8 ms·

Hiring Hurdle: Finding Workers Who Can Pass a Drug Test

30 points by aaronbrethorst 10y ago

stephengillie 10y ago
Why would an employer want to drug test employees? Do some still believe there is some kind of correlation between (prescription or self-medicated) drug use? From the article: > In Colorado, “to find a roofer or a painter that can pass a drug test is unheard-of,” Sure, it makes some sense for a few, select jobs like truck driving. But why would you care what your roofer or painter did last night, as long as the job gets done? If a prospective customer refused to buy your product unless you could prove no employee used Percocet or Vicodin while working, would you drug test your company for them?
- fiatmoney 10y ago
  It's a conscientiousness filter (particularly the pre-hire, never again variety). Also, at one point (perhaps even still) there were regulations on federal contractors above a certain size promoting drug tests.
- iamthepieman 10y ago
  If a prospective customer refused to buy your product unless you could prove no employee used Percocet or Vicodin while working, would you drug test your company for them? This is what hundreds and thousands of U.S. government intelligence contractor companies do. Of course for many of the smaller ones the USG is their only customer.
- brandonmenc 10y ago
  > But why would you care what your roofer or painter did last night If I'm a roofer, I don't want the guy holding my ladder to be hung over.
  - CyberDildonics 10y ago
    Too bad alchohol isn't on the panel
    - Spoom 10y ago
      It is for truckers.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    They don't drug test for alcohol, and even if they did, it is only in your system for a matter of hours. As long as the person wasn't drunk WHILE taking the test, they would pass.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  You care because you don't want to deal with workplace injuries and druggies stealing your stuff. Roofers are high turnover, low/moderate skill folks. If the business model requires reliable guys, you may consider it.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Better not hire any drinkers, then. They might steal your stuff, and pawn it for a fifth. No smokers, too. Nicotine withdrawal is hell.
    - arca_vorago 10y ago
      Indeed, you can see just how blind and hypocritical people are when it comes to drugs. What I find particularly amusing is that its usually some baby boomer who takes 5 different prescription meds a day, smokes cigars and drinks scotch regularly that will say just how evil mj is... The drug wars are created and controlled black markets for the darker of the global threeletters. Combine that with pharmaceutical self interests and unsetteling profits that the public tends to forget about, our entire idea and classification of medication is extrmely primitive and far too influenced by politics and corruption rather than science.
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      Sounds like you've never worked outside of an office. Talk to a roofing contractor someday.
CapitalistCartr 10y ago
As the quote from the article says: “most people can’t pass the drug test because they don’t want to pass a drug test.” I work in manufacturing. We make it easy to pass. Several days from interview to test. That's every place I've been. And as the article suggests, its almost exclusively whites not passing. I figure its a culture thing.
- aab0 10y ago
  'Several days' doesn't sound like enough for a lot of drugs. Aside from quoting employers complaining about not being able to find employees, I wish the NYT had covered some more on the topic of, does drug testing even meaningfully help with finding better employees? Yes, it may be mandated or legally required of employers in a few cases, but that's far from universal; so are the rest doing it because it works, or because they just assume it works because everyone else has always done it?
  - jlgaddis 10y ago
    "Several days" is typically plenty of time for almost all drugs except for marijuana, due to their half-lives. Those who regularly use larger amounts of drugs may need an extra day or two to pass but a week, for instance, should be more than enough for most people's levels to be below the thresholds that are tested against.
    - aab0 10y ago
      > "Several days" is typically plenty of time for almost all drugs except for marijuana, due to their half-lives. So enough for an unknown number of drugs and oh yeah - the most popular drug in the country after caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine?
- shkkmo 10y ago
  > Several days from interview to test Not enough time to piss clean from Cannabis, but enough for some of the harder drugs. > And as the article suggests, its almost exclusively whites not passing Doesn't that make drug tests a racist practice?
AndrewKemendo 10y ago
If you want a contract, loan, tax benefit or anything else explicit from the federal government or any contractor of the federal government - you have to institute drug screening policies, which are audited. edit: The implication I am making is that this is literally the only (IMO) good reason to have such a policy.
- aianus 10y ago
  Amazon definitely has government contracts but they don't drug test their engineers (or at least they never drug tested me). Any ideas how they get around it? Do AWS engineers get drug tested?
  - AndrewKemendo 10y ago
    My guess would be that they do, but don't always exercise it (at least in your case). As a corollary I was an Active Duty Air Force officer for 7 years and have been in the reserves for two beyond that. I have only been drug tested once in those years. So having the policy to check the box and actually utilizing it, in hiring or otherwise, are different.
  - viraptor 10y ago
    Do you actually work on anything related to those contracts? There could be strict separation in place and people without approval / clearance may not be involved at all.
    - aianus 10y ago
      No, the contracts were in AWS iirc and I did not work in AWS. (I realize it wasn't clear in my original comment, but that's why I'm curious about AWS engineers' experience).
- smelendez 10y ago
  Is this the law in question? http://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/asp/drugfree/require.htm http://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/asp/drugfree/require.htm It doesn't sound like testing is required--just telling employees not to use drugs at work, and taking action if they are caught doing so?
ASinclair 10y ago
Many professional jobs don't require drug tests. So is it really about finding the "best workers"? Could you imagine if software companies rejected people for marijuana use?
- droque 10y ago
  Probably something like the FBI http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fbi-cant-find-hackers-that-dont-smoke-pot http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fbi-cant-find-hackers-t...
- frogpelt 10y ago
  The drug test is a screening method. It "weeds" out certain segments of people and makes it more likely you'll find a reliable employee. Prospective professional employees are screened using college degrees or professional experience.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  Yes. My software company got bought by a large corporation that drug tests new hires (because they do gov contracts, apparently), and it is WAY harder to find employees now. I know lots of developers who don't do drugs at all who refuse to take the test out of principle.
thedevil 10y ago
I see a different problem: lack of jobs that don't drug test. I don't do any drugs and never been a fan of weed, but I sometimes won't apply for a job if they drug test. I wish I could stick to this every time. The no-drug-screen screen is actually a good filter. Companies with drug-screening are, on average, more unpleasant to work at. Just say no to drug screening, kids. Edit: alright, to be fair, some of those jobs mentioned have good reason. But the jobs that tested me didn't
- was_boring 10y ago
  I also refuse to take drug tests. I also refuse to get security clearances, which makes it a little more challenging living in the DC area.
csense 10y ago
Drug testing is absolutely a good idea for jobs where worker impairment presents an imminent physical danger to lives and property (e.g. trucking, medical professions, powerline repair crews). Likewise, limited use of criminal background checks may be a good idea for certain jobs (a bank robber shouldn't be allowed to work in a bank). But the idea that these should be general conditions of employment across all industries is a problematic one. It creates an underclass of unemployable people, forcing them to become a drain on society when they could be productively employed (or encouraging them to become productively employed in gray/black market activities).
- frogpelt 10y ago
  Or maybe drugs are doing that anyway. And the companies are trying to screen for the people who will be gone after the first few paychecks. I've known a few Xanax addicts and meth heads. They're not exactly what I would call employable.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  Is it really a good idea, though? A guy can smoke a joint on the weekend and do a dangerous job on Tuesday. At the same time, passing a drug test doesn't mean you won't be intoxicated on the job. They don't test everyday, and lots of drugs (alcohol, cocaine, etc) get out of your system very quickly. I understand the desire (you don't want someone on drugs at work), but drug testing doesn't do a very good job of getting you that.
  - pcr0 10y ago
    It's certainly fine for most drugs. The situation with weed is certainly the troubling one. You can test positive for it for almost a month after moderate use. Add to that fact its increasing legality and acceptance in the US and you've got a widespread employment problem.
- thedevil 10y ago
  I up voted your comment because we think the same way on this but your comment was better and less snarky than mine (although also less entertaining).
Inconel 10y ago
I don't find pre-employment drug testing terribly problematic, although I would be fine seeing it discontinued in most settings. While I don't use drugs myself I don't have any ethical problems with drug use and I'm frequently in the company of those who do use drugs. Every single one of my friends smokes weed regularly and are employed despite most of them being subject to drug testing during the hiring process. To me, all a negative drug test shows is that a prospective employee either doesn't use drugs(which is probably a relative rarity these days), or that they do use drugs but are either resourceful enough to find a way to beat the test or disciplined enough to plan ahead. I guess in this sense perhaps the tests do serve some purpose. My only issue would be with random unscheduled drug testing which to me serves little purpose, outside of jobs were impairment may pose a risk to others. Far more concerning to me are criminal records or poor credit being used to withhold employment from a large segment of our population.
nullrend 10y ago
And yet here I am, a lapsed tech support guy who started cooking for a living, trying to break back into tech and nobody will touch me. I don't do any drugs except alcohol and caffeine. But I don't have the right background anymore, so…
unprepare 10y ago
a lot of comments in here about how drug testing is ok for some positions, like truck drivers and the like. If your reasoning is impairment in some jobs could cause physical harm - surely a reaction time based test should be implemented for these workers to complete each morning before they turn on this heavy machinery. This would be much more effective in identifying unfit workers, doing it daily ensures that workers are prepared to work for the day when they come in. Its definitely disappointing seeing a supposedly educated group of people buying in so readily to ages old propaganda. I cant believe how many people think a pre employment drug test is going to keep truckers off meth - let alone completely legal and untested things like nodoz, cough syrup, sleep medicines, etc. I'd much rather drive around a trucker on marijuana than benadryl, and i'd absolutely rather drive next to a trucker who used marijuana 12 days ago than a trucker who is double dosing cough syrup and taking some nodoz to stay awake.

Why would an employer want to drug test employees? Do some still believe there is some kind of correlation between (prescription or self-medicated) drug use? From the article: > In Colorado, “to find a roofer or a painter that can pass a drug test is unheard-of,” Sure, it makes some sense for a few, select jobs like truck driving. But why would you care what your roofer or painter did last night, as long as the job gets done? If a prospective customer refused to buy your product unless you could prove no employee used Percocet or Vicodin while working, would you drug test your company for them?

fiatmoney 10y ago
It's a conscientiousness filter (particularly the pre-hire, never again variety). Also, at one point (perhaps even still) there were regulations on federal contractors above a certain size promoting drug tests.
iamthepieman 10y ago
If a prospective customer refused to buy your product unless you could prove no employee used Percocet or Vicodin while working, would you drug test your company for them? This is what hundreds and thousands of U.S. government intelligence contractor companies do. Of course for many of the smaller ones the USG is their only customer.
brandonmenc 10y ago
> But why would you care what your roofer or painter did last night If I'm a roofer, I don't want the guy holding my ladder to be hung over.
- CyberDildonics 10y ago
  Too bad alchohol isn't on the panel
  - Spoom 10y ago
    It is for truckers.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  They don't drug test for alcohol, and even if they did, it is only in your system for a matter of hours. As long as the person wasn't drunk WHILE taking the test, they would pass.
Spooky23 10y ago
You care because you don't want to deal with workplace injuries and druggies stealing your stuff. Roofers are high turnover, low/moderate skill folks. If the business model requires reliable guys, you may consider it.
- vkou 10y ago
  Better not hire any drinkers, then. They might steal your stuff, and pawn it for a fifth. No smokers, too. Nicotine withdrawal is hell.
  - arca_vorago 10y ago
    Indeed, you can see just how blind and hypocritical people are when it comes to drugs. What I find particularly amusing is that its usually some baby boomer who takes 5 different prescription meds a day, smokes cigars and drinks scotch regularly that will say just how evil mj is... The drug wars are created and controlled black markets for the darker of the global threeletters. Combine that with pharmaceutical self interests and unsetteling profits that the public tends to forget about, our entire idea and classification of medication is extrmely primitive and far too influenced by politics and corruption rather than science.
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Sounds like you've never worked outside of an office. Talk to a roofing contractor someday.

CapitalistCartr 10y ago

As the quote from the article says: “most people can’t pass the drug test because they don’t want to pass a drug test.” I work in manufacturing. We make it easy to pass. Several days from interview to test. That's every place I've been. And as the article suggests, its almost exclusively whites not passing. I figure its a culture thing.

aab0 10y ago
'Several days' doesn't sound like enough for a lot of drugs. Aside from quoting employers complaining about not being able to find employees, I wish the NYT had covered some more on the topic of, does drug testing even meaningfully help with finding better employees? Yes, it may be mandated or legally required of employers in a few cases, but that's far from universal; so are the rest doing it because it works, or because they just assume it works because everyone else has always done it?
- jlgaddis 10y ago
  "Several days" is typically plenty of time for almost all drugs except for marijuana, due to their half-lives. Those who regularly use larger amounts of drugs may need an extra day or two to pass but a week, for instance, should be more than enough for most people's levels to be below the thresholds that are tested against.
  - aab0 10y ago
    > "Several days" is typically plenty of time for almost all drugs except for marijuana, due to their half-lives. So enough for an unknown number of drugs and oh yeah - the most popular drug in the country after caffeine, alcohol, and nicotine?
shkkmo 10y ago
> Several days from interview to test Not enough time to piss clean from Cannabis, but enough for some of the harder drugs. > And as the article suggests, its almost exclusively whites not passing Doesn't that make drug tests a racist practice?

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

If you want a contract, loan, tax benefit or anything else explicit from the federal government or any contractor of the federal government - you have to institute drug screening policies, which are audited. edit: The implication I am making is that this is literally the only (IMO) good reason to have such a policy.

aianus 10y ago
Amazon definitely has government contracts but they don't drug test their engineers (or at least they never drug tested me). Any ideas how they get around it? Do AWS engineers get drug tested?
- AndrewKemendo 10y ago
  My guess would be that they do, but don't always exercise it (at least in your case). As a corollary I was an Active Duty Air Force officer for 7 years and have been in the reserves for two beyond that. I have only been drug tested once in those years. So having the policy to check the box and actually utilizing it, in hiring or otherwise, are different.
- viraptor 10y ago
  Do you actually work on anything related to those contracts? There could be strict separation in place and people without approval / clearance may not be involved at all.
  - aianus 10y ago
    No, the contracts were in AWS iirc and I did not work in AWS. (I realize it wasn't clear in my original comment, but that's why I'm curious about AWS engineers' experience).
smelendez 10y ago
Is this the law in question? http://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/asp/drugfree/require.htm http://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/asp/drugfree/require.htm It doesn't sound like testing is required--just telling employees not to use drugs at work, and taking action if they are caught doing so?

ASinclair 10y ago

Many professional jobs don't require drug tests. So is it really about finding the "best workers"? Could you imagine if software companies rejected people for marijuana use?

droque 10y ago
Probably something like the FBI http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fbi-cant-find-hackers-that-dont-smoke-pot http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-fbi-cant-find-hackers-t...
frogpelt 10y ago
The drug test is a screening method. It "weeds" out certain segments of people and makes it more likely you'll find a reliable employee. Prospective professional employees are screened using college degrees or professional experience.
cortesoft 10y ago
Yes. My software company got bought by a large corporation that drug tests new hires (because they do gov contracts, apparently), and it is WAY harder to find employees now. I know lots of developers who don't do drugs at all who refuse to take the test out of principle.

thedevil 10y ago

I see a different problem: lack of jobs that don't drug test. I don't do any drugs and never been a fan of weed, but I sometimes won't apply for a job if they drug test. I wish I could stick to this every time. The no-drug-screen screen is actually a good filter. Companies with drug-screening are, on average, more unpleasant to work at. Just say no to drug screening, kids. Edit: alright, to be fair, some of those jobs mentioned have good reason. But the jobs that tested me didn't

was_boring 10y ago
I also refuse to take drug tests. I also refuse to get security clearances, which makes it a little more challenging living in the DC area.

csense 10y ago

Drug testing is absolutely a good idea for jobs where worker impairment presents an imminent physical danger to lives and property (e.g. trucking, medical professions, powerline repair crews). Likewise, limited use of criminal background checks may be a good idea for certain jobs (a bank robber shouldn't be allowed to work in a bank). But the idea that these should be general conditions of employment across all industries is a problematic one. It creates an underclass of unemployable people, forcing them to become a drain on society when they could be productively employed (or encouraging them to become productively employed in gray/black market activities).

frogpelt 10y ago
Or maybe drugs are doing that anyway. And the companies are trying to screen for the people who will be gone after the first few paychecks. I've known a few Xanax addicts and meth heads. They're not exactly what I would call employable.
cortesoft 10y ago
Is it really a good idea, though? A guy can smoke a joint on the weekend and do a dangerous job on Tuesday. At the same time, passing a drug test doesn't mean you won't be intoxicated on the job. They don't test everyday, and lots of drugs (alcohol, cocaine, etc) get out of your system very quickly. I understand the desire (you don't want someone on drugs at work), but drug testing doesn't do a very good job of getting you that.
- pcr0 10y ago
  It's certainly fine for most drugs. The situation with weed is certainly the troubling one. You can test positive for it for almost a month after moderate use. Add to that fact its increasing legality and acceptance in the US and you've got a widespread employment problem.
thedevil 10y ago
I up voted your comment because we think the same way on this but your comment was better and less snarky than mine (although also less entertaining).

Inconel 10y ago

I don't find pre-employment drug testing terribly problematic, although I would be fine seeing it discontinued in most settings. While I don't use drugs myself I don't have any ethical problems with drug use and I'm frequently in the company of those who do use drugs. Every single one of my friends smokes weed regularly and are employed despite most of them being subject to drug testing during the hiring process. To me, all a negative drug test shows is that a prospective employee either doesn't use drugs(which is probably a relative rarity these days), or that they do use drugs but are either resourceful enough to find a way to beat the test or disciplined enough to plan ahead. I guess in this sense perhaps the tests do serve some purpose. My only issue would be with random unscheduled drug testing which to me serves little purpose, outside of jobs were impairment may pose a risk to others. Far more concerning to me are criminal records or poor credit being used to withhold employment from a large segment of our population.

nullrend 10y ago

And yet here I am, a lapsed tech support guy who started cooking for a living, trying to break back into tech and nobody will touch me. I don't do any drugs except alcohol and caffeine. But I don't have the right background anymore, so…

unprepare 10y ago

a lot of comments in here about how drug testing is ok for some positions, like truck drivers and the like. If your reasoning is impairment in some jobs could cause physical harm - surely a reaction time based test should be implemented for these workers to complete each morning before they turn on this heavy machinery. This would be much more effective in identifying unfit workers, doing it daily ensures that workers are prepared to work for the day when they come in. Its definitely disappointing seeing a supposedly educated group of people buying in so readily to ages old propaganda. I cant believe how many people think a pre employment drug test is going to keep truckers off meth - let alone completely legal and untested things like nodoz, cough syrup, sleep medicines, etc. I'd much rather drive around a trucker on marijuana than benadryl, and i'd absolutely rather drive next to a trucker who used marijuana 12 days ago than a trucker who is double dosing cough syrup and taking some nodoz to stay awake.