Drug test question

[ajbera]

An associate of mine is interviewing for a city job, and he had 2 questions I couldn't answer, so I pose them here:

For city, civil service-type positions, do they have to notify you during the interview if a drug test is required? Or indicate such a test in the job announcement itself?

Is it possible that they could spring the test during the interview? Or do they wait until you've been "hired"?

The position is in California, if that makes any difference.

Looking back at my various jobs (including working for several years at a Federal research laboratory, with access to nuclear reactors and particle accelerators), I realize I've never been drug tested, so I have no idea what the usual policies are.

[Sava]

tell Cheech to put teh joint down

[Pekka]

What does it matter, you don't do drugs so you don't need to know the answer to this NEXT ONE PLEASE and lock this thread quickly!

[Mrs. Tuberski]

In my experience the drug test is atually done during the hiring process. You are informed you have the job pending results of the routine drug screen. which i done the day you sign and fill out all of the paperwork accepting the position.

[chequita guevara]

What she said.

[Dr Strangelove]

It often depends upon the position. Transportation dirvers and machine operators have certain mandatory requirements, they have to have pre-employment testing and to be tested in a fixed frequency as well as for "cause". Other types of workers can be tested per the employer's policy. You can be tested pre-employment, periodically, randomly, and for "cause". It all depends upon the employer's policy. The employer is required to have a written policy in place and to not discriminate.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Huh I was not aware that the employer was bounded by law to announce the drug test in the Job announcement. I always tought that that was done as a courtesy to those applying so to not waste anyones time such as if you cant pass a drug screen no need to apply. As the doc said they can test you at any time after hired. Most of the time it is done the day ur hired since most employers now days will not waste time or money to start to train you if you cant pass the drug test. Then they can do it at anytime of their choosing if they have policies stating they have random or cause drug testing in place.

[Grandpa Troll]

Well

In North Carolina
(which in this case is NOT located in California)

I hire CDL positions 99% of the time.

A CDL (Commercial Driver Licence) requires "pre-employment drug screening.

In addition the following conditions permit & require drug screening

1) Post accident/incident screening

2) Semi-annual (DOT Physical every two years)

3) Random

4) Suspicion


These are all outlined in FMCSR standards.

By the way, we also do alcohol screening.

I would think an employer has every right to pre screen or screen after being hired without any grounds for the employee (prospective or current) to stand on as long as reasonable cause, such as outlined above, exists.


Why anyone would think any govt type of job wouldnt require what is considered a minimum requirement is suspect to me as a manager.

I would really stand back and take a hard look at any applicant that woiuld hold this as a bartering point

Gramps

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
It often depends upon the position. Transportation dirvers and machine operators have certain mandatory requirements, they have to have pre-employment testing and to be tested in a fixed frequency as well as for "cause". Other types of workers can be tested per the employer's policy. You can be tested pre-employment, periodically, randomly, and for "cause". It all depends upon the employer's policy. The employer is required to have a written policy in place and to not discriminate.

almost like the Dr knew from experience

after my post I was rereading and saw his

we also require any workmans comp claim to have a drug screen done.


Gramps

[chequita guevara]

In Florida, the state gives companies that require drug screening a break on their unemployment insurnace. Consequently, a lot of jobs down here require it. Oh, I'm coding high!

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In Florida, the state gives companies that require drug screening a break on their unemployment insurnace. Consequently, a lot of jobs down here require it. Oh, I'm coding high!

as they should

not to get too far off topic, but if anyone knows anything about w/c modifiers it is uncontionable to not do everything whithin your power to keep that down.

drug screening helps because of the pitfalls of drug and alcohol abuse (injuries,lower work efficiencies,tardiness and missed days) and I speak from personal experience on both sides people.

[Datajack Franit]

working junkies

[ajbera]

Thanks for the info so far. FYI:

1) It's pot, nothing harder. Associate can quit if needed, but prefers pot as his relaxant of choice (as do I).

2) Position is white collar, non-medical or anything involving health/hazardous materials/etc.

3) Position is high-level supervisory sort of job.

As it stands now, my associate will begin abstaining so he is clean for any possible interview/pre-employment surprises, and until he finds out if the position will require regular or random testing.

And, no, it's not me. I prefer small-biz, non-testing type positions for myself. I like my herb.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by ajbera
Thanks for the info so far. FYI:

1) It's pot, nothing harder. Associate can quit if needed, but prefers pot as his relaxant of choice (as do I).

2) Position is white collar, non-medical or anything involving health/hazardous materials/etc.

3) Position is high-level supervisory sort of job.

As it stands now, my associate will begin abstaining so he is clean for any possible interview/pre-employment surprises, and until he finds out if the position will require regular or random testing.

And, no, it's not me. I prefer small-biz, non-testing type positions for myself. I like my herb.

As earlier stated I am a past perfprmace enhancer/user what your word choice is is your choice.

Pot is much worse than people say, it fries the brain, causes signifigant lung damage (forget about the stuff they spray on it!)

Can quit if he wants..

That reminds me of Richard Pryor doing a standup after he was burned freebasing which is not smoking pot but the line he used was funny but sad.

He said "Man, I got a buddy who been snorting Coke for 20 years and he aint hooked!"

I am just sharing not judging or trying to run your life
When I was there my friend the last thing I was gonna do was tune into a lecture


So

I leave you with my former business advisors from the 70's

[Sava]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll

Pot is much worse than people say,

actually... it's a lot safer than the propaganda

it fries the brain,

how? it does not kill brain cells... it simply releases THC into the brain which stimulates the brain's naturally occuring cannabinoid receptors, causing the "high"... the only significant effects of marijuana are short term memory disruption... and scientific testing on this is sketchy at best. I recently had a psych profile (which followed about a 4 month marijuana binge, not only did my IQ test above 150, my memory scores were around 130-140...)

causes signifigant lung damage

in order to have lung damage, one would need to smoke a lot of pot... we're talking... probably in the amount of joints a cigarette smoker smokes cigarettes... most people smoke small amounts

(forget about the stuff they spray on it!)

I grow my own, so I don't have to worry about that.

Alcohol is worse on the brain than marijuana. And my neurologist has shown me research that suggests cell phones may even be worse than marijuana.

So please stop spreading lies GT. Thanks.