GTAA policy?

[aeromech]

With all the hub-bub over little Joe, did the rest of you notice this:

"If Hamilton is a drug user, his new employer wouldn't have known. Georgia Tech gives its departments discretion whether or not to drug test new hires, and the athletics department does not."

Is this a long standing GTAA policy, or someone's more recent brain fart? As high profile as we've just seen a job with the GTAA is, I'm really surprised that they would elect not to drug test new hires. Heck, I'm surprised they don't random drug test tenured employees given the potential for bad press. DRad needs to take another look at this policy before we have this happen again, maybe next time with a position coach or someone else we couldn't so easily afford to loose.

 

[Calvin forever]

In what way does a pre-employment drug screen prevent hiring employees who chose to drink and drive?

 

[ContactBuzz]

In what way does a pre-employment drug screen prevent hiring employees who chose to drink and drive?

If someone is irresponsible enough to fail a drug test, they probably exhibit other irresponsible behaviors.

 

[ncjacket]

If someone is irresponsible enough to fail a drug test, they probably exhibit other irresponsible behaviors.

So people who pass drug tests don't drink and drive?

 

[beej67]

I bet there's a correlation.

A pre-employment drug screen isn't really a test of whether you're a drug user or not, it's a test of whether you have enough responsibility and willpower to lay off for a month. It's a willpower test. I can see Contactbuzz's point, that such a willpower test might also translate to having the responsibility to not drink and drive.

 

[BuzzCzar]

I bet there's a correlation.

A pre-employment drug screen isn't really a test of whether you're a drug user or not, it's a test of whether you have enough responsibility and willpower to lay off for a month. It's a willpower test. I can see Contactbuzz's point, that such a willpower test might also translate to having the responsibility to not drink and drive.

he could be taking the drug test drunk, for all you know, they dont test for alcohol

i doubt that there is a correlation, besides there are available products that allow you to flush your system so that nothing shows up and it takes one day, so where is that willpower requirement?

 

[Yukonwreck]

I bet there's a correlation.

A pre-employment drug screen isn't really a test of whether you're a drug user or not, it's a test of whether you have enough responsibility and willpower to lay off for a month. It's a willpower test. I can see Contactbuzz's point, that such a willpower test might also translate to having the responsibility to not drink and drive.

Precisely--the pre-employment drug screening does nothing but substantiate that the candidate had no substances on board the day of the sampling. In our industry, construction, it is very common to test an employee whenever there is an on-the-job or motor vehicle accident involvement. The pre-employment testing is primarily driven by worker's comp insurance carriers that want to attempt to reduce their risk and establish the mythical "drug free" workplace. There is a huge potential for abuse of the testing too. A former employer used blood pressure, tobacco use, cholesterol and glucose levels to exclude hires that might be a future drain on the company funded health insurance plan. In most interviews the employer will take the applicant's word for their experience, their education, their family situation----but the applicant MUST MEDICALLY PROVE that they are not using drugs---on that specific day. Quite a boon for the drug testing industry.....but not a very reliable indicator of past, present, or future drug use.

 

[beej67]

he could be taking the drug test drunk, for all you know, they dont test for alcohol

The last job I had that drug tested was at APAC (road construction) and their test definitely tested for alcohol. We discovered on a random screening one of the guys who worked in the warehouse was completely plowed, .2 BAC or so, at 10 am in the morning. Old dude. We always just figured he was a little slow, turns out he was a chronic, serious alcoholic who hid bottles around the warehouse.

(APAC paid for him to go into treatment, instead of firing him)

besides there are available products that allow you to flush your system

The effectiveness of those products has always been questioned, though. There's no magic drug test passing pill. People who get hired for jobs who have to pass a piss test almost universally fall into two categories: those who quit for a month, or those who don't pass.

Blockbuster Video used to actually do a hair follicle test (they may still do) which will detect drug use going back months or years.

 

[Calvin forever]

If someone is irresponsible enough to fail a drug test, they probably exhibit other irresponsible behaviors.

Yeah, probably. I know when I used to smoke weed I would sometimes be irresponsible and not go to class, excessively eat potato chips, play playstation 2 until the wee hours of the morning, etc.

I can see Contactbuzz's point, that such a willpower test might also translate to having the responsibility to not drink and drive.

I suppose thats possible, but I certainly wouldn't bet the farm on any correlation. Someone is able to hold off on smoking for a month, or lays off cocaine for just a few days, and suddenly they're more likely to not drink and drive?

 

[ContactBuzz]

So people who pass drug tests don't drink and drive?

Not necessarily, but the intent of a drug test is to minimize the risk of hiring someone who makes questionable decisions (not eliminate the risk, that would be impossible).

The only other way (that I'm aware of) to predict DUI patterns is a criminal background check which most companies do in addition to the drug screening.

 

[law_bee]

it is at least a 30 day window for pot on the drug test so obviously that could show up. If they wanted to test his hair then even coke could show up well into the future.

Some speculate that is why Britney Spears shaved her head to cover her illicit drug use.

 

[JelloYacketDeleted062020]

it is at least a 30 day window for pot on the drug test so obviously that could show up. If they wanted to test his hair then even coke could show up well into the future.

Some speculate that is why Britney Spears shaved her head to cover her illicit drug use.

On the 30-day window, that is a fallacy. The 30 days is what it would take for everything to get out of your system if you were a heavy user with a long history and the correct body type (think overweight, where the fat in your body stores the proof longer).

If you were to never smoke pot, and then smoke once at a concert or something, then the "evidence" would be gone in a pretty short period of time, especially if you were very fit (which you may have a better chance at, considering you don't smoke).

The other thing to know is that most drug screens test for those "magic pills and potions" that people use to mask their drug use, and that can cause you to "fail" a test because they detect the masking agent. Additionally, most of those masking agents tell you to take their product and then drink gallons of water, when the water is what is really doing you the most good. I could tell you to eat peanuts and drink gallons of water and you would get almost the same effect.

Or so I've heard.

 

[BuzzCzar]

On the 30-day window, that is a fallacy. The 30 days is what it would take for everything to get out of your system if you were a heavy user with a long history and the correct body type (think overweight, where the fat in your body stores the proof longer).

If you were to never smoke pot, and then smoke once at a concert or something, then the "evidence" would be gone in a pretty short period of time, especially if you were very fit (which you may have a better chance at, considering you don't smoke).

The other thing to know is that most drug screens test for those "magic pills and potions" that people use to mask their drug use, and that can cause you to "fail" a test because they detect the masking agent. Additionally, most of those masking agents tell you to take their product and then drink gallons of water, when the water is what is really doing you the most good. I could tell you to eat peanuts and drink gallons of water and you would get almost the same effect.

Or so I've heard.

cranberry juice, that is what the players told me that they use. just like vinegar, cranberry juice has lots of acid to help cleanse the blood, and its a diuretic. cranberry is used in medical purposes to act as an anitoxidant (like blueberries) and also to help with urinary tract infections although that has been shown not to be due to the acidity but rather to an interaction with bacteria

 

[aeromech]

So people who pass drug tests don't drink and drive?

People who pass drug tests usually don't drink and drive with a refer in their ashtray. People subjected to random drug testing sometimes refrain from using illicit drugs at all, atleast that's the theory.

 

[gth816f]

IBM doesn't drug test prior to hiring, and I was surprised about that. Maybe it's becoming more of a trend in workplaces not to do this?

And aeromech brings up a good point...even if not smoking weed doesn't correlate to not driving drunk, it probably does correlate to not driving drunk with weed in your car. And make no mistake about it, the fact that he had weed was a major part of the story...it just indicates overall boneheaded-ness and lack of responsibility.

 

[aeromech]

Precisely--the pre-employment drug screening does nothing but substantiate that the candidate had no substances on board the day of the sampling. In our industry, construction, it is very common to test an employee whenever there is an on-the-job or motor vehicle accident involvement. The pre-employment testing is primarily driven by worker's comp insurance carriers that want to attempt to reduce their risk and establish the mythical "drug free" workplace. There is a huge potential for abuse of the testing too. A former employer used blood pressure, tobacco use, cholesterol and glucose levels to exclude hires that might be a future drain on the company funded health insurance plan. In most interviews the employer will take the applicant's word for their experience, their education, their family situation----but the applicant MUST MEDICALLY PROVE that they are not using drugs---on that specific day. Quite a boon for the drug testing industry.....but not a very reliable indicator of past, present, or future drug use.

I have a good friend who is a small business owner. He does random drug screenings of his employees due to liability issues. You would be amazed at how many people quit on the spot knowing they can't pass.

I'm not going to argue that drug screening is perfect, or can't be beaten/fooled; but it at least shows the employer is trying.

 

[aeromech]

IBM doesn't drug test prior to hiring, and I was surprised about that. Maybe it's becoming more of a trend in workplaces not to do this?

I think it depends on the job. If an IBM employee (non-executive) gets caught with a kilo of coke in his car, it really doesn't reflect much on IBM. If a GTAA salaried employee gets caught with Pot, it reflects on all of GT. I mean really, I could care less if a low level janitor in the department gets caught with drugs (unless he's selling to players or something); but a salaried employee is a much different story.

 

[gsu_paintballer]

IBM doesn't drug test prior to hiring, and I was surprised about that. Maybe it's becoming more of a trend in workplaces not to do this?

And aeromech brings up a good point...even if not smoking weed doesn't correlate to not driving drunk, it probably does correlate to not driving drunk with weed in your car. And make no mistake about it, the fact that he had weed was a major part of the story...it just indicates overall boneheaded-ness and lack of responsibility.

Pre-employment drug screen is ONLY allowed if it is relevant to job safety.

 

[aeromech]

Pre-employment drug screen is ONLY allowed if it is relevant to job safety.

If that's true, the what the AJC reported is false:

"Georgia Tech gives its departments discretion whether or not to drug test new hires, and the athletics department does not."

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time the AJC got something wrong.

 

[Yukonwreck]

I have a good friend who is a small business owner. He does random drug screenings of his employees due to liability issues. You would be amazed at how many people quit on the spot knowing they can't pass.

I'm not going to argue that drug screening is perfect, or can't be beaten/fooled; but it at least shows the employer is trying.

but it also shows how rampant drug use is in the society. Drug use per se does not always mean drug abuse.