[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I've never heard of a Canadian company conducting drug tests. It seems to be commonplace in the US, though. It has always struck me as strange and invasive for companies to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nearly half of all workplace fatalities and injuries are caused by drug or alcohol intoxication. The cost of injuries and lost time is in the dozens of billions. These costs are borne by the employer and the public in the form of increased prices and worker's comp payments. In any job involving driving, lifting, or working with machinery, not testing is insane.

More intelligent companies do occasional random drug tests of current employees, in addition to test for suspicion, so it's not true that all you have to do is dodge the pre-hire screening.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it makes sense to test people who are working with potentially dangerous equipment. However, I've seen quite a few posts on here from people who were being drug tested for office-type jobs. Where is the justification in that?

I also remember watching an episode of Mythbusters where they tested the "myth" that eating poppy seeds will lead to a "false positive" in a drug test (like in the Seinfeld episode). They were amazed to discover that eating even small amounts of poppy seeds (like what would be found on a bagel) would cause a false positive on the drug test. If the test isn't anywhere near 100% effective, how fair is it to fire (or not hire) people who fail the test -- especially people who aren't working with dangerous equipment?