BillnDollarBaby wrote: 
That is why their company failed. less to do with the drugs, more to do with the lack of structure and ineffectiveness of the biz that carried over into the home.

I can understand a drug policy if the workplace safety depends on it. Otherwise, it's b.s. If an employee can come in and do their job responsibly, it's nobody's biz. And, do they do the same for alcoholics?

 Exit2Eden wrote: 
Corporate whores!

 hippiechick wrote:  

When it comes to receiving federal funds, those rights go "right" out the window!

 rosedraws wrote: 
  That sucks.  Haven't they heard the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"
I should probably note that the aforementioned boss is now a long-recovered cokehead.  My earlier post may not have been clear about that.   
Edit: noW, I typed not.    As in, "not a long-recovered cokehead" instead of "now a long-recovered cokehead."    double

 rosedraws wrote: 
Wow! I wouldn't want to have my income reliant on that company, because I would not allow anyone to snoop around like that, and I have nothing to hide. I just believe in that old-fashioned thing called FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

 rosedraws wrote:  
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
<CITE: 41USC701>

                       TITLE 41—PUBLIC CONTRACTS

                     CHAPTER 10—DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE

    "No Federal agency shall enter into a contract with an individual
    unless such individual agrees that the individual will not engage in
    the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or
    use of a controlled substance in the performance of the contract"

good stories bdb.

We found out that these crazy requirements are from the company (let's call it "B") that hires the contractors for the bigger company (let's call it "A"). 

So, the poor Art Director at A needs to hire freelancers, and has to use B, although they virtually never deal with office or white collar personnel. 

We also found that it appears that Company B is submitting to something called the "Drug Free Workplace Act"... which is a government thing that requires companies to do some sort of drug management in their company in order to receive federal funds over $25K.  I've never heard of this thing before!  Drug testing is not required, but it's one way of proving you're doing something, instead of the messy work of proving that you're providing education and support.

None of this explains the extreme privacy release they require for their background check. It's a blanket "you can look anywhere and everywhere for info about me and I will not hold you liable for any consequences that may result from you prodding around." 

I used to work for a company that had a drug policy very carefully worded to the effect of, "Dont' do drugs on my time and I won't ask what you do on yours."  When I asked the boss about it, his reply was, "I was a cokehead when I wrote that.  The insurance savings isn't enough to matter.  And I can fire anyone that I even think has violated my policy, no questions asked."  It worked wonderfully for him.  He's extremely successful and his company has been in business for around 30 years.

Another company I worked for had no policy at all.  Drug use was rampant among management and employees.  They're bankrupt now.  Our jobs were a constant mess because our employees were using on the job.  The managers knew and said nothing because they were usually a party to it, or at the very least were buying from the employees.  It was a clusterf*ck.

I think pre-employment and random tests are useless in most cases, but having some drug policy is worthwhile.  It would have given company #2 a reason to get rid of a few bad seeds if they wanted to, but they turned a blind eye to everyone because one of the worst offenders was their kid. 

 rosedraws wrote: 
ROSE! I've really missed you!



I know that Rotary International here in town requires drug tests before they will even interview a contractor. Lots of designers I know pass on the opportunity to work there.

It is unreasonable, but they get to make the rules. I can understand if you are driving heavy machinery or something, but otherwise it sounds like an invasion of privacy. It's nobody's biz what you're doing unless it's affecting your work, imo.

Drug testing for contract workers??

One of our larger clients has started requiring all contract employees (freelancers) to have a drug test.

Even us sitting in our home offices at a desk job. 

So far, we're refusing.  Not only does it seem unreasonable, but I think the company is crossing the line between what constitutes an employee vs a contractor. 

Anyone have experience with this?

ALSO... they are requiring a release to do a background check.  NFW.

PS... all these forms are the ones they use for persons applying for employment.

Join LEAP!

 Lazy8 wrote:
 
Well, I wouldn't call it bs, I would call it an over-generalization. There certainly ARE companies with draconian policies, and Servo may have encountered one or more up close. I think he's stating the more extreme situations, but there is a continuum of policies, from lax to ridiculous.

I've had to take pre-employment tests a few times. I wouldn't stand for it now though, because I've been working a long time and I believe my work can stand on its merits.

I don't believe in random testing either, although I DO agree with testing under 'just cause' conditions: coming to work very late, obviously smelling of booze or broccoli or whatever, being involved in an accident, stuff like that. Testing workers at random creates an air of fear, but testing when conditions warrant are more likely to create an air of safety. I've worked in machine shops where you could be killed or injured in too many ways to mention: in those environments, an impaired worker is a real danger. Driving a commercial vehicle, same thing: if a driver is involved in an accident, the police are almost certainly going to demand a drug test: there is no reason to think an employer wouldn't do likewise.

On the flip side, sitting at a desk all day, writing code or answering phones or whatever, the consequences of being hung over or wakin' and bakin' are not so dire. Yeah, if you come in smelling like you slept with a skunk, that's one thing, but if you come in and DO YOUR JOB, well, it's none of mine what you did last night. Have a beer at lunch if you want, I don't care as long as you get the job done. Even when I worked at Texas Instruments DSEG (Defense Systems) back in the late '80s, it was no big deal to have a beer at lunch. And we had good sense enough not to abuse the privilege. It was simply about common sense, no matter which side of the paycheck you were on.

c.

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 

...seems a lot of R-people are/were in this or some sort of related to this business...hmmm...

 Lazy8 wrote:
 


Lemme think: State of NJ didn't drug test.
Rohm & Haas required a complete physical (I mean, complete! ) but no drug test.
Applied Data Research didn't.
Computer Associates didn't.
Kraft General Foods did. And. It. Was. Awful! (Think: walk down a public hallway with a skimpy - as in, doesn't cover your naked butt - gown, with cup in hand, to a toilet room that didn't even have a sink.)
Affiliated Computer Services did.
IBM didn't.

Looks like the software companies are where it's at, for you stoners out there.

 Welly wrote: 
We don't. At least half of this is bullshit.

Maybe Servo owns his own personal BAC meter (hey, great excuse to stay home from work, btw) but I've been served alcohol by every single employer I've ever worked for, on work premises. This includes Fortune 50 companies and mom & pop shops.

Most people won't test positive for ganja after 3 weeks, but that's never been a problem for me—I've never been tested. Ever. Maybe this is just dumb luck, and I missed the wave of pre-employment testing that accompanied the "just say no" era, but I've worked for two multinational corporations and neither ever wanted me to pee in a jar for them. I've had friends who've been tested pre-employment but don't know anybody who had to fill a jar after signing a contract. Admittedly there are jobs where that is an issue—bus drivers, airline pilots, long haul truckers, to name a few—but it is not a widespread problem in Corporate America.

Nothing you did while under age is available after you turn 18 unless you were tried as an adult.

Unless charges were filed when you got your bong confiscated nobody will be able to find out in a normal check of records.

Now I have to add a tedious disclaimer: no, I don't approve of random drug testing for every worker bee. I don't care why you're acting like a crackhead, acting like a crackhead is unacceptable at work, and I don't need a drug test to detect incompetence. This does not constitute legal, medical, or financial advice. See a doctor if symptoms persist. Call your pharmacist—he's probably lonely. Send your mother a card, you never write! And tie your shoes, you look like a bum.

 Welly wrote: 
...I think Servo is painting a worst case scenario...a couple of factoid exagerations though as thc will not stay in a system for years...90 days tops if you the use was chronic with an obese person w/a slow metabolism...as low as 15 days if the use was minimal and the person was very healthy...

 Welly wrote: 
There was a big discussion about it the other day. In the end we decided that it wasn't in our power or best interest to vote Servo off the island.

what?  Oh, drug testing? Yeah, well generally it's not as bad as Servo makes it out to be there. There are some professions and some corporations that are pretty whacked about it, but in my eperience even in those there are a lot of ways around it. I used to work as a contractor at a machining facility that had government contracts. About once a month ~20% of the staff would call in sick. I'd come in and notice everyone was out, and about then I'd spot the guys in white coats (these guys had REALLY bad jobs, Drug testing was on demand, and they handled everything not physically connected to my person - I couldn't touch the cup).

In general, we are too hung up on drugs. But as with most things, there is a big range of reactions and punishments depending on the specifics. Like the man said "I'm shocked to find out gabmling has been going on here". 

 Servo wrote:  

I'm glad I don't live in a place where this is true. Why do you guys put up with it?

...the craigslist dealing weed thing has been going on pretty much since it's inception...I am suprised the cops took as long as they did to bust some of the more obvious people...

New York's special narcotics prosecutor is putting pressure on Craigslist to curb ads for drugs. According to the Daily News, prosecutor Bridget Brennan wants the website to develop "screening mechanisms" to curb the high number of narcotic ads on the site, which are often posted using such slang as "ski" (cocaine) and "Tina Turner tickets" (crystal meth). Cops have been trolling the site and making busts, which include the high-profile arrest of Citigroup vice president Mark Rayner for selling 50 Ecstasy pills and 7 grams of cocaine for $1,200. Brennan says it's "like shooting fish in a barrel," and the crackdown seems to be working already: A quick search of Craigslist this morning didn't turn up any ads for narcotics—just posts like these for weed whackers, and a "Special 420 Yoga Mat with extra thick great comfort for the end of the day when you need that special feeling."