One of my kids was a student manager for a Pitt team a few years ago so I know there was very definitely a drug testing program and athletes had various methods they used to attempt to mask or fool the tests which sometimes worked and sometimes did not. I do not know about the penalty scheme however as my kid and I never discussed that aspect.
Suspensions
- Thread starter rhyno527
- Start date
One of my kids was a student manager for a Pitt team a few years ago so I know there was very definitely a drug testing program and athletes had various methods they used to attempt to mask or fool the tests which sometimes worked and sometimes did not. I do not know about the penalty scheme however as my kid and I never discussed that aspect.
Why would you argue things you have no idea about. Apple drugs screens new employees. I dont know about Google or Microsoft, but most silicon valley industries dont since the drug culture is pretty 'high' there
Of course the original post was for steroids I believe. I doubt any company drug screens for steroids
Saw an article today that the NFL and the players union are both conducting studies on the use of marijuana in pain management.
Look, there seem to be quite a few holier-than-thou posters on here. I was an undergrad student during the early '80's and students, including many athletes, regularly used alcohol and marijuana. A football player fell to his death from a dorm while I was an undergrad under the influence. I suspect very little has changed from then until 2017. I was a drinker, not a drugger...but some of the over-the-top comments made here about kids are just silly. Obviously if you are a high profile scholarship athlete you have to conduct yourself in a manner in which the school expects...but come on with all these righteous views than likely none of you lived up to during your time as a student. Hail to Pitt!
I do know about them and I was correct. Almost none of the companies in that industry drug test without reasonable suspicion and issue. Also, Apple does not drug screen new employees.
Actually the original post was this:
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I was a student athlete. There's nothing righteous about it. The expectations are pretty clear and you need to take it seriously if you want to play. Why is that difficult to understand? The "boys will be boys" mentality might explain Bookster's stupidity (big reach). Should the staff give him another pass if he does it again? What kind of message would that send? Line has to be drawn somewhere and I doubt it's a mystery to the kids.
Here's the big problem for entities that dont require pre employment drug and alcohol testing and random drug & alcohol testing.
Smart entities manage exposure and potential liabilities!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Entities who don't drug test pre employment and randomly for certain groups of employees leave themselves exposed if there's a major issue involving death, serious injury, bodily injury to third parties with an employee who tests positive after an incident.
With all the connectivity with customers and suppliers, the risk of compromising their systems has increased which presents a huge liability so drug and alcohol testing is becoming commonplace in many organizations to manage that liability. Also 3rd party outsource companies are also required to drug and alcohol test employees.
Many years ago we never drug or alcohol tested our sales representatives who drove com leased vehicles beyond the pre-employment test until on was involved in a fatal wreck.
The first thing the lawyers asked for was his drug and alcohol test records and all we had was his pre employment testing. Well he had drugs in his system and we got "beat to death" in that one. Now anyone with a company leased vehicle is tested! Even top management who get them as perks! Some employees decline the co leased vehicle for that reason.
This isnt going away in Corp America due to the litigious environment that we live and work in!
Smart entities manage exposure and potential liabilities!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Entities who don't drug test pre employment and randomly for certain groups of employees leave themselves exposed if there's a major issue involving death, serious injury, bodily injury to third parties with an employee who tests positive after an incident.
With all the connectivity with customers and suppliers, the risk of compromising their systems has increased which presents a huge liability so drug and alcohol testing is becoming commonplace in many organizations to manage that liability. Also 3rd party outsource companies are also required to drug and alcohol test employees.
Many years ago we never drug or alcohol tested our sales representatives who drove com leased vehicles beyond the pre-employment test until on was involved in a fatal wreck.
The first thing the lawyers asked for was his drug and alcohol test records and all we had was his pre employment testing. Well he had drugs in his system and we got "beat to death" in that one. Now anyone with a company leased vehicle is tested! Even top management who get them as perks! Some employees decline the co leased vehicle for that reason.
This isnt going away in Corp America due to the litigious environment that we live and work in!
Last edited:
Ours shouldn't give any of em breaks in the isolated sense. They have been blessed with great fortune and shouldn't squander it.
The problem, once again, is that our opponents selectively and strategically deploy discipline with much more leniency than us.
And indeed the NFL is minimally concerned of players who have the occasional college indiscretion either, unless there's an rare high profile case that the teams seem to mutually agree they'll all blacklist. But if good enough or the team is desperate enough, some team eventually takes the chance.
All around us, the lesson to players inclined to be crazed drunks, pot heads and illiterates is: Do just about whatever you want... your school will forgive and cover you for it. And when the time comes the NFL will (almost always) still take you.
If you are talented enough, nobody cares.
Nobody but our admins that is.
Not hard to understand at all. But college kids frequently dabble with alcohol, tobacco, and drugs--some even develop problems [like other students]. It is part of growing up and being emancipated from their parents. I personally think the announced penalty for Bookster is appropriate, with the limited facts that have been made public. Even an ARD sentence is pretty severe and will count against him for at least seven years should he be unlucky enough to make a similar mistake. Going through a DUI and all the fines, education, legal and other costs are incredibly expensive lesson/mistake for anyone to encounter--with estimates of personal cost of upwards of $10,000 for a first time offense. I have no problem with rules for the kids...I was merely remarking on people suggesting over the top punishments. Hail to Pitt!
Actually pre-employment screening is becoming less commonplace. Even the federal government doesn't conduct pre-employment drug screenings.
Not true!
Call your local temp agencies. We hire them to provide us with people for scanning docs, shredding, filing, etc. Every temp agency I've ever worked with drug and alcohol tests every temp applicant!
The trend is on the increase due to potential liability!
Temp organizations is your point of reference?
The trend is most definitely to not drug test, unless there is reason to suspect an issue.
I'm a global director of risk management and compliance for a fortune 500 co.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Entities are interested in limiting liability by reducing risk which is what drug testing accomplishes.
Using your rationale you would drug test after the horse has left the barn and after incident has occurred.
Under current labor law its better to have a policy that applies to everyone rather than singling out a person for " there is a reason to suspect."
If you're wrong and that person tests negative they could sue the co because they were singled out and the alcohol and drug testing policy didnt apply to everyone!
And if the person that you just singled out for "there is a reason to suspect" is included in a protected group you're really up "Sh-t's Creek" with out a paddle!
Whats that reason ? Any bad attorney would have a field day with that one!
Last edited:
I work for a Fed agency where security clearances are required. Everyone, including uncleared temps without classified access, is randomly drug tested and tests are on very short a couple of hours notice at most to not allow time for attempts to defeat the tests. My number comes up randomly on an average of about once every 6 months or so. I even once hit the jackpot and got tested randomly a second time a week after a test.
You fail and you lose your clearance and/or are fired.
You fail and you lose your clearance and/or are fired.
Thank you!
We're in the private sector and the random drug test is generated by a random number generator weighted by class of employee, frequency of testing for that class, and its administered by an outside company so employees cant be tipped off!
They show up, locate the employee accompanied by the location compliance manager, collect the sample, and report back in hours!
+ people have the impression that people in the states that legalized pot are walking around with joints in their mouths.
Thats not how it works for people in responsible jobs!
Last edited:
It may be more prevalent in manufacturing (and mining, you mentioned) industries, but it isn't a growing practice in general industry. Even federal government employment dealing with high impact programs don't (by and large) have initial screenings and have "random screenings" so infrequently most people will never be tested in their entire career. As with every industry/area, as the liability increases the need to CYA, but in general it is becoming much less common practice vs. 10+ years ago.
BTW, my reference is my personal contract law experience, and my parents who are a lawyer/CHRO for several public and private F200 companies, including some who did test and others who didn't, and a corporate executive head hunter.
Last edited:
LOL tip of the hat to that one.
Never picked you as someone to bring some levity to the dipshit thread of the year, but well done.
Do you even look things up before posting?
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2012/all-teams/football
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2013/all-teams/football
We were better for 2 of 3 years and closely behind them in the other. It has a lot to do with why our experienced talent was better than them last year and cause for concern going forward
I work for a large federal agency, too, one of the largest, security clearances are required here too, we have access to everyone's PII Data, never been drug tested, don't know of anyone who has. There is absolutely no drug testing of any kind at my agency.
If you work with munitions/explosive testing or viral work, they drug test. Depends on the work done.
I guess, but the original poster posted in such a way as to say that ALL feds are tested, that's not true.
Correct. Someone sitting in a SS Office can't compare to someone involved in sensitive jobs, except for maybe the police/marshall's assigned, and the gov't. has gone as far as subbing these jobs out to rent a cops.
I have a sensitive job, coding internet applications that access people's private information, I have security clearance, I take no drug tests, I don't "sit in a SS Office".
What about folks working on missile programs and contracts obligating the government, with clearance? They don't do pre-employment drug screenings on those folks, either. They have "random" checks and I know people who haven't been tested once in 25+ years.
Whether you are tested or not is probable cause based or the luck of the draw. I never was, I know people who were more than once. I was pre-employment tested along with every hire.
Well, no, there is no pre-employment testing for the vast majority, so it goes back to what you and the previous poster stated incorrectly. The vast majority are not pre-employment tested and the random screenings in most places are unbelievably few and far between.
Are they guards? Then their company is doing it. Unless there is no way National Security could be affected.
Drug testing is alive and well in the private sector even pushed by Obama!
As more states legalize pot entity liability /exposure/health risks/missed work time increase and so will drug testing!
Nearly 8 in 10 Employers Screen for Alcohol, Drugs
#Roy Maurer
By Roy Maurer
Employment Screening Benchmarking Report, 78 percent of respondents overall conduct drug testing on some portion of their workforce.
This number jumps dramatically in the transportation industry (98 percent), which has additional regulatory requirements.
The report is based on survey results from more than 1,600 respondents, including human resource, security and other management professionals in a wide range of industries and organization sizes. Both HireRight customers and noncustomers were surveyed.
Overall, 19 percent of respondents do not conduct drug or alcohol tests and have no plans to; 3 percent do not conduct tests but plan to do so.
Most organizations (90 percent) are screening job candidates, and 71 percent also screen current employees. Thirty-two percent screen contingent or temporary workers.
Eighty-eight percent of respondents require these tests before the first day of work, 61 percent give them upon reasonable suspicion, and 59 percent do so when investigating an accident. Eight percent conduct testing immediately after an employee’s start date, and 4 percent do so with a transfer or promotion.
Obama Administration Pushes Drug Testing in Workplace
By Arthur Delaney
National Drug Control Report released Tuesday.
But not everyone in America should have to pee in a cup, according to a spokesman for the Obama administration agency that issued the report.
“While we believe that employers can use testing as one of a variety of tools to help guide employees suffering from substance abuse disorders into treatment –- which as we announced yesterday is not a moral failing but a treatable disease -– it is certainly not our policy that every employer in America ought to test and punish employees,” Rafael Lemaitre, spokesman for the administration’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in an email.
The comments come amid a wave of state and federal proposals that would require the poor and unemployed to prove they’re not on drugs in order to receive government benefits. In many instances, Republican proponents of drug testing have argued that since most businesses require workers to drug test, the government should do the same for those seeking welfare or unemployment insurance while they search for work.
“For a vast majority of very large companies, or private and public sector jobs in general, drug testing is something that’s mandatory,” state Sen. Steve Smith (R-Maricopa), sponsor of a stalled drug testing bill in Arizona, told HuffPost in March. “As far as I’m concerned, if you’re on drugs, you probably won’t make the best applicant or interviewee.
Another excerpt from a government study:
According to a recent survey of 1,000 companies performed by the American Management Association,51.5% of the respondents engaged in some form of drug testing, representing a net increase of 140% since 1987.1 In spite of the serious consequences that can flow from this increasingly widespread practice, loss of privacy, damage to reputation,unemployment, emotional distress
Last edited:
No one said companies don't have drug policies or testing. It just is far less prevalent in the last decade for the majority of the white collar workforce to be subject to pre-employment drug screening. Transportation and heavy machinery operation is entirely different and not really comparable to what has been discussed, like tech companies.
As discussed here, your post actually goes a long way to show why pushing a misconception: "conduct drug testing on some portion of their workforce". That isn't nearly the same thing. More importantly, it would include policies, which have very, very limited random screenings or situational screenings in suspected cases or in line with workplace incidents. That is not the same as requiring your general counsel or an HR rep to piss in a cup before you hire them, but that would be a company who would answer: "Yes."
why would a company test for alcohol? I understand on the driver side, DOT federal regulations require it, random drug testing as well as alcohol and drug tests after any accident but for your typical office job, testing for alcohol on the pre employment side is silly. First off, it's in your system for what, a few hours. Most medical facilities are open during typical business hours so a potential new hire is doing their screenings in morning or early afternoon, so a person who is not an idiot wont drink before this. But if they do, so what?
Yes, they are an idiot but alcohol is not illegal, no job or company can limit their employee's alcohol consumption during off work hours. Maybe a company will say, this person is an idiot for drinking before a physical and I don't want an idiot working for us but still would run into issues if pressed on this..
Now im talking moreso on the pre employment side. Obviously if an employee shows signs of intoxication while employed, you have a whole other set of issues..
Yes, they are an idiot but alcohol is not illegal, no job or company can limit their employee's alcohol consumption during off work hours. Maybe a company will say, this person is an idiot for drinking before a physical and I don't want an idiot working for us but still would run into issues if pressed on this..
Now im talking moreso on the pre employment side. Obviously if an employee shows signs of intoxication while employed, you have a whole other set of issues..
What about weed in places where it is LEGAL? It stays in your system for a month, will employers ban you from using a LEGAL substance?
LOL, I actually know of a former co worker who worked out a transfer to Colorado based purely on weed legalization.
Similar threads
