ShawnParksPost t1_jd4jpyj wrote
It would make more sense to me to prohibit employers from testing for it, rather than allowing the test and prohibiting the use of those test results as a basis for the decision not to hire someone. I think trying to legislate the reasons why people make decisions is a bad idea.
Anaxamenes t1_jd4xbxl wrote
Part of the problem is it’s still schedule 1 at the federal levels. Any business that accepts money from the federal government has to test for it. So healthcare is a big one because almost all of them take Medicare reimbursement. It’s not that simple because of its schedule 1 classification.
WomenAreFemaleWhat t1_jd52q43 wrote
This is not entirely true. My last job had federal contracts. They were drug testing for incidents until they had a tech get fired. She tested positive after she was drug tested when another employee poked her with a dirty needle. They were already hemorrhaging employees because it was a shitty place so they decided to stop.
Per the 1988 DFWA they are required to have a drug free workplace policy for companies for a contract of 100k or more. However, it does not require testing. Employers would love for you to think that because they may get benefits as far as insurance is concerned but they are not required to drug test. My friend was working at Microsoft and had to quit smoking weed because he was going to work on a federal project. Some places have more lax requirements or may test for it less if the employee has nothing to do with the contract. Its possible specific contracts may have such a provision but it isn't a matter of law, or in every federal contract. The feds leave enforcement up to individual companies.
Anaxamenes t1_jd6kyga wrote
We only test at the beginning or if there is an accident/injury. Every other hospital I know does as well. It could be out of an abundance of caution, but Medicare is big business.
DeadpanWords t1_jd67otw wrote
I haven't been drug tested at the major hospital chain I worked for, and I'm a nurse. They were certainly getting federal money.
Toolazytocreate t1_jd7cqhz wrote
We can’t afford to lose you. That’s the honest truth.
DeadpanWords t1_jd8nzzy wrote
More like they can't find too many people who want to work for them and their turn-over rate is increasing.
Anaxamenes t1_jd6kn48 wrote
Not even when you were hired?
Notexactlyprimetime t1_jd72fg2 wrote
UW system does not drug test nurses. VM didn’t, maybe they do now that they are owned by CHI. Island Health RN contract has explicit language bargained in that forbids pre employment and routine drug testing. But no Medicare has nothing to do with if healthcare companies drug test. It’s all individual policy.
Anaxamenes t1_jd86zet wrote
But the policy is likely because of Medicare. I talked with the head of our Human Resources department about it specifically and it’s because we accept federal funds as a hospital. Now the place I work is in Oregon and I haven’t looked into OHAs stance on the matter but would assume it follows Oregon laws regarding marijuana.
Notexactlyprimetime t1_jd8nkg7 wrote
I get your theory there but it just doesn’t pan out in practice. There are many healthcare networks that don’t test nurses and they all contract with Medicare and CMS. It seems the test or not to test is purely due to organizational preference.
[deleted] t1_jd6kt51 wrote
[removed]
Expensive-Recipe-345 t1_jd6fa83 wrote
Not totally accurate. I work in healthcare and my entire hospital system does not test. We get Fed money for all kinds of stuff.
Anaxamenes t1_jd6ki09 wrote
Not even when hired? We test at the beginning to show we do it and then only again if there is an accident/injury.
Expensive-Recipe-345 t1_jd6lki8 wrote
Nope. Nurses Union and Doctors Union oppose it and testing never seems to come up.
Anaxamenes t1_jd8777h wrote
That’s crazy. I just had this discussion with our director of Human Resources and it’s because we accept federal funding. Perhaps it’s our abundance of caution but everyone in the room knows it may be causing additional strain on finding good employees.
strangehitman22 t1_jd5wi9q wrote
Yep, I work at a telecommunications company that takes federal funding, we can't smoke weed deposite it being legal on the state level
Anaxamenes t1_jd6krdg wrote
It’s weird they won’t let you if it’s a non-safety related position. Most places now where it’s legal know they won’t have as many good candidates if they continually test.
strangehitman22 t1_jd7jo6q wrote
Probably is a safety thing, we sometimes operate heavy machinery
Anaxamenes t1_jd86mqn wrote
That’s it then, more safety related positions will them and require people not partake.
friedcat777 t1_jd5adim wrote
>mittee Votes to Protect Marijuana Users From Discrimination When Job Hunting
​
That would be the quickest, easiest way to deal with the hiring part but it doesn't address the problem of when there is some kind of accident at work does the employee get fired when they pee hot for weed? That and I'm not sure how this will affect jobs that have federal rules in place but you can't address all the problems all at once so at the very least this should be good for a good chunk of workers.
​
And truth be told I'm not sure that employers wont be happy about this as didn't much of this drug testing business start from insurance companies for employers?
r428713 t1_jd6e13n wrote
I think part of the logistical issue is that a lot of places use the tests for like 5 or 7 different drugs at once, most of which include pot.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments