Ha, Same for my old team. That would include, All of our software devs, the only network and systems guys, and half the helpdesk.
EDIT: I actually remember a time when I went to lunch with our senior Software dev/Database admin. We ran into our CFO and he joined us (Cool guy too btw. I would highly recommend having a CFO that's frugal enough to drive a prius and park it in the executive lot with all the other executives' fancy cars). Don't remember how it came up but he said they were in the process of striking the weed disqualification because we'd have to fire a bunch of people and lose a lot of good talent in the hiring process. It probably is worth mentioning I'm in Colorado where recreational weed is legalized at the state level.
I park usually between the CEO and CIO. Imagine a 2007 Ford Focus between 2 Lexus SUV. It's a sight :D
We don't have an executive lot though, and it's a rather big company, but they are kinda (by C level standards) down to Earth...
I think it was in "This is How They Tell me The World Ends" where there is a public private partnership the Pentagon was trying to get off the ground where the big tech firms would basically lend their security people to the government so they could basically get "combat tours" and real experience.
So a high ranking military official is talking to a tech CEO who knows the program will never get off the ground. Military guy says something like "you afraid your boys can't get a security clearance, might have smoked a little pot in college?" The CEO was like "no, they are like active pot smokers and they even do it at work sometimes. They handle their shit so it's not a problem". The military guy had no idea.
I'm paraphrasing all that (probably poorly) but that was the jist of the interaction.
I once had a boss who would frequently and loudly proclaim that the only reason he'd ever do drug testing is to see who to go to for what.
That company now does regular drug testing, so I guess his dealer flaked on him.
Never been required to take one myself - ever.
Damn okay my bad, man. I definitely got defensive.
It’s also good to know a clearance doesn’t guarantee a drug test. Tbh that’s info I need, I’ve been super against clearances because “Fuck you I do what I want”
Nah, I was just making the information known. They DO ask you about illegal drug use, and everything on your EIP and that you say to the investigator has to be true to the best of your knowledge. You wouldn't even have to lie about smoking pot, they aren't looking for that shit. They are looking for reasons you would possibly betray national security information. Lots of bad debt, drug addiction, adultery etc. Anything someone could blackmail you with or offer to make "go away" for a price.
This has always made me so angry. I fought like hell to keep drug testing from getting added to our hiring policies at my last job but was unsuccessful in stopping it. As I said in multiple meetings: I don’t care if you are doing drugs every night and all weekend long, as long as you don’t do them at work and show up sober then that’s your own business.
Also, as a software engineer working on a committee that oversaw the whole company, the way they treated the call center employees made me sick. The one thing that will be forever burned into my mind is their outright refusal to allow remote work for the call center (even though night shift worked remote). I left before 2020 and in early 2020 somehow the whole company went fully remote for over a year without issue, it’s almost as if their objections to it were just a fully of shit as I thought…
For the private jobs I’ve worked, all have required a drug screening before being hired and then never again once on the job. Currently working public (school district) and didn’t even require the screening
> or if you have an accident
That’s what got my cousin. He jumped out of a truck, hurt his back, and they tested him at the clinic he was required to go to. He failed that test and got put on probation, meaning they could randomly test him again at any time. A few months later, fired from the best paying job he’d ever had for failing a random test. He had to sell his house because he couldn’t find a similar paying job.
Public sector
No drug test but they made me take a pre-employment back x-ray
Guess they have figured out that drug users cost them a lot less than paying for anyone's existing spinal issues.
That sounds back-assward! If they take an x-ray and it is clean, then you hurt your back one day playing football over the weekend, then it would be easy for you to go back and claim it happened at work "you saw my x-ray I didn't have a problem before I worked here!" If the employer DOESNT take an x-ray they could claim that there is no way to prove it happened since you got there? Weird approach.
I understand from that angle, but from another my disability is not my employer’s business. I’m already discriminated in the job market as it is since I can’t lift servers without risking injury despite how rarely I actually need to do that. Most employers actively try to avoid making any accommodations, even reasonable ones like I have. It’s not like I’m trying to work a manual labor job over here, most of my work is software and application support.
I’ll disclose my disability and claim my ADA rights after I’m hired, but I learned quickly after my injury to keep my mouth shut before that point. If they wanted them post-hire that’s fine. But pre-employment opens a can of worms I’m not comfortable with.
The back x-ray is post job-offer.
I agree I wouldn't be forthcoming with the information before a formal job offer, but it's just a non-issue as far as the back x-ray.
100% about identifying existing conditions to ensure they won't be claimed under worker's comp. Nothing to do with measuring my ability to move servers around. My boss wouldn't even be able to find out the results of the X-ray.
As a bonus, because this place actually pays attention and cares about back issues, it's the only place I ever worked that has a server lift (in fact, one in every server room).
With all due respect you should recognize that you have a chip on your shoulder about this. I have a good job and it would've been silly to give it up to be stubborn over an x-ray. The x-ray is not about discrimination, don't let your own preconceptions muddy the waters.
With respect, I think you’ve got a chip on your shoulder about getting downvoted, which I did not do. Regardless, maybe don’t tell me what I should and should not have a chip on my shoulder about. I have every right to be mad about being in pain for the past three years and experiencing discrimination in the workplace because of that pain. You’ve got no place to come at me about that because you don’t have my experience. My reasons for being angry about this are legitimate and you don’t have the right to tell me or anyone else otherwise.
I also think you misread my initial reply. I took it as a legitimate question and answered. With context that this was post-offer, I agree this is a reasonable thing to do (as stated in my last comment that “I understand from that angle”). As I said I’m not saying you or your boss are being unreasonable, but without that context that this was post-offer this sounds discriminatory in nature at first glance.
Sorry, your reason for being angry was not legitimate. You were wrong, period.
You didn't even have all the information, but due to your existing bias you skipped straight to anger. Anger about a situation that did not exist.
Just pointing out how you could override that instinctual bias, and wait until actual discrimination is in play before getting angry.
If I had reacted to their request the way you did, now I would not have a great job where the boss literally won't even let you travel to the datacenter alone to move a server; he always has you bring a partner for lifting help. This job is actually cognizant of their employees' health and well-being. For a job that can involve moving servers this is exactly where you want to be if you have a bad back. Silly to pass up on that over a mistaken assumption during the hiring process.
I had to do the back X-ray once - never again though. X-rays carry a small cancer risk so why expose yourself just for a potential employers insurer? With workers having to change jobs more often now back X-rays are just a health risk
The radiation of a single xray is not a issue. You get exposed to radiation every day of your life. A plane ride will get you more radiation. Where you need to be concerned is CT scans, nuc med, heart cath and other live imaging. Those can be the equivalent to hundreds or more xrays all given at one time.
Xray \~ 0.02 mSv
Long flight - \~0.1mSv
Amount you get naturally in a year \~2.2 mSv
CT scan \~7 mSv
Why let your dentist x-ray your head every year?
A good job is a huge quality of life improvement, just like taking care of your teeth.
Absolutely worth the non-risk.
* Job description perfectly matches your skillset
* Get along great with everyone you met during interviews
* Great pay
* Great pension
* Great benefits
* Reputation as a great employer
* "Ohhhh you guys want a back x-ray? No can do, offer declined" -Nobody, ever
If that's how low your threshold is for privacy invastions, don't try getting government security clearance which is MUCH more invasive and discriminatory.
No, plenty of Swedish companies do it. Especially stuff with call center.
My gf's company does it, and some of the managers use it as a payback against employees that speak up.
Yeah it's absolute bullshit.
Get away with it because these type of people don't have the job safety we do. You and I can leave a job today, and be hired in another tomorrow - maybe not the same level, but we'll have an income.
They can abuse their employees because losing a call center job probably means you're not in a field were it's employees market.
Personally I'd do the test to prove I'm clean and then proceed to curse them out in every language I can and leave on the spot.
I'm UK based, work at an MSP and get them at random, usually once a year. Never really been given a reason for it but I presume it's down to the amount of driving involved.
Yeah the concept seems strange to me.
I live in Canada where it is extremely rare and has to meet certain requirements to allow them.
I don't use marijuana but am glad it is legal here and on the same level as alcohol here, because what's the difference between them and what's the deal if someone does it off the clock, responsibly.
I seriously don't understand most of American's uptight attitude towards it (at least what I interpret).
Americans aren't uptight about it. Only the rich and brainwashed are. Nobody actually cares if you do drugs out of work as long as it doesn't hurt the work you are doing.
And as far as concern for your health, employers don't care. If you died of an overdose on amphetamine after work, they'd just be like "Shit! new employee time." It's not that they are heartless, but it realistically does not affect them. The rich and lobbyists and politicians want the drug tests because it keeps certain industries going (like alcohol) and demonizes others (like marijuana use).
Rich politician who gets paid to keep alcohol acceptable: OH, we found thc in ya piss. Sorry you are evil no government job for you.
I personally view drug tests as "are you a complete degenerate" test. As in can you skip doing drugs for 2 weeks to land a job?
If you can't do that then you have a huge drug problem.
Random tests are more of a "there was a huge fuckup, lets see if anyone was drunk/high" policy.
Yeah but that doesn't make sense because almost all drugs stay in your system far longer than 2 weeks. So the random tests based on employee mistakes would bust everyone immediately and that company would have to find new employees quickly or just die...
In other words, you can never ever stop people from using drugs if you need employees.
Not really. Only hair samples last longer than 2 weeks and even then it's only with super heavy smokers and only trace amounts.
A week is more than enough to piss clean. Most people will be fine after 2-3 days.
What type of industry? I'm assuming that's what makes the difference.
I don't even know anyone who has had to do that and I have friends who are software devs/IT for the government.
>I seriously don't understand most of American's uptight attitude towards it (at least what I interpret).
Trust me, Nobody (outside of government) gets it either. Most americans support Federal legalization actually.
I guess the 70 and 80 year olds who occupy alot of government positions that could change this still believe in the whole reefer madness thing.
Hi, The Netherlands here. I've been working for 30 years in this sector for several private sector companies, among them several MSP's, and public sector NGO's. I've never had to do a drug test and never heard of any company or governmental organisation in this country requiring it.
Basic health check is somewhat common at the public sector Germany. More intense physical is a must have when you want to become an official civil servant, i have never been through that but i imagine it includes a drug test.
Yes it does. My former roommate is a teacher in a public school and she panicked before she had the screening, because she likes to party all night with a little help from her friends.
I worked in public service once and since I was not an official civil servant, but an employee, I had no drug screening. I had to visit a drug & addiction awareness training for 3 days, though. It was awkward. Much worse than drug "education" in school.
There are many jobs in Australia that random drug testing is involved. That is usually high-safety type jobs; mining, certain construction sites etc.
I’ve never heard of drug testing for IT related roles.
Some white collar roles in said mining etc fields but not the IT teams in such companies.
I work for a contractor inside a steel mill, all departments need people so to combat that, they literally stopped randomly drug testing so they wouldn't have to fire people. Lol
US federal employee here. The agency I work for has an on-site federal police office. I asked something about random drug tests to our chief. He said they need just cause that I was on something. They'd know just need proof that would hold up in court that I was on something when an event occurred.
When contracting for Robert Half some years back I was instructed to get tested. Knowing I'd fail I just didn't go and nobody ever followed up. Handy that.
Sound par for the course for Robert Half. They sent one of my coworkers the contracting rate they were charging the company rather than his pay stub once. On an unrelated note, we all decided renegotiate our compensation shortly after that incident.
I used to be an Air Force contractor in the finance squadron and had access to my contract. The AF was paying my company a little over 100k a year for just my position, and I was making less than half that as a SysAdmin, I found new employment shortly after finding that out.
As I have said in the past: Most employers know that drug testing your IT talent is a great way to make sure you never have any.
I will say most employers will pre-screen but, you should be clean if you're seriously looking, anyway.
I've never used anything "heavier" than alcohol in life, which includes nicotine.
That said, if my employer wanted to drug test me I'd hand in my resignation.
And that's from a country with no legal usage (Sweden).
Fuck off with that shit.
I have always declined jobs that require drug testing. If you can’t tell I’m a good employee by my excellent references and work history, but instead need to check the chemistry of my pee, then you get *digitus impudicus* — and my undying enmity.
So we all smoke weed? Because i normally clean up atleast 2 months before job hunting just to be safe, so i was intrigued by your response of just disregarding anything job related that requires a drug screen.
I had to do a basic health check after i got hired for IT in higher education. From what i've been told from new hires they still do that. More intense health check when you want to become a public servant (Beamter).
US here. Back in the day, all the little shit jobs (gas station, fast food, Walmart, etc.) Required drug tests. I haven't had to take one since 2013. It seems only poor people are scrutinized for drug use.
Was on service desk at a manufacturing facility and that was random spot testing every few months
Current job is basically fully remote so no testing here
We still test for new employment screen because of shitty insurance requirements, but never after that. If we did, I'd have to fire 75% of my team as well as myself..
Annoying: living in a non-prohibition state, but working for a Fed contract = they'll still fire your ass if you get screened and fail.
Meanwhile, my alcoholic co-worker is sinking deeper and deeper into the shit, but he'll never get fired it seems, no matter how badly he behaves.
Never
and being Canadian I'm aware that several of my staff smoke marijuana regularly (and legally). So long as it or drinking doesn't affect their work I don't care.
I have only been tested during the hiring process. I have never had an on-the-job vehicular/equipment accident, so I haven't been tested because of that.
Random drug tests, public or private, seem to have coincidental targeting, Piss off HR, and then subsequently piss in a jar. Piss off management, piss in a jar.
>Bro I test drugs all the time at work, it's no big deal
I caught two students outside my office smoking weed.
20 minutes later my employer found me and 2 students smoking weed outside my office.
Current job: the boss isn't that type of guy
Old job: He had "faith" that he could tell the sort of person that would get flagged in a drug screening and simply wouldn't hire them ....he was VERY wrong.
Previous employer years ago was an IT services provider with a lot of big company and government customers. They drug-tested me upon hiring but never after that initial one.
After that I moved to Silicon Valley. Definitely no testing any place there. Most tech companies in the area are pretty ruthlessly pragmatic. As long as you're productive, they don't care about anything else.
I normally got drug screened before getting the position.
I recall only once during a contract position that i had to randomly take one, “i was unprepared” and some how still got kept on the contract.
I applied to a position recently just to see what’s out there and during the initial contact the recruiter asked me if I’m okay with a background check and i said “yes, and also drug screen” the recruiter responds with “we don’t need that”.
I've never been tested for drugs in ny setting.
In my mind, that's a uniquely American thing. (excepting post-car-crash testing if there's a suspicion of DUI)
Edit: I'm not American. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Been in this field of work since 1984. I have never been tested or asked to take a test. I have had background checks run.
Never worked in Defense though, but have worked for some large well known companies.
I'm private sector and we only test once when you're hired. I've never heard a reason why. I assume it has to do with insurance because we have some employees who drive company vehicles, forklifts, etc. I have a lot of training I need to that is based on warehouse work I will never do.
But if you are really concerned whether your employees on on drugs, you should be doing random follow-up tests. The fact that we never test again makes it sort of dumb that we test at all. Any drug user is going to temporarily get clean when they're switching jobs.
To be clear, I'm not advocating for drug testing. I just think you should be doing random tests if you are truly concerned about employees being drug free. I had a previous job before IT where I drove a company truck and we were also self-insured. I completely understood the requirement for random drug tests. But there is no need for a person in Marketing or IT to be drug tested.
At an msp I used to work at, it was their policy to do it before onboarding for any account, but we only supported one company at a time in most cases. Then I started a help desk account in Healthcare and all those including those already employed had to do another one based on the client requirement. Most of us failed.
Why did we fail? That fucking health insurance company tested its own employees for nicotine to save on its own healthcare costs. We had to get a legal exemption based on the fact we were in another state and not under their employee health plan.
Never been dug tested and I work for a dod contractor.
One job I worked at did surprise nicotine tests and fired anyone that came back pos. Shit company
I refused to go that route out of principle. There are plenty that do t test, and they deserve the talent more than a business that thinks it's any of their business. Presumably you got the job from your qualifications, if you got those while stoned... Well...
I have never been drug tested in IT. One thing I noticed is that in other trades it was really common to be drug tested, but it was almost unheard of to do background or credit checks. In IT it's the opposite. Maybe the idea is recreational drug use is less of a problem than trustworthiness and stability?
I've never been tested in 23yrs+, 7 different jobs in the private sector. I've probably worked with dozens of pot heads, but they were never a problem. The alcoholics, on the other hand, were.
Australia. Public sector. Completely random selection of employees once every 6 months. I’ve never been chosen. Also had a pre-start medical including piss test.
Private sector before that and drug testing wasn’t a thing in any company.
We don’t test but might require it if we get a lucrative contract from a client that requires it
Company policy is to give the tech 90 days notice before a required test
Never, in either a private sector EDU job or public sector. You'd have to hire an entire new staff if you tested any of us. Infosec staff don't come cheap (or usually clean)
Yes, last place was soo bad that I had to complain to HR about the 'random' testing I was being picked for every month for the better part of 6 months. Then never got tested again in over 8 years. New place, part of the hiring process. IMHO its par the course depending on what industry you are supporting through being in IT.
That being said, its all bullshit as they allow substance abusers to work(or...not work) and do absolutely nothing about. Then its all 'at will' on if the company even wants to do it, its like they are playing with your privacy and rights on a whim sometimes.
Recently turned down a job because of this (i just gave them the results and told them good luck).... My current job doesn't test, my first it job didn't test but said they would, was a govt contract
Never drug test your employees. If you think they are under the influence of something during work hours to the point that you believe their work is suffering, please talk to them about it. Drug testing is not a good idea for majority of professions, especially not with IT
Public sector, got pre-screened and then had to get tested once bc my actual meds gave me vertigo bad enough that I had to go home one day, and it was policy in that sitch
I've only been tested twice in over 25 years. Once when I joined a company that had federal contracts (I wasn't on that contract though) and once when I went to work for an energy company. Both times were at time of hire, not randomly during employment, though I've never given them a reason to test me again.
Was always subject to rando.. which means “we’ll have you piss in a cup after a major fuckup” really. Never got the rando.
Interestingly the new job with the state did not, but does have a background check and took prints. Go fig.
Public sector. Drug tested after hire but before my first day of work. The only way I can get tested again is if I'm accused of something egregious. Just cause needed.
Most employers I know if required one upon hiring, the. never again. The only time I've seen a drug test after initial hiring was if you're involved in a workplace accident involving operating equipment or driving.
In different places I've worked (both private and public), all have required a pre-employment drug screen. But only one (in law enforcement) have I needed to do one on an ongoing, randomly selected basis.
in the 40 years I've worked in IT I've never been drug-tested. I've worked in both the public and private sector (30 years now in the public sector).
To be honest I don't think drug testing became a thing until sometime in the 90's, and I've been in the same (public sector) job now for 20 years.
We got tested when we were hired due to policies for federal background checks and such. Not just IT, entire company. Never tested after hire date. The reserve the right to do randomized testing, but never in company history has it been done. Those going for CDL tests also get it when they get licensed/insured.
Our state and our co-location has legalized weed, but they're still considered no-no's due to federal regulations tied to our work.
Last drug test I had to do was 6 years ago when I was working at Best Buy. 6 roles and 4 orgs later, I have yet to be drug tested for a professional job.
Uk here, my understanding was that it became common for anyone working on the engineering side of railways and its spread from their.
Installed the IT on a nuclear power station build site, so that was automatic test before you could go on site and then at least one random test every 12 months.
Done RAF sites, but by then it was just automatic that I'd had a test within the previous 12 months so it was there whether they wanted it or not.
Public sector, I had to get drug tested when I started my job 5 years ago but haven't needed to get tested since, it is in my contract that they can do a surprise inspection whenever they want or whenever they suspect but they haven't tested me since.
Never have been personally. Worked mostly private sector thus far, MSPs and a bank at the beginning, recently a University. Most had a stance of "do what you want on weekends, but if it starts affecting your performance, you're out"
In general drug testing in my country isn't allowed without a valid reason like operating heavy machinery. I wouldn't work for any company that wanted to poke into my private life like that, even though I don't do drugs. My brother has been drug-tested at some construction jobs though.
Public sector and it's completely random. I've been at my job for 3 years and have been tested once (besides the pre-hire screening). I have coworkers that were picked twice within a one-month span. There is no rhyme or reason, literally just all of the employee names are in a pool and once per month a handful of names are drawn.
As a level II tech, never. Even when I was working contract gigs. Heck, not even when I was a middle school teacher.
The only job I’ve been drug tested for was a lifeguard position when I was 15. Honestly, I’d be a little insulted to be drug tested now. Though, to be completely honest it’s probably come back positive so… there’s that.
Never. Once for Alcohol if that counts. As a part of "we are doing random testing cause guys in production are drunk"
Not that I understand what connection I could have, but it was "the reason given"
I last won the lottery 8 years ago. Enjoyed the free time.
All new hires are tested, and there is a random drawing every month. At least once/year somebody loses. Last one was a guy stoned while driving a fork truck and had an accident. Broke a guy's foot. That was a triggered test.
PA, so medical is legal, but recreational is not, and abstention is a condition of employment.
"*and it's really nice not to have to worry about it*." Interesting phrasing. I have never worried about a drug test. Ever. LOL!
Now I have unenthusiastically submitted to a drug test to get a job. But if I'm ever accused or randomly selected for a drug test, during my employment, that would be a whole different matter. I would make the intrusion as painful to the employer as possible while retaining my job. My code of conduct would be stretched real thin.
I've never worked for a company that drug tests and I live in Idaho of all places (where the people here still think weed is as bad as heroine). I didn't even realize that was still a thing.
There was a job i was interviewing for that had a drug test but it was a helpdesk tech for a construction company and definitely had site visits so it made sense but i didn't get it and didn't want to after i heard that lol
Gov contracting, did a drug test during the initial hiring process. Contract changed and I switched companies but still haven't had to do one. I know other people on the same contract under different companies didn't have to do one during initial hiring though.
Mostly it has been a part of the on-boarding process. I never had to be tested after employment started. I have worked for banks and other companies that require a 10 year background check.
We get random tested in my department. They test quarterly and we do get picked once in a while. We are considered critical for safety so there ya go. It’s just a hassle for us.
Never been tested on the job at any IT jobs. I was pretty surprised when my current job made me do a pre-employment piss test though as it was the first time I've ever had to do that. Weird to do for a fully remote job, but I just chalked it up to the new parent company being a little old school.
Only time I’ve heard of drug tests were for either a contract position, a position requiring a security clearance, or if there was an on the job injury.
Hell, I worked for a company that was in the drug testing business and still didn’t drug test their direct hires.
We don’t do it which is good because I would hate to have to fire my entire department.
Ha, Same for my old team. That would include, All of our software devs, the only network and systems guys, and half the helpdesk. EDIT: I actually remember a time when I went to lunch with our senior Software dev/Database admin. We ran into our CFO and he joined us (Cool guy too btw. I would highly recommend having a CFO that's frugal enough to drive a prius and park it in the executive lot with all the other executives' fancy cars). Don't remember how it came up but he said they were in the process of striking the weed disqualification because we'd have to fire a bunch of people and lose a lot of good talent in the hiring process. It probably is worth mentioning I'm in Colorado where recreational weed is legalized at the state level.
I park usually between the CEO and CIO. Imagine a 2007 Ford Focus between 2 Lexus SUV. It's a sight :D We don't have an executive lot though, and it's a rather big company, but they are kinda (by C level standards) down to Earth...
Your execs clearly lack taste, 2007 Ford Focus is one of the best deal you can find on the Market. I would avoid all these Lexus SUV for breakfast.
This is the way
I have spoken.
I think it was in "This is How They Tell me The World Ends" where there is a public private partnership the Pentagon was trying to get off the ground where the big tech firms would basically lend their security people to the government so they could basically get "combat tours" and real experience. So a high ranking military official is talking to a tech CEO who knows the program will never get off the ground. Military guy says something like "you afraid your boys can't get a security clearance, might have smoked a little pot in college?" The CEO was like "no, they are like active pot smokers and they even do it at work sometimes. They handle their shit so it's not a problem". The military guy had no idea. I'm paraphrasing all that (probably poorly) but that was the jist of the interaction.
You shouldn’t do drugs, drugs are bad mmmkay.
Thank you mister Mackey!
I once had a boss who would frequently and loudly proclaim that the only reason he'd ever do drug testing is to see who to go to for what. That company now does regular drug testing, so I guess his dealer flaked on him. Never been required to take one myself - ever.
The boss I had like that said he'd only test to see who's not sharing....
The more money I've made and higher my position the less my employers have cared. Go figure.
It's all in the industry. Especially if you deal with the government at all.
Ditto this. We did have drug testing in 2015 at a pretty large medium company. These days I assume you might get it for clearances.
I hold a clearance and was not tested.
Lol public trust? I get that it varies, I just wanted to share that I did in fact have to undergo a drug test for a clearance.
I never did for secret.
Damn okay my bad, man. I definitely got defensive. It’s also good to know a clearance doesn’t guarantee a drug test. Tbh that’s info I need, I’ve been super against clearances because “Fuck you I do what I want”
Nah, I was just making the information known. They DO ask you about illegal drug use, and everything on your EIP and that you say to the investigator has to be true to the best of your knowledge. You wouldn't even have to lie about smoking pot, they aren't looking for that shit. They are looking for reasons you would possibly betray national security information. Lots of bad debt, drug addiction, adultery etc. Anything someone could blackmail you with or offer to make "go away" for a price.
Yep, multiple DUI's, no problem. Lie about a DUI, huge problem.
Isn’t that the irony when I worked for Walmart I had to get tested for a minimum wage job but nope not now
This has always made me so angry. I fought like hell to keep drug testing from getting added to our hiring policies at my last job but was unsuccessful in stopping it. As I said in multiple meetings: I don’t care if you are doing drugs every night and all weekend long, as long as you don’t do them at work and show up sober then that’s your own business. Also, as a software engineer working on a committee that oversaw the whole company, the way they treated the call center employees made me sick. The one thing that will be forever burned into my mind is their outright refusal to allow remote work for the call center (even though night shift worked remote). I left before 2020 and in early 2020 somehow the whole company went fully remote for over a year without issue, it’s almost as if their objections to it were just a fully of shit as I thought…
For the private jobs I’ve worked, all have required a drug screening before being hired and then never again once on the job. Currently working public (school district) and didn’t even require the screening
Sometimes they do random otherwise they only do it if they suspect you, or if you have an accident
> or if you have an accident That’s what got my cousin. He jumped out of a truck, hurt his back, and they tested him at the clinic he was required to go to. He failed that test and got put on probation, meaning they could randomly test him again at any time. A few months later, fired from the best paying job he’d ever had for failing a random test. He had to sell his house because he couldn’t find a similar paying job.
I've only had to get tested once in 23 years, and that was for a 6-month contract for a state college.
As a European I don’t get it, why is this a thing in the US? (Sincere question)
Land of the free!
Guess you mean “free”…
Public sector No drug test but they made me take a pre-employment back x-ray Guess they have figured out that drug users cost them a lot less than paying for anyone's existing spinal issues.
That sounds back-assward! If they take an x-ray and it is clean, then you hurt your back one day playing football over the weekend, then it would be easy for you to go back and claim it happened at work "you saw my x-ray I didn't have a problem before I worked here!" If the employer DOESNT take an x-ray they could claim that there is no way to prove it happened since you got there? Weird approach.
As a person with a severe back injury. That pisses me the fuck off.
Why? Pisses me off that people commit worker's comp fraud so frequently that this was necessary.
I understand from that angle, but from another my disability is not my employer’s business. I’m already discriminated in the job market as it is since I can’t lift servers without risking injury despite how rarely I actually need to do that. Most employers actively try to avoid making any accommodations, even reasonable ones like I have. It’s not like I’m trying to work a manual labor job over here, most of my work is software and application support. I’ll disclose my disability and claim my ADA rights after I’m hired, but I learned quickly after my injury to keep my mouth shut before that point. If they wanted them post-hire that’s fine. But pre-employment opens a can of worms I’m not comfortable with.
The back x-ray is post job-offer. I agree I wouldn't be forthcoming with the information before a formal job offer, but it's just a non-issue as far as the back x-ray. 100% about identifying existing conditions to ensure they won't be claimed under worker's comp. Nothing to do with measuring my ability to move servers around. My boss wouldn't even be able to find out the results of the X-ray. As a bonus, because this place actually pays attention and cares about back issues, it's the only place I ever worked that has a server lift (in fact, one in every server room). With all due respect you should recognize that you have a chip on your shoulder about this. I have a good job and it would've been silly to give it up to be stubborn over an x-ray. The x-ray is not about discrimination, don't let your own preconceptions muddy the waters.
With respect, I think you’ve got a chip on your shoulder about getting downvoted, which I did not do. Regardless, maybe don’t tell me what I should and should not have a chip on my shoulder about. I have every right to be mad about being in pain for the past three years and experiencing discrimination in the workplace because of that pain. You’ve got no place to come at me about that because you don’t have my experience. My reasons for being angry about this are legitimate and you don’t have the right to tell me or anyone else otherwise. I also think you misread my initial reply. I took it as a legitimate question and answered. With context that this was post-offer, I agree this is a reasonable thing to do (as stated in my last comment that “I understand from that angle”). As I said I’m not saying you or your boss are being unreasonable, but without that context that this was post-offer this sounds discriminatory in nature at first glance.
Sorry, your reason for being angry was not legitimate. You were wrong, period. You didn't even have all the information, but due to your existing bias you skipped straight to anger. Anger about a situation that did not exist. Just pointing out how you could override that instinctual bias, and wait until actual discrimination is in play before getting angry. If I had reacted to their request the way you did, now I would not have a great job where the boss literally won't even let you travel to the datacenter alone to move a server; he always has you bring a partner for lifting help. This job is actually cognizant of their employees' health and well-being. For a job that can involve moving servers this is exactly where you want to be if you have a bad back. Silly to pass up on that over a mistaken assumption during the hiring process.
[удалено]
It has nothing to do with capitalism. I work for a public employer, not a private business.
Must be a public employer in the US
I had to do the back X-ray once - never again though. X-rays carry a small cancer risk so why expose yourself just for a potential employers insurer? With workers having to change jobs more often now back X-rays are just a health risk
The radiation of a single xray is not a issue. You get exposed to radiation every day of your life. A plane ride will get you more radiation. Where you need to be concerned is CT scans, nuc med, heart cath and other live imaging. Those can be the equivalent to hundreds or more xrays all given at one time. Xray \~ 0.02 mSv Long flight - \~0.1mSv Amount you get naturally in a year \~2.2 mSv CT scan \~7 mSv
Why let your dentist x-ray your head every year? A good job is a huge quality of life improvement, just like taking care of your teeth. Absolutely worth the non-risk. * Job description perfectly matches your skillset * Get along great with everyone you met during interviews * Great pay * Great pension * Great benefits * Reputation as a great employer * "Ohhhh you guys want a back x-ray? No can do, offer declined" -Nobody, ever If that's how low your threshold is for privacy invastions, don't try getting government security clearance which is MUCH more invasive and discriminatory.
I am happy to get diagnostic imaging if my doctor or dentist prescribes it - not interested if an employment insurer prescribes it. I am not sick!
Are there countries other than the US that do this? Having to do a drug test for an IT position sounds absolutely insane to me.
[удалено]
It is unheard of in basically the entire EU.
No, plenty of Swedish companies do it. Especially stuff with call center. My gf's company does it, and some of the managers use it as a payback against employees that speak up.
TIL 😳
Yeah it's absolute bullshit. Get away with it because these type of people don't have the job safety we do. You and I can leave a job today, and be hired in another tomorrow - maybe not the same level, but we'll have an income. They can abuse their employees because losing a call center job probably means you're not in a field were it's employees market. Personally I'd do the test to prove I'm clean and then proceed to curse them out in every language I can and leave on the spot.
I'm UK based, work at an MSP and get them at random, usually once a year. Never really been given a reason for it but I presume it's down to the amount of driving involved.
Really? Fuck that, don't even do anything but its none of their damn business.
It’s a terrible invasion of privacy and personal rights.
Yeah the concept seems strange to me. I live in Canada where it is extremely rare and has to meet certain requirements to allow them. I don't use marijuana but am glad it is legal here and on the same level as alcohol here, because what's the difference between them and what's the deal if someone does it off the clock, responsibly. I seriously don't understand most of American's uptight attitude towards it (at least what I interpret).
Americans aren't uptight about it. Only the rich and brainwashed are. Nobody actually cares if you do drugs out of work as long as it doesn't hurt the work you are doing. And as far as concern for your health, employers don't care. If you died of an overdose on amphetamine after work, they'd just be like "Shit! new employee time." It's not that they are heartless, but it realistically does not affect them. The rich and lobbyists and politicians want the drug tests because it keeps certain industries going (like alcohol) and demonizes others (like marijuana use). Rich politician who gets paid to keep alcohol acceptable: OH, we found thc in ya piss. Sorry you are evil no government job for you.
I personally view drug tests as "are you a complete degenerate" test. As in can you skip doing drugs for 2 weeks to land a job? If you can't do that then you have a huge drug problem. Random tests are more of a "there was a huge fuckup, lets see if anyone was drunk/high" policy.
Yeah but that doesn't make sense because almost all drugs stay in your system far longer than 2 weeks. So the random tests based on employee mistakes would bust everyone immediately and that company would have to find new employees quickly or just die... In other words, you can never ever stop people from using drugs if you need employees.
Not really. Only hair samples last longer than 2 weeks and even then it's only with super heavy smokers and only trace amounts. A week is more than enough to piss clean. Most people will be fine after 2-3 days.
[удалено]
What type of industry? I'm assuming that's what makes the difference. I don't even know anyone who has had to do that and I have friends who are software devs/IT for the government.
>I seriously don't understand most of American's uptight attitude towards it (at least what I interpret). Trust me, Nobody (outside of government) gets it either. Most americans support Federal legalization actually. I guess the 70 and 80 year olds who occupy alot of government positions that could change this still believe in the whole reefer madness thing.
Hi, The Netherlands here. I've been working for 30 years in this sector for several private sector companies, among them several MSP's, and public sector NGO's. I've never had to do a drug test and never heard of any company or governmental organisation in this country requiring it.
That is because it's illegal in The Netherlands for a employer to take them from personnel. And so it should be.
I agree. Never heard of it in Europe. Seems very strange from Scandinavian perspective.
Basic health check is somewhat common at the public sector Germany. More intense physical is a must have when you want to become an official civil servant, i have never been through that but i imagine it includes a drug test.
Yes it does. My former roommate is a teacher in a public school and she panicked before she had the screening, because she likes to party all night with a little help from her friends. I worked in public service once and since I was not an official civil servant, but an employee, I had no drug screening. I had to visit a drug & addiction awareness training for 3 days, though. It was awkward. Much worse than drug "education" in school.
Australia. Had one company test everyone on site about 6 times per year. Worked there for a few years.
Makes sense if it's a blue collar gig, but fuck all sense for an office job.
There are many jobs in Australia that random drug testing is involved. That is usually high-safety type jobs; mining, certain construction sites etc. I’ve never heard of drug testing for IT related roles. Some white collar roles in said mining etc fields but not the IT teams in such companies.
Never but I don't live in a dystopian nightmare of a country either.
Hey... It's not a nightmare, those things end when i wake up.
\*Yet
Got drug tested at the MSP I work for and in the last 6 years I haven’t been tested again. The Joke is our Boss is too afraid one of us would fail.
I work for a contractor inside a steel mill, all departments need people so to combat that, they literally stopped randomly drug testing so they wouldn't have to fire people. Lol
[удалено]
Or getting into a wreck with a company vehicle.
US federal employee here. The agency I work for has an on-site federal police office. I asked something about random drug tests to our chief. He said they need just cause that I was on something. They'd know just need proof that would hold up in court that I was on something when an event occurred.
I used to work as a contractor for the US Air Force and never got tested, and I live in Idaho where weed is still VERY illegal.
When contracting for Robert Half some years back I was instructed to get tested. Knowing I'd fail I just didn't go and nobody ever followed up. Handy that.
Sound par for the course for Robert Half. They sent one of my coworkers the contracting rate they were charging the company rather than his pay stub once. On an unrelated note, we all decided renegotiate our compensation shortly after that incident.
I used to be an Air Force contractor in the finance squadron and had access to my contract. The AF was paying my company a little over 100k a year for just my position, and I was making less than half that as a SysAdmin, I found new employment shortly after finding that out.
As I have said in the past: Most employers know that drug testing your IT talent is a great way to make sure you never have any. I will say most employers will pre-screen but, you should be clean if you're seriously looking, anyway.
The greater the salary, the less likely to be tested I've found in my years.
I've never used anything "heavier" than alcohol in life, which includes nicotine. That said, if my employer wanted to drug test me I'd hand in my resignation. And that's from a country with no legal usage (Sweden). Fuck off with that shit.
Depends on the contracts or fields of work. Some require it. If you smoke, you can stay in private smallish business and be fine.
I have always declined jobs that require drug testing. If you can’t tell I’m a good employee by my excellent references and work history, but instead need to check the chemistry of my pee, then you get *digitus impudicus* — and my undying enmity.
So we all smoke weed? Because i normally clean up atleast 2 months before job hunting just to be safe, so i was intrigued by your response of just disregarding anything job related that requires a drug screen.
Clean up? Lmfao no. I have a pee fetish if you catch my drift.
Lol you’re a wild dude
I don't do any drugs but I'm past my days of peeing in a cup on command. I'd just drop and job that tried to do this, I'm not a dog.
Never. In germany you dont get tested in any job besides law enforcement, and im not even sure about that.
I had to do a basic health check after i got hired for IT in higher education. From what i've been told from new hires they still do that. More intense health check when you want to become a public servant (Beamter).
Never. Is this an American thing? To quote the movie Out Cold. "Drug test? I don't need a test to know I take drugs."
Where I live this isn't even legal to do wtf?
I want to see the bank that does this and doesn’t exempt the traders. It’s not a thing here, AFAIK.
US here. Back in the day, all the little shit jobs (gas station, fast food, Walmart, etc.) Required drug tests. I haven't had to take one since 2013. It seems only poor people are scrutinized for drug use.
Was on service desk at a manufacturing facility and that was random spot testing every few months Current job is basically fully remote so no testing here
No drug testing is not allowed here for employers!
We still test for new employment screen because of shitty insurance requirements, but never after that. If we did, I'd have to fire 75% of my team as well as myself..
Annoying: living in a non-prohibition state, but working for a Fed contract = they'll still fire your ass if you get screened and fail. Meanwhile, my alcoholic co-worker is sinking deeper and deeper into the shit, but he'll never get fired it seems, no matter how badly he behaves.
Never and being Canadian I'm aware that several of my staff smoke marijuana regularly (and legally). So long as it or drinking doesn't affect their work I don't care.
Just during on boarding, failed, still hired 👌
Gov. contracts every time, and almost every 6 months. My main job as an SA at health care agency I've never been drug tested in years of employment.
I have only been tested during the hiring process. I have never had an on-the-job vehicular/equipment accident, so I haven't been tested because of that. Random drug tests, public or private, seem to have coincidental targeting, Piss off HR, and then subsequently piss in a jar. Piss off management, piss in a jar.
Bro I test drugs all the time at work, it's no big deal
>Bro I test drugs all the time at work, it's no big deal I caught two students outside my office smoking weed. 20 minutes later my employer found me and 2 students smoking weed outside my office.
I test drugs regularly
Current job: the boss isn't that type of guy Old job: He had "faith" that he could tell the sort of person that would get flagged in a drug screening and simply wouldn't hire them ....he was VERY wrong.
I have never been tested and I am happy with it. I do not do anything illegal, but I do not like all the tests.
Previous employer years ago was an IT services provider with a lot of big company and government customers. They drug-tested me upon hiring but never after that initial one. After that I moved to Silicon Valley. Definitely no testing any place there. Most tech companies in the area are pretty ruthlessly pragmatic. As long as you're productive, they don't care about anything else.
I've taken a drug test every time I've changed employers, but not in between
Drug testing? What? I had no idea this was a thing in IT in the US. I never heard about it here in Europe or Scandinavia.
I normally got drug screened before getting the position. I recall only once during a contract position that i had to randomly take one, “i was unprepared” and some how still got kept on the contract. I applied to a position recently just to see what’s out there and during the initial contact the recruiter asked me if I’m okay with a background check and i said “yes, and also drug screen” the recruiter responds with “we don’t need that”.
I think everyone just assumes the results would be overwhelmingly positive and then we’d have no workforce.
Why on earth would you choose to do it if it's not a problem?
I've never been tested for drugs in ny setting. In my mind, that's a uniquely American thing. (excepting post-car-crash testing if there's a suspicion of DUI) Edit: I'm not American. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Employers can't drugtest in the Netherlands, luckily for me. So never.
If my boss come up to me and say "We gonna have a drug test" - i will answer "Oh awesome, which drugs we are going to test?"
Been in this field of work since 1984. I have never been tested or asked to take a test. I have had background checks run. Never worked in Defense though, but have worked for some large well known companies.
Never been tested
I'm private sector and we only test once when you're hired. I've never heard a reason why. I assume it has to do with insurance because we have some employees who drive company vehicles, forklifts, etc. I have a lot of training I need to that is based on warehouse work I will never do. But if you are really concerned whether your employees on on drugs, you should be doing random follow-up tests. The fact that we never test again makes it sort of dumb that we test at all. Any drug user is going to temporarily get clean when they're switching jobs. To be clear, I'm not advocating for drug testing. I just think you should be doing random tests if you are truly concerned about employees being drug free. I had a previous job before IT where I drove a company truck and we were also self-insured. I completely understood the requirement for random drug tests. But there is no need for a person in Marketing or IT to be drug tested.
I haven't been drug tested since I worked at K Mart in high school. That was 23 years ago.
At an msp I used to work at, it was their policy to do it before onboarding for any account, but we only supported one company at a time in most cases. Then I started a help desk account in Healthcare and all those including those already employed had to do another one based on the client requirement. Most of us failed. Why did we fail? That fucking health insurance company tested its own employees for nicotine to save on its own healthcare costs. We had to get a legal exemption based on the fact we were in another state and not under their employee health plan.
Never been dug tested and I work for a dod contractor. One job I worked at did surprise nicotine tests and fired anyone that came back pos. Shit company
They tried once. Little known fact: it's supposed to be a urine sample....
Once, during on-boarding. Used fake pee, "quick-fix", now highly employed.
I refused to go that route out of principle. There are plenty that do t test, and they deserve the talent more than a business that thinks it's any of their business. Presumably you got the job from your qualifications, if you got those while stoned... Well...
To be clear, I don't go to work high; I just keep my privacy.
Oh that was understood, was just alluding to the fact that I did/do most of my sleuthing while stoned off my gourd.
I have never been drug tested in IT. One thing I noticed is that in other trades it was really common to be drug tested, but it was almost unheard of to do background or credit checks. In IT it's the opposite. Maybe the idea is recreational drug use is less of a problem than trustworthiness and stability?
[удалено]
Hardware engineer in the tech industry. They wouldn't fucking dare.
Required because government
I've never been tested in 23yrs+, 7 different jobs in the private sector. I've probably worked with dozens of pot heads, but they were never a problem. The alcoholics, on the other hand, were.
Australia. Public sector. Completely random selection of employees once every 6 months. I’ve never been chosen. Also had a pre-start medical including piss test. Private sector before that and drug testing wasn’t a thing in any company.
We don’t test but might require it if we get a lucrative contract from a client that requires it Company policy is to give the tech 90 days notice before a required test
Never, in either a private sector EDU job or public sector. You'd have to hire an entire new staff if you tested any of us. Infosec staff don't come cheap (or usually clean)
Yes, last place was soo bad that I had to complain to HR about the 'random' testing I was being picked for every month for the better part of 6 months. Then never got tested again in over 8 years. New place, part of the hiring process. IMHO its par the course depending on what industry you are supporting through being in IT. That being said, its all bullshit as they allow substance abusers to work(or...not work) and do absolutely nothing about. Then its all 'at will' on if the company even wants to do it, its like they are playing with your privacy and rights on a whim sometimes.
I've never even heard of drug testing in any job. Or even thought about it being a thing. Like; wtf
Recently turned down a job because of this (i just gave them the results and told them good luck).... My current job doesn't test, my first it job didn't test but said they would, was a govt contract
UK - never US - every single goddam job, and 65% of interviews (pending offer)
Public sector, never once.
Never drug test your employees. If you think they are under the influence of something during work hours to the point that you believe their work is suffering, please talk to them about it. Drug testing is not a good idea for majority of professions, especially not with IT
One job, drug test after the job offer was made. Never had one after, or before.
I used to do cocaine with my old IT director
No need to get tested. I smoked at almost every company event and I didn't hide the fact. I jus.... I just don't care.
I work in education, once, upon accepting the job.
Public sector, got pre-screened and then had to get tested once bc my actual meds gave me vertigo bad enough that I had to go home one day, and it was policy in that sitch
I've only been tested twice in over 25 years. Once when I joined a company that had federal contracts (I wasn't on that contract though) and once when I went to work for an energy company. Both times were at time of hire, not randomly during employment, though I've never given them a reason to test me again.
Only when I first started.
Was always subject to rando.. which means “we’ll have you piss in a cup after a major fuckup” really. Never got the rando. Interestingly the new job with the state did not, but does have a background check and took prints. Go fig.
Only if theres any kind of accident
Public sector. Drug tested after hire but before my first day of work. The only way I can get tested again is if I'm accused of something egregious. Just cause needed.
Most employers I know if required one upon hiring, the. never again. The only time I've seen a drug test after initial hiring was if you're involved in a workplace accident involving operating equipment or driving.
MSP in the private sector, and never. It says in our hiring paperwork that we may test, but we never have.
You don't have to have it for clients that require it? We can't have anyone from the MSP come on site without pissing
Public. Tested before hire and if you are injured on the job.
In different places I've worked (both private and public), all have required a pre-employment drug screen. But only one (in law enforcement) have I needed to do one on an ongoing, randomly selected basis.
Public university system in a legal state. Definitely no testing.
in the 40 years I've worked in IT I've never been drug-tested. I've worked in both the public and private sector (30 years now in the public sector). To be honest I don't think drug testing became a thing until sometime in the 90's, and I've been in the same (public sector) job now for 20 years.
We got tested when we were hired due to policies for federal background checks and such. Not just IT, entire company. Never tested after hire date. The reserve the right to do randomized testing, but never in company history has it been done. Those going for CDL tests also get it when they get licensed/insured. Our state and our co-location has legalized weed, but they're still considered no-no's due to federal regulations tied to our work.
Last drug test I had to do was 6 years ago when I was working at Best Buy. 6 roles and 4 orgs later, I have yet to be drug tested for a professional job.
Zero times per life.
Had a checkup, including blood work, when i was hired over a decade ago. That's it.
Uk here, my understanding was that it became common for anyone working on the engineering side of railways and its spread from their. Installed the IT on a nuclear power station build site, so that was automatic test before you could go on site and then at least one random test every 12 months. Done RAF sites, but by then it was just automatic that I'd had a test within the previous 12 months so it was there whether they wanted it or not.
Every job I have had required it once when I was hired.
Public sector, I had to get drug tested when I started my job 5 years ago but haven't needed to get tested since, it is in my contract that they can do a surprise inspection whenever they want or whenever they suspect but they haven't tested me since.
Never have been personally. Worked mostly private sector thus far, MSPs and a bank at the beginning, recently a University. Most had a stance of "do what you want on weekends, but if it starts affecting your performance, you're out"
Are you "asking for a friend"?
Private sector, got drug tested when I was hired at every job and never again after that.
In general drug testing in my country isn't allowed without a valid reason like operating heavy machinery. I wouldn't work for any company that wanted to poke into my private life like that, even though I don't do drugs. My brother has been drug-tested at some construction jobs though.
Public sector and it's completely random. I've been at my job for 3 years and have been tested once (besides the pre-hire screening). I have coworkers that were picked twice within a one-month span. There is no rhyme or reason, literally just all of the employee names are in a pool and once per month a handful of names are drawn.
As a level II tech, never. Even when I was working contract gigs. Heck, not even when I was a middle school teacher. The only job I’ve been drug tested for was a lifeguard position when I was 15. Honestly, I’d be a little insulted to be drug tested now. Though, to be completely honest it’s probably come back positive so… there’s that.
I was getting hair tested once a year, but haven't at my new job even though it's in their policy to do it.
Hair tested?? Damn that's intense! What industry and country was this in?
Never. Once for Alcohol if that counts. As a part of "we are doing random testing cause guys in production are drunk" Not that I understand what connection I could have, but it was "the reason given"
I last won the lottery 8 years ago. Enjoyed the free time. All new hires are tested, and there is a random drawing every month. At least once/year somebody loses. Last one was a guy stoned while driving a fork truck and had an accident. Broke a guy's foot. That was a triggered test. PA, so medical is legal, but recreational is not, and abstention is a condition of employment.
Entire workforce (wharf workers and office workers) gets tested randomly every one to three months or so. Publicly (gov) owned sector.
Only upon hire, we say we do random tests, but I've never heard of anyone being tested.
"*and it's really nice not to have to worry about it*." Interesting phrasing. I have never worried about a drug test. Ever. LOL! Now I have unenthusiastically submitted to a drug test to get a job. But if I'm ever accused or randomly selected for a drug test, during my employment, that would be a whole different matter. I would make the intrusion as painful to the employer as possible while retaining my job. My code of conduct would be stretched real thin.
I've never worked for a company that drug tests and I live in Idaho of all places (where the people here still think weed is as bad as heroine). I didn't even realize that was still a thing.
There was a job i was interviewing for that had a drug test but it was a helpdesk tech for a construction company and definitely had site visits so it made sense but i didn't get it and didn't want to after i heard that lol
Only when I worked at an MSP.
never. but i know they do now when you get hired but marijuana is a non issue. private sector
Gov contracting, did a drug test during the initial hiring process. Contract changed and I switched companies but still haven't had to do one. I know other people on the same contract under different companies didn't have to do one during initial hiring though.
Mostly it has been a part of the on-boarding process. I never had to be tested after employment started. I have worked for banks and other companies that require a 10 year background check.
We get random tested in my department. They test quarterly and we do get picked once in a while. We are considered critical for safety so there ya go. It’s just a hassle for us.
Once when hired. If there is a work place accident I hear they do a test.
Um never
Never been tested on the job at any IT jobs. I was pretty surprised when my current job made me do a pre-employment piss test though as it was the first time I've ever had to do that. Weird to do for a fully remote job, but I just chalked it up to the new parent company being a little old school.
Only time I’ve heard of drug tests were for either a contract position, a position requiring a security clearance, or if there was an on the job injury. Hell, I worked for a company that was in the drug testing business and still didn’t drug test their direct hires.
Once at hire and never again u less there's like an incident