brunoafh wrote:There's plenty of ways to get around a drug test, I'm sure he will be alright.
In just a few hours notice? I guess there are some masking agents out there, but they must cost a fortune, and I'm sure the doctors are also pretty up to speed on masking agents.
Luke wrote:In just a few hours notice? I guess there are some masking agents out there, but they must cost a fortune, and I'm sure the doctors are also pretty up to speed on masking agents.
Masking agents aren't too expensive, I've used one that cost about $50 and had success with it. A lot depends on how far the company is going with this though. Most of the time they'll just mail out notices to employees saying "report here on this date", and you'll piss behind closed doors. If that's the case, you can use fake urine, or borrow somebody's urine. Nasty part about borrowing someone's urine is that you'll have to keep it taped to your thigh or somewhere close, both to conceal it and to keep it warm.
brunoafh wrote: Nasty part about borrowing someone's urine is that you'll have to keep it taped to your thigh or somewhere close, both to conceal it and to keep it warm.
Yeah, I'm fine with just not doing drugs if it saves me from strapping piss to my thigh.
brunoafh wrote: Nasty part about borrowing someone's urine is that you'll have to keep it taped to your thigh or somewhere close, both to conceal it and to keep it warm.
Yeah, I'm fine with just not doing drugs if it saves me from strapping piss to my thigh.
I still think testing for drugs at a job, unless you are clearly underperforming or endangering the safety of yourself and others, is a violation of your basic human rights and privacy. It is also demeaning.
dsheinem wrote:
I still think testing for drugs at a job, unless you are clearly underperforming or endangering the safety of yourself and others, is a violation of your basic human rights and privacy. It is also demeaning.
This is a sensitive subject and I will tread lightly, but as a director of sales I would never hire someone who couldn't lay off pot for three weeks. It's more of a show of character than a "he smokes pot" situation. In fact I wouldn't mind if the employee smoked in recreational settings, but not being prepared for any test is a no no in my book.
Luke wrote:but as a director of sales I would never hire someone who couldn't lay off pot for three weeks.
So you would take into account/base your decision on what they do or don't do in their personal time when you hire them/fire them, even if there's no evidence that those activities are impacting their performance?
Luke wrote:It's more of a show of character than a "he smokes pot" situation. In fact I wouldn't mind if the employee smoked in recreational settings, but not being prepared for any test is a no no in my book.
That's as stupid as forcing someone to bungee jump to show they have character...
"You can't take the jump, you're not cut out for the yarn business."
dsheinem wrote:
I still think testing for drugs at a job, unless you are clearly underperforming or endangering the safety of yourself and others, is a violation of your basic human rights and privacy. It is also demeaning.
This is a sensitive subject and I will tread lightly, but as a director of sales I would never hire someone who couldn't lay off pot for three weeks. It's more of a show of character than a "he smokes pot" situation. In fact I wouldn't mind if the employee smoked in recreational settings, but not being prepared for any test is a no no in my book.
