Federal contractors have to comply with the Drug Free Workplace Act.

Credit history should be a good way to judge who gets to be with kids? Even if they don't look at that, it shouldn't be a part of the check.

Yes, some things should be part of a background check for things at schools. But for employment? Credit history should not be a disqualifier. Nor should be a criminal record. This complete and total access to my private life is not okay.

A check should be done for sure. Nobody should be around kids with a criminal record. Nobody!!!!

Yeah. Criminal records don't mean shit half the time, other than society hates you. 1/3 of black men will be in jail in their lifetimes--you keeping them away, too?

Criminal checks need to be done specifically, and carefully.

Parents make those decisions everyday with trusting their kids. And you will have different opinions. I wouldn't risk it. It's not worth the risk.

It has become meaningless.

In the '90s for a crap job at the phone co. Psych tests are pretty common: the ones where they tell you there's "no right answer" but there actually is; they're looking for personality types that can take orders, won't go Texas Tower, won't get too bored, aren't too smart, etc.

send me to a place offering a competitive package, and which drug tested all candidates prior to the interview process. At the time, they were the ONLY client who demanded that of prospective employees. I don't do recreational drugs of any kind, so I would have passed.

But I told them immediately, "no, I'm not going to consent to that, and you can mark me as not interested in that job." The headhunter was taken aback a bit, and told me that nobody had ever refused before. "There's a first time for everything." And then I explained that there have to be boundaries, and for a paper-pushing kind of job, that's over-the-line, IMO.

One of the huge, global employment agencies also makes drug testing part of their employment policies, though my last contact with them was over 10 years ago, so that may have changed...?

It started under the Reagan administration, or at least Meese called for mandatory testing.

Doug Marlette did an editorial cartoon showing Attorney General Ed Meese peeing on the Bill of Rights. (The Bill of Rights is on the wall and Meese is facing it, so you can only see his back) and Reagan says, pointing to a cup "No, Meese - the urine sample goes in here!"

The paper wouldn't print it.

RIP, Mr. Marlette.

https://books.google.com/books?id=GAToGAIGZ7sC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=doug+marlette+cartoon+meese+urinating&source=bl&ots=351EaJ3hvE&sig=4xlzvvLS0wcSosESVKvgI8EjuhU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAmoVChMI1pTI37zKxwIVR9KACh0wVgTE#v=onepage&q=doug%20marlette%20cartoon%20meese%20urinating&f=false

He was only 57. That's when I plan to retire. I hope I get to enjoy a few years of retirement.

Would pass drug screenings but refuse to subject myself to that on principle. If everyone said 'no' to those privacy violations then they would stop.

I appreciate when other people do the same. It sucks, because the minute you say 'no' you look guilty. I don't care and make it a point of explaining why I refuse. That and the fact that I don't want to work for a company that treats their employees with such little respect.

A small one perhaps, but definitely one. If they demand this, they must feel entitled to demand anything and everything else.

I never once regretted that decision, either.

I cannot even imagine finding a job that did NOT require a drugs screen. Probably all ten of my last employers have required it - even for TEMP jobs.

Okay, I guess I am wrong about that - the janitorial service did not require a drug test.

That sure was one crappy job though. That lady, she acted like she owned you.

That was the same year I took three drug tests in a six month span. After I quit working for her, I became a temp at a union plant - had to take a drug test for that. After seven weeks, they laid off all their temps. So I ended up back at Kraft, through Express. Then Kraft decided they were gonna use a different - inhouse? temp service. The new temp service came in and required drug tests for everyone. Then I interviewed with the post office and had to take a drug test - before the damned interview (for a job I ended up not getting, and even that (postal sub) seemed like a crappy job).

You know, when you take a CPR/first aid class, you are good for three years. It would be nice if they did that for drug tests. Imagine having to take 3 CPR classes in a six month period.

Of course, some will say 'well, it doesn't cost anything' - and I say except for my time. Not only that but for companies to spend all this money on drug testing. Well, instead of that, maybe the stupid temp service could give me a Christmas bonus.

I think state or federal law also requires random drug testing for anybody with a CDL.

The idea being that people in severe financial difficulties might be more likely to embezzle.

than people in good financial shape, making it LESS likely that they would embezzle. Ergo, the theories cancel each other out.

Insurance companies make us do lots of things. When I traveled to Africa regularly I had to do kidnapping prevention seminars, it was a condition of employment.

the use of consumer credit reports in employment decisions, so it's just a matter of time before insurance companies have to back off of that one.

Cheers.

We have a few people with recent personal bankruptcies, we aren't discriminating. It is just something required for insurance purposes.

In my consulting practice, I strongly discourage my clients from going down that road. Particularly as most of them are privately held companies that don't release their financials to employees except on a need-to-know basis. Talk about hypocrisy! Only those with top-level fiduciary responsibility are subject to credit checks prior to employment.

We have many employees who have access to millions of dollars, we have many employees with signing authority. If we want to be insured against fraud by those people we have some hoops to jump through.

Again, though, it's about credit checks for those with fiduciary responsibility, not for the general employee population. Have no issue with that. For every employee? Completely unnecessary and intrusive.

I was flagged for a random investigation, I asked to see it. It wasn't very interesting. Most of it was information I would have volunteered if asked. The only red flag was my social and professional use of an alias, which is very easily explained by googling my legal name and clicking images.

Are you afraid they going to find out about the noodle incident?

Routine drug testing. No going into a grocery store without a shirt. This isn't the America I grew up with.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

both have been employment criteria in my many years of working

Neither has been an issue. Neither was ever misused by the employer.

You have a choice . . .

They started doing random drug testing about 5 years ago.

Good luck F4! Best wishes that you do well!

Required drug testing, the ones that didn't were a convenience store in high school and a minimum wage construction job I had during high school summers. Every job I've had as an adult has required it in the last 25 years or so.

We used to pass them all the time 20 years ago by drinking plenty of water and buying the drink mix at the head shop occasionally, I never failed one back then. Haven't had to worry about it the last 15 years or so though.

ON EDIT: And now they also do credit checks--and if you have poor credit scores, you don't get hired in many workplaces!

I've only had one job that did and that was a contract job at a utility company.

I wasn't thrilled about it but - just like everyone else who submits - I needed the job.

Part of the oath says "I am under no compulsion to take this oath"

Except that that is a flat out lie. If I do not take the oath, then I do not get the job. That's a pretty strong compulsion isn't it? Especially when I took the oath I was 1,000 miles from home with no car.

I dunno, maybe the oath was a test - to see if I would lie if commanded to do so.

maybe whoever wrote it had a sense of humor.

...and having to take physicals, get drug tested, answer lots of questionnaires that would be fact-checked with background checks and so forth over the years. Various jobs, you get used to it. Fortunately I never had too much to cover up or worry about, but I can imagine how hard it could be for people who have a mistake or two on their record. I've done my share of stupid things when I was younger, but was lucky enough (perhaps white enough, I think now) to not suffer any real consequences.

and was terrified that my personal bankruptcy from 5 years prior was going to hurt me. No problem, I still got hired. But so did a coworker who proceeded to steal all kinds of credit information from his callers. He did not seem like a novice at this, so I am not sure what happened with their "background check," unless it was just a scam to scare the new hires and put us in our place.

them and since drug use is about equal among races that means it helps them overall. Employers who drug test are less likely to discriminate on the basis of race according to these studies. I do agree that employers are too much in our business though.