How hungry would you have to be to pee in a cup.

@dadpad,

dadpad wrote:

I have been asked if would be prepared to take a drug test as part of pre interview. I was shocked at first but realised that the company was only asking if i was prepared to take one. They'd had users before. I got the job and no test was required.
I cant see what the big deal is.

1. you have nothing to hide
2. get a friend to pee in a cup for you if you do. they are not gonna watch you.
3. The company wants clean employees thats their prerogative

I dont see where civil rights or privacy issues come into it. Do it or dont continue the interview process.

If you are hired to do a job, and you do it buzzed out of your mind they are getting what they paid for... If you screw up while buzzed up, and hurt them, or hurt some one; then you should get what you paid for, which is the cost, or the free trip to jail... But if anyone thinks wages alone are enough to buy control of every aspect of a person's life, they are wrong, and we are wrong to not explain that to them... It is the way jobs take over our lives, in ways that would amaze our primitive ancestors who lived, and often into old age on far less of goods or hard work- that is our true enemy, and not all those who as a result must escape their reality...

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I understand your concerns, max.
I can't see why evidence of your skills as a software professional, suitable professional references, a positive interview & the usual health check-up wouldn't be enough for an employer. Then, if your work performance turns out to be not up to their requirements, they can always fire you, can't they?

It surprises me to hear that some employers in the US require finger prints & urine tests, etc, from potential employees. I do see such requirements as over the top. All you want is a job. All they require is someone who can do the work required of them to their specifications. The rest of your life is none of their business, it is your private life.

In Australia, in my field (education) potential employees are required to undergo a mandatory police check before being accepted as suitable for employment, because we are working with children. I don't have a problem with that. But then, I see the responsibilities of working with children as being quite a different matter to working in an adults only environment, as you would be.

You ask how hungry would you have to be to sign the form for the urine test? Sadly, in a climate of high unemployment, employers can demand that potential employers submit to quite inappropriate levels of scrutiny. And some employees may feel they have no choice ( because of their financial circumstances) but to submit to whatever the company requires. But that does not necessarily make such an attitude by the employers right. If your inclination is to cancel the interview because of your strong personal reservations, & you're in a financial position to do so, then yes, definitely look for a more suitable work environment. I wouldn't blame you in the least.

1 Reply

@dadpad,

Quote:

I have been asked if would be prepared to take a drug test as part of pre interview. I was shocked at first but realised that the company was only asking if i was prepared to take one. They'd had users before. I got the job and no test was required.
I cant see what the big deal is.

1. you have nothing to hide
2. get a friend to pee in a cup for you if you do. they are not gonna watch you.
3. The company wants clean employees thats their prerogative

I dont see where civil rights or privacy issues come into it. Do it or dont continue the interview process.

Of course privacy issues come into it. Once you accept the flawed "you have nothing to hide" argument then there are no privacy issues. If you have "nothing to hide" you will let the police search your house, etc. etc.

But the real issue here is how this employer views and treats their employees. I want to work for a company that values their employees, treats them as adults and respects them. In my view (since I have decide whether each company is a company I want to work for, my view is the important view) drug tests are a big sign that they aren't a good place to work.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Quote:

In Australia, in my field (education) potential employees are required to undergo a mandatory police check before being accepted as suitable for employment, because we are working with children. I don't have a problem with that. But then, I see the responsibilities of working with children as being quite a different matter to working in an adults only environment, as you would be.

I worked for a school once.

I had to sign a consent for something called a CORI which is a criminal background check. I didn't mind signing this since doing such a background check was relevant and rational because I was going to be working with kids. I also had to take a TB test which I did willingly.

I think the difference for me is the relevance of the screening to the job I will be doing.

The drug tests are a meaningless intrusion. As you say, anyone not performing in the job can be screened through performance. There are plenty of people who screw up in a job without drugs involved and the system handles this just fine. Then of course there are plenty of people who might enjoy a joint on the weekend that doesn't at all impact job performance. Of course, this is none of an employer's business.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I totally agree with you, max.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Once you accept the flawed "you have nothing to hide" argument then there are no privacy issues. If you have "nothing to hide" you will let the police search your house, etc. etc.

i would let the police search my house if the asked, i've been pulled over for no apparent reason and let the police look in the trunk (i'm guessing they were looking for someone who fit my description and car, stocky, shaved head white guy in a red compact)

my only concern would be a screw up at the lab, which is way more common than you might think, but it wouldn't stop me from providing the sample

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

To me, it woud mean nothing; non-issue.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

Quote:

i would let the police search my house if the asked, i've been pulled over for no apparent reason and let the police look in the trunk (i'm guessing they were looking for someone who fit my description and car, stocky, shaved head white guy in a red compact)

Of course it is your right to let the police search you. Still, reading this is a bit shocking to me. In the US protection from unwarranted search is a basic civil right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. There is no way a police officer is going to search my house without a warrant (there may be an exception in extreme circumstances, but it will be a very extreme circumstance in deed).

Civil rights, including privacy and limits on police power, is a key to any free society.

Philosophically speaking, by not using your rights you run the risk that they are weakened when you need them. If everyone let's the police search their house without a warrant, it makes it a lot harder when you need your privacy (which does not always involve a crime).

Civil rights were invented for a reason. I use them even when I don't need them because I want to make damn sure they are there when I do.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

the same applies in canada, but letting the police search my home or property doesn't diminish my personal freedom if i let them, now if they stormed my house, i might have an issue

freedom resides within me, not without in my mind, as long as nobody can get inside my head i'm free

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Would you ask to see a search warrant before they searched your property?

1 Reply

@msolga,

at home i would ask why, but i doubt i'd stop them (unless i knew they were there for something i'd specifically done of course), at this point in my life i trust the police to not stitch me up for something i haven't done (maybe that's wrong, but i'd rather live in that frame of mind then the other)

i never even asked the cop who pulled me over that time what he wanted, he asked me where i'd been, and where i was going, he asked if he could look into the trunk, i let him, he thanked me and sent me on my way, as i said, i assumed i fit a description, but i knew it wasn't me they were after

1 Reply

@djjd62,

OK.
I would definitely ask to see a search warrant.
Not that I've ever been in strife with the law, or that I'd have anything in particular to hide, either. But it's a right & I'd expect the police to respect that. If they didn't have a warrant, I'd be very concerned. They can't just enter & search someone's home for whatever reason, surely?

2 Replies

@msolga,

no i doubt it would ever happen, but let's say a neighbour had something missing from a garage and thought they'd seen me around there and the police while investigating asked to look around the property or in my house or garage, i'd have no problem

they might be back later after i punched the neighbour but that's another story (i kid, i'm no fighter)

3 Replies

@djjd62,

Quote:

no i doubt it would ever happen, but let's say a neighbour had something missing from a garage and thought they'd seen me around there and the police while investigating asked to look around the property or in my house or garage, i'd have no problem

In that case I would definitely say no.

The police have no business mucking around in disputes between neighbors. In this case the police would be acting in my censorious neighbor's interest. I would send the police away with a polite but firm "No". The message to my neighbor would be "take a hike".

The examples I would invent as exceptions would involve terrorist emergencies or lost victims of child predators.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

I had a similar thing happen, a couple of years back. The police asked (very nicely) if it was OK to check my side of the fence after a theft & break-in at the next door neighbour's, to try & figure out how the thief had entered/left their property. I happily obliged. No problem. But that's quite different to having a house searched without a warrant, though ...

Max, we've side-tracked your thread a bit here.
Apologies.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

no i doubt it would ever happen, but let's say a neighbour had something missing from a garage and thought they'd seen me around there and the police while investigating asked to look around the property or in my house or garage, i'd have no problem

Yeah, I don 't imagine that the criminal woud hide the loot on your property; nah, forget it.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

This is a everday thing, THESE DAYS, How much do you love having money in your pocket?

0 Replies

Damn! I'm really surprised by those claiming this is okay or suggesting that someone go along with it. I know urine tests, background checks and credit history are common now, but how the hell did we allow that?

I peed in a cup once. I REALLY personally objected to it and felt yucky after complying. I was hired. Within 3 months I had another job that did not ever mention a drug test, hair or blood sample or background check.

If the person interviewing me doesn't have the ability to judge character based on presence, demeanor, body language, etc. during numerous interviews, then the company needs a new job interviewer, not a pee test from me.

I agree with you, Max. I'd have to be pretty damn hungry to do it again.

2 Replies

@squinney,

It just goes to show that no one has any more rights than food in their bellies...

1 Reply

@Fido,

I was gonna say that I would NEVER do it again, which is how strongly I am against it, but I could see where I would if it were say a job with full benefits that paid a million dollars and I only had to work for them for a few days and no torture or overly strict oversight was involved.

(Is that better?)

1 Reply

How hungry would you have to be to pee in a cup.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know