quote:
Originally posted by Off White:
yeah, testing mostly sucks. As an employer, I've done it to an employee once because he was fucking up big time, missing work and not calling in, and hanging out with a new girlfriend who I knew was a big part of tweaker culture out at the Nisqually tribe. He admitted to doing meth, but that he was turning his back on it, and the random test confirmed that. (though the testing agency called to tell me it was a positive test, he'd been smoking pot. I think they didn't quite know what to make of it when I said "Oh, good, its a good outcome.") The employee in question is still with me, but not with the bad egg girlfriend anymore. Drug tests suck, but so do junkies, and when you have employees unsupervised inside client's homes, there is a liability question.
Seriously, from an employer's perspective, what information do you get from the labs? Sounds like they give you specifics on "positives" and it's at your discretion wheter to blink an eye. Is that right?