from her kid related issues, right? I guess i would have just said "no MBA, no corner office, babe." It is very hard to come down on someone who has kid-related issues. If we don't get this big EPA grant i will have to cut someone's hours to half time and while i will be thinking it, i won't be able to say "this is because you disappeared when we needed to get this grant out the door." If that employee had gone on a bender or disappeared to the casino for two or three days, she would have been fired. But, its awfully hard to fire someone for being an attentive parent.

 

and i can post from work because 1/ i'm the boss and 2/ i do a lot of work off hours like at night or on the weekends and 3/ I get my job done and no one has to do it for me.

 

Actually, she was one of the best workers in the place before she had kids and her priorities changed. It's like you said, it's really hard to have both a career and kids. Of course, it's much easier for those people who have supportive and helpful spouses/partners, which this girl really didn't have.

[EL the Famous]

and i can post from work because 1/ i'm the boss and 2/ i do a lot of work off hours like at night or on the weekends and 3/ I get my job done and no one has to do it for me.

 

Except for #1, ditto.

 

Look, I know it's a stretch and exactly why I said there are a myriad of things that can affect productivity. That said, my point is not just based on actual productivity, but prioritization...this all sparked off of 'I wouldn't work for place that wasn't cool w/ me smoking pot on my free time'. Now, if choosing not to work at place because you want to be able to smoke a bowl versus that it's condusive to being able to balance w/ family life seems like an even comparison of legit priorities...by all means, smoke up.

 

Also, as i've stated before, drug screening goes beyond just grass and if hiring somebody w/ a drug problem over a working mother seems like a good judgement in charchter of a potential employee...good luck w/ that. also, drug screening goes beyond just a productivity issue, by indicating that the person your hiring is okay w/ breaking the law...minor or not and whether you agree w/ the law in question. if making a decision to do that versus raising a family seems like someone who has a better sense of priorties...again, good luck w/ that.

 

it is really hard to have both a career and kids...but there plenty of successful parents who do. it's not impossible. you do your best to find balance. would anybody who would opt to have children while trying to pursue a career show a disregard for work because children will be their first priority? consistently? I hope not. depending on the situation, sure! just like anybody would do the same for their spouse or relative...at least i'd hope they would.

 

this whole conversation is about choices and making them w/ an understanding they may affect other areas of your life...you smoke pot (or do whatever else) w/ an understanding that you may lose your job or not get hired because of it. that's how it is. same goes for having kids...you may not be able to rise up that ladder as quickly as you'd like. i guess, IMO, one seems like a little more legitimate choice relative your professional life than the other.

[bjorn_skurj]

My favorite part about all of this is that there are people who collectively (counting aliases), have 30,000 posts on this message board (the majority of which were probably posted from work) arguing about productivity.

"Irony writ large."

[Atticus]

Except for #1, ditto.

 

Look, I know it's a stretch and exactly why I said there are a myriad of things that can affect productivity. That said, my point is not just based on actual productivity, but prioritization...this all sparked off of 'I wouldn't work for place that wasn't cool w/ me smoking pot on my free time'. Now, if choosing not to work at place because you want to be able to smoke a bowl versus that it's condusive to being able to balance w/ family life seems like an even comparison of legit priorities...by all means, smoke up.

 

Also, as i've stated before, drug screening goes beyond just grass and if hiring somebody w/ a drug problem over a working mother seems like a good judgement in charchter of a potential employee...good luck w/ that. also, drug screening goes beyond just a productivity issue, by indicating that the person your hiring is okay w/ breaking the law...minor or not and whether you agree w/ the law in question. if making a decision to do that versus raising a family seems like someone who has a better sense of priorties...again, good luck w/ that.

 

it is really hard to have both a career and kids...but there plenty of successful parents who do. it's not impossible. you do your best to find balance. would anybody who would opt to have children while trying to pursue a career show a disregard for work because children will be their first priority? consistently? I hope not. depending on the situation, sure! just like anybody would do the same for their spouse or relative...at least i'd hope they would.

 

this whole conversation is about choices and making them w/ an understanding they may affect other areas of your life...you smoke pot (or do whatever else) w/ an understanding that you may lose your job or not get hired because of it. that's how it is. same goes for having kids...you may not be able to rise up that ladder as quickly as you'd like. i guess, IMO, one seems like a little more legitimate choice relative your professional life than the other.

 

 

Great post...

[Guest ScottHoward]

I think that hiring women isnt a great idea.

 

I'd take a guy with a manageable meth addiction over a woman any day of the week.

Edited September 25, 2006 by ScottHoward