Drug testing in the office? Say what?

Borris · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:19

I've recently been interviewing for, among other places, a US financial company.

I've been to see them a few times, and spoken to a few of their big cheeses in Chicago.

Things have been positive, and they are keen to get things moving along.

Then I get hit with, what I consider to be, a bombshell. They require all employees (even consultants) to undergo drug tests.

So I told them (with a certain degree of tact), that they could shove their drug testing up their sanctimonious, fat, septics tank *****s.

I don't take drugs (except for booze and the occasional fag), and generally do not condone the use of them (although not in a fanatical way).

Is it short-sighted of me to strand on a principle that effectively shuts a potential door on my career path?

Wyrdo · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:20

Happens a lot in the US I'm afraid and as they're a US run company I guess the same applies to their offices here.

I'd just take the test if you've got nothing to be worried about and want the job.

Yas786 · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:22

wyrdo said:
Happens a lot in the US I'm afraid and as they're a US run company I guess the same applies to their offices here.

I'd just take the test if you've got nothing to be worried about and want the job.

Exactly what i was going to say, if you got nothing to hide then take the test simple as that. Unless your going to harp on about how your civil rights are being abused or something lol

Kell_ee001 · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:24

Borris said:
Is it short-sighted of me to strand on a principle that effectively shuts a potential door on my career path?

Yes it is.

Anyone can say that - they want proof. It's like anything they want proof of (math skills, technical knowledge etc) would be tested.

Since you feel that way and don't do drugs you have nothing to hide and so should take the test

Sic · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:24

sounds like a pretty good job. i'd take the test if i were you. if i were me (which i happen to be) i'd politely decline their offer of a job then reapply in 3-6 months (assuming their drug test is blood only)

Borris · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:27

Spawn said:
Exactly what i was going to say, if you got nothing to hide then take the test simple as that. Unless your going to harp on about how your civil rights are being abused or something lol

It would only be a question of civil liberties if it was a government agency.

I'm quite aware that the company has a right (to some extent) under law to require drugs testing of their employees, just as I have a right to not work for them.

This is taking a stand on principle, in that, legal or not, I don't believe that I should have to prove my status as a non-drug taker.

I will not work for a company that holds no faith in their employees honesty.

robmiller · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:28

Kell_ee001 said:
Yes it is.

Anyone can say that - they want proof. It's like anything they want proof of (math skills, technical knowledge etc) would be tested.

Since you feel that way and don't do drugs you have nothing to hide and so should take the test

Except maths skills and technical knowledge are relevant to the workplace, whereas extra-office activities, be it drug taking or something like homosexuality, are anything but.

Visage · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:28

Kell_ee001 said:
Yes it is.

Anyone can say that - they want proof. It's like anything they want proof of (math skills, technical knowledge etc) would be tested.

Since you feel that way and don't do drugs you have nothing to hide and so should take the test

The problem that i have with this is that there's an implicit threat that, if you're found to have tested positive, you get fired (or at least warned). Otherwise, why bother testing you?

And the problem that i have with that is that if the OP wishes to use drugs in his own time, then, as long as it doesnt affect his work, what business is it of the company?

Hugogo · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:32

Every american company require this preety much. Its very standard in the US. If your clean then there is nothing to worry about and youve thrown away a very good oppertunity quite stupidly.

Burbleflop · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:34

Like others have said, it is very common to be asked to take a drugs test. I have to take one when I'm working in Phoenix. I don't take drugs so it doesn't bother me.

You have to remember, we're talking about the US here which isn't "The Land of the Free" like it claims to be.

robmiller · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:34

Hugogo said:
Every american company require this preety much. Its very standard in the US. If your clean then there is nothing to worry about and youve thrown away a very good oppertunity quite stupidly.

Maybe if more people had principles the system wouldn't get as bad as it is

Edit: to clarify, the only drug I use is alcohol (very occasionally) so I technically have nothing to hide, but I'm still hugely against an employer being able to be so disgustingly invasive and would have to think incredibly hard about what I'd do if I were in Borris's position.

Yas786 · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:35

Visage said:
And the problem that i have with that is that if the OP wishes to use drugs in his own time, then, as long as it doesnt affect his work, what business is it of the company?

Hmmm but then the problem is that it has been proven that taking drugs does affect your work ultimately. So its a no win situation really, depends on how badly u want that job i suppose.

EDIT: Didnt mean civil liberties, meant to say workers right etc etc

Borris · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:35

Hugogo said:
Every american company require this preety much. Its very standard in the US. If your clean then there is nothing to worry about and youve thrown away a very good oppertunity quite stupidly.

I perhaps haven't made it clear in the OP - I have more than this opportunity available to me.

Ironically, one of the other companies is a mahoosive US company, and they do not require testing.

(The other is Dutch - you figure out their policy).

fatiain · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:35

Sic said:
sounds like a pretty good job. i'd take the test if i were you. if i were me (which i happen to be) i'd politely decline their offer of a job then reapply in 3-6 months (assuming their drug test is blood only)

Could you survive on plain water for 3-6 months?

barnettgs · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:36

I think it is a fair test.

Wembley builders is a good example of this.

robmiller · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:36

Spawn said:
Hmmm but then the problem is that it has been proven that taking drugs does affect your work ultimately. So its a no win situation really, depends on how badly u want that job i suppose.

EDIT: Didnt mean civil liberties, meant to say workers right etc etc

Has it been proven :confused:

Where?

Jumpingmedic · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:38

Borris said:
Is it short-sighted of me to strand on a principle that effectively shuts a potential door on my career path?

Yes. You gave up a job cause you didn't want to be tested for drugs you don't even take? :confused:

Stretch · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:38

There are drugs that don't stay in your system for long, and many of them are hard Class A drugs. This whole testing idea is a waste of time. It's only really marijuana that has any long lasting trace in the body, and taking that is hardly crime of the century. You can take cocaine or crack quite happily at the weekend and be clean by Monday morning. It's ridiculous.

I would take the test. There's no point in ruining a good career opportunity for the sake of a moral stance.

Borris said:
(The other is Dutch - you figure out their policy).

Lol, you better test positive or you're out?

robmiller · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:38

barnettgs said:
I think it is a fair test.

Wembley builders is a good example of this.

I know it was a joke, but there's a huge difference between companies regulating the conduct of their workers on the job and companies being able to dictate what people do outside work.

Tru · 28 Feb 2006 at 15:38

I'd do it, but there's not a lot I wouldn't do if it meant a job on the eastern seaboard. Good on you for sticking by your principles though, I mean that.

Please be aware that the US Department of Crushing Evildoers has been informed of your belligerence.

edit:

robmiller said:
Has it been proven Where?

I think it was proven last year, using Science and long words.