Try to find employees who can pass a drug test

[MillCreek]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/business/hiring-hurdle-finding-workers-who-can-pass-a-drug-test.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

We see this a bit in our local healthcare market, now that recreational marijuana is legal here.  A friend of mine works for a local builder, and says they have a tremendous problem finding construction and laborer employees who don't test dirty primarily for pot.

[RevDisk]

Other thing to remember is that common cheap urinalysis kits have a pretty high false positive rate. They're shocking crap. Per manufacturer, they're not supposed to be sole determination. You're supposed to always double check a positive with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Which no employer ever does, the majority of them have no idea that said tests could even have a false positive. Mythbusters did an episode on it.

Concur that it's a real problem. And the law is sketchy on recreational marijuana and employment. We test on hiring and after an accident. If a forklift driver is found to have THC in their system and says they used legal recreational marijuana while well off-shift (ie only on Friday night and it is currently Tuesday), are they still considered impaired? There is no way they're actually chemically impaired. But testing positive means that they're legally under the influence.

Haven't heard any good suggestions yet, and we have a subsidiary in Colorado.

[De Selby]

Other thing to remember is that common cheap urinalysis kits have a pretty high false positive rate. They're shocking crap. Per manufacturer, they're not supposed to be sole determination. You're supposed to always double check a positive with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry. Which no employer ever does, the majority of them have no idea that said tests could even have a false positive. Mythbusters did an episode on it.

Concur that it's a real problem. And the law is sketchy on recreational marijuana and employment. We test on hiring and after an accident. If a forklift driver is found to have THC in their system and says they used legal recreational marijuana while well off-shift (ie only on Friday night and it is currently Tuesday), are they still considered impaired? There is no way they're actually chemically impaired. But testing positive means that they're legally under the influence.

Haven't heard any good suggestions yet, and we have a subsidiary in Colorado.

There's a clear case for reforming the law to be more like it is with alcohol.  Unless the test is about assessing a level of impairment, it's just another method of detecting rule-breakers...except they aren't necessarily breaking the rules anymore.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

An employer can make it a precondition of employment that one not use  a recreational that is legal

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[MillCreek]

An employer can make it a precondition of employment that one not use  a recreational that is legal

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

We have similar case law in Washington: the state Supreme Court ruled that an employee could be discharged for using medicinal marijuana.  I am not aware of any sizable healthcare employers in the state that will not hire you or that will fire you if you are using marijuana, medicinal, recreational, or legal in Washington notwithstanding.

[K Frame]

An employer can make it a precondition of employment that one not use  a recreational that is legal

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

I know a lot of companies here in DC metro are laying down rules for employees who are either going to work in a location where recreational use is legal, or are visiting on their own time.

Most of them are saying --- don't do it. You do, and we will terminate you.

[wmenorr67]

An employer can make it a precondition of employment that one not use  a recreational that is legal

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Government/Military being the biggest employer who does.  Dealing with a Soldier now, and it isn't legal in Oklahoma, that has popped hot 4-5 times in a row now.  OKNG isn't going to discharge him anytime soon because they want their numbers up, but I damn sure am going to do my best to have him thrown out of my section.

[Perd Hapley]

I guess the NORMLs will need another of those laws that protects us from freedom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoker_Protection_Law

[Jamisjockey]

There's a clear case for reforming the law to be more like it is with alcohol.  Unless the test is about assessing a level of impairment, it's just another method of detecting rule-breakers...except they aren't necessarily breaking the rules anymore.

What you're really clamoring for is another law to be inserted into the exchange of labor for currency between an employee and employer.  Moar lawz!!!

[Pb]

After I was hired for my previous job, I was told the five applicants before me failed the drug test.  Thanks potheads!   

[wmenorr67]

Where I work in the past we had temps and when we go to hire them on full time they couldn't pass the drug screen.  Now the temp agencies we use do drug screens and then we also do one if we go to hire full time.

[Mannlicher]

since it looks like every state is going with legal pot, the obvious solution is to just stop disqualifying folks that  test positive for it.  I am sure that is the next step in the liberal game plan to finish of America.   

[Balog]

since it looks like every state is going with legal pot, the obvious solution is to just stop disqualifying folks that  test positive for it.  I am sure that is the next step in the liberal game plan to finish of America.   

Yes, being able to get people off the welfare rolls and into productive jobs is obviously a liberal plan to destroy America.

[KD5NRH]

Yes, being able to get people off the welfare rolls and into productive jobs is obviously a liberal plan to destroy America.

If you can afford weed without a job, what do you need a job (or welfare) for?

[Firethorn]

An employer can make it a precondition of employment that one not use  a recreational that is legal

Certainly.  But I view it as like looking to hire non-tobacco smokers in the '70s.  You should expect to pay a premium for such workers, in both wages and difficulty in finding workers that meet the additional qualification.

What you're really clamoring for is another law to be inserted into the exchange of labor for currency between an employee and employer.  Moar lawz!!!

I think he misstated, which is understandable given the mess.  I won't speak for him, but I believe that as a result of legalization we need to shift from tests that check to see if you've used in the last week or so, which was fine when it was completely illegal, to whether you're currently, or were recently, intoxicated with the stuff.  This will require science to figure out what metabolic compounds to look for, whether you can do it with a breath test like with alcohol, a piss test like current, or even a blood test.  For example, longer term tests exist for alcohol consumption, but they're not common because they're not normally necessary.

That being said, there are state and federal laws that dictate tests be done in certain professions and cases, such as when an accident occurs, which may need to be adjusted.

If you can afford weed without a job, what do you need a job (or welfare) for?

It's easier to bum tokes off a friend than a place to stay?  Current tests will pop positive if you use enough to have a recreational affect sometime in the last 2 weeks or so, if I remember right.  Up to a month even.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Certainly.  But I view it as like looking to hire non-tobacco smokers in the '70s.  You should expect to pay a premium for such workers, in both wages and difficulty in finding workers that meet the additional qualification.

I think he misstated, which is understandable given the mess.  I won't speak for him, but I believe that as a result of legalization we need to shift from tests that check to see if you've used in the last week or so, which was fine when it was completely legal, to whether you're currently, or were recently, intoxicated with the stuff.  This will require science to figure out what metabolic compounds to look for, whether you can do it with a breath test like with alcohol, a piss test like current, or even a blood test.  For example, longer term tests exist for alcohol consumption, but they're not common because they're not normally necessary.

That being said, state and federal laws that dictate tests be done, such as in the case of an accident, may need to be adjusted.

It's easier to bum tokes off a friend than a place to stay?  Current tests will pop positive if you use enough to have a recreational affect sometime in the last 2 weeks or so, if I remember right.  Up to a month even.

In real life I hired in the late 70's and disqualified cigarette smokers. Was not paying a premium wage and had no trouble finding folks. It was a feature not a bug

[Firethorn]

In real life I hired in the late 70's and disqualified cigarette smokers. Was not paying a premium wage and had no trouble finding folks. It was a feature not a bug

Expect a harder time and more pay; be glad when you don't.  Probably depended on the field.

[French G.]

Smoke all you want if you work up front in the office. If you work with me around all the sharp, heavy, rolly, tipsy, flaming, turning, things that can kill us then please pass a test.

[Boomhauer]

N/m

[Fitz]

smoking pot (or doing alcohol, or having neck tattoos, or being against gay marriage, or anything else), is a personal choice that nobody should be FORCED not to do.

Employing people , is a choice made by a private entity. If you CHOOSE to smoke pot, an employer should be able to CHOOSE not to hire you.

Again, the market will correct. If you don't want pot smokers, and all the good, skilled workers looking for that position smoke pot, then you wont' be able to hire a qualified candidate.

I have nothing against legal pot, and indeed anything that one chooses to do with one's own body.

But I abhor the thought of the government being necessary to step in and force another private entity to endorse and accept your life choices.

Generally, if your response to a situation like this (be it pot, gay marriage, etc). is "we should have a law" or "we should change the law so that...", then the truth of the matter is the government is already too involved. An employer should be able to determine themselves if pot in someone's system (which, as stated earlier, doesn't necessarily mean that person is impaired given the length of time it stays in your system) is a deal-breaker for employment.

[Perd Hapley]

Stop it with the hatespeech, Fitz.

[Fitz]

Stop it with the hatespeech, Fitz.

Sorry. I guess the thought that "being able to do whatever you want with your own property , body, and interests as you please"  applied to employers as well as individuals.

I suppose the "market corrects" philosophy only applies to some. :-D

[Balog]

I refuse to put my life at risk by working with goddamn druggies. If the company doesn't get rid of them then I will.

Lol. I had no idea you only worked with strict Mormons and others who abstain from alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine. And refined sugar, given that some research indicates it's more addictive than cocaine.

[Balog]

Again, the market will correct. If you don't want pot smokers, and all the good, skilled workers looking for that position smoke pot, then you wont' be able to hire a qualified candidate.

The irony here being the many folks who come to these threads to whine about not being able to find anyone who can pass a drug test.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

smoking pot (or doing alcohol, or having neck tattoos, or being against gay marriage, or anything else), is a personal choice that nobody should be FORCED not to do.

Employing people , is a choice made by a private entity. If you CHOOSE to smoke pot, an employer should be able to CHOOSE not to hire you.

Again, the market will correct. If you don't want pot smokers, and all the good, skilled workers looking for that position smoke pot, then you wont' be able to hire a qualified candidate.

I have nothing against legal pot, and indeed anything that one chooses to do with one's own body.

But I abhor the thought of the government being necessary to step in and force another private entity to endorse and accept your life choices.

Generally, if your response to a situation like this (be it pot, gay marriage, etc). is "we should have a law" or "we should change the law so that...", then the truth of the matter is the government is already too involved. An employer should be able to determine themselves if pot in someone's system (which, as stated earlier, doesn't necessarily mean that person is impaired given the length of time it stays in your system) is a deal-breaker for employment.

It's ironic a friend of mine owns a roofing company and he started breathalyzing and piss testing his people and when you pop positive he doesn't just suspend you for a day he suspends you for a week because guys will take a day off  it's just the cost of getting high.be
 to get a week off hurt em financially
his workers comp claims dropped by 60% first year True irony of this is the guy that owns the company gets high

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk