Truth w/a side of subtle humor.....

[JM28Cardiff]

Originally Posted by NovaKane

I'd be curious to know too, since it might help inform the article a little more.

Sadly, it could be anything from school bus driver all the way up to a federal employee. More and more companies (even some Wal-Marts and Home Depots) are starting to use these tests. The pre-employment tests are pretty typical, but the random tests are rarer. I believe private companies in the U.S. can request a urine test of their employees at the company's discretion. Here's one 2002 article from Reason magazine's website for reference.

Crikey, i've never heard of that before. I'd be offended if I was going for a job or already in a job and they asked for a urine test. I dont take any illegal substances, but I still wouldn't want to give a urine sample just for an ordinary job.

[JLM]

Originally Posted by NovaKane

I'd be curious to know too, since it might help inform the article a little more.

Sadly, it could be anything from school bus driver all the way up to a federal employee. More and more companies (even some Wal-Marts and Home Depots) are starting to use these tests. The pre-employment tests are pretty typical, but the random tests are rarer. I believe private companies in the U.S. can request a urine test of their employees at the company's discretion. Here's one 2002 article from Reason magazine's website for reference.

I can understand testing for bus drivers and for mills like where Tat-X works as there are safety issues and you'd want to make sure that people are sober when doing their job. Struggle to see why store employees might need to be randomly tested.

I haven't read the article yet. Maybe I'll be persuaded after I've read it.

[NovaKane]

Originally Posted by Jonathan74

I can understand testing for bus drivers and for mills like where Tat-X works as there are safety issues and you'd want to make sure that people are sober when doing their job. Struggle to see why store employees might need to be randomly tested.

I haven't read the article yet. Maybe I'll be persuaded after I've read it.

I can't say for sure (maybe some of the lawyers here can weigh in), but I suspect the main reasons (aside from, as you noted, saftey issues) are along the lines of

• company image (to keep out the riff-raff, so to speak)
• a general deterrent to keep employees from using drugs or alcohol while on the job.
• a C.Y.A (Cover Your A**) measure so that the company is not liable for an intoxicated employee's actions.
• help reduce future medical expenses incurred by such usage

[JLM]

I am a lawyer!

The main thrust of the article is that there was little evidence that drug testing actually does what it is supposed to achieve, and makes the point that drug users can defeat tests.

I don't know about any liability issues as I'm not familiar with US laws. Certainly, drug testing here is not the routine. I've never been asked to pee into a cup as part of a job application, and I don't know of anyone who has.

[devlinboy]

i get drug tested at work, its ironic cause we are a concert hall and last night the place was full of weed smoke.