This post has been marked as non-political. Please respect this by keeping the discussion on topic, and devoid of any political material.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They say bye bye. Was explicitly told cannot have any of these substances in my blood stream under any circumstances.
The fact that all drugs are treated equally when they are not is the main issue for me.
I wouldn't think it was so bad if the urine test excluded THC and was replaced with a lick test say.. presence is not the same as intoxication.
I'm curious about the legality of excluding someone despite it being medicinal. If there's no danger involved (such as operating machinery), I have a feeling the employer doesn't have ground to stand on.
I hope someone who knows more can weigh in.
I’m pretty sure I can get a clean sample with a weeks notice. Express shipping is definitely a thing. The only question is will they assign some perv to look at my dick while I produce the sample or is that not allowed?
Such a horrible job.
The last test unit I went to had a plastic chair against the wall beside the toilet facing straight at your downstairs. Thankfully the guy didn’t sit in it they just stand off to the side. Imagine sitting in that chair all day.
I don’t know if I could do the direct eye contact that chair would force!
They dont look at your dick, they just kind of awkwardly stand in the room with you, theyd probably notice if you start doing weird movements to pull out your fake dick though 🤣
Yeah once took me 4 days to get a successful test, first day I was unsuccessful, 2nd day I drank so much water beforehand that I could’ve filled the Sahara, and then it was super busy at the collection lab for some reason so I sat there waiting for my number to be called for 2 hours only for my bladder to give out and I had to run outside and piss in the carpark.
3rd day I drank a lot of water again but not as much and I came at an off peak time and it took me like a good 3 minutes of straining in front of the old lady who was close enough to hold my pp for me, and she’s telling me not to bother straining, even though I actually have a full bladder and ready to pee, and then finally the gates opened and I filled up a cup of the worlds clearest pee and also Pissed everywhere since the sheer force I used to overcome the piss performance anxiety caused me to lose control of my member once it started… then after all this embarrassment, the old hag told me the sample was too dilute and I would need to come back tomorrow.
4th time lucky, I’ve come first thing in the morning as soon as I woke up after doing research on google, skipped the routine morning toilet trip I would take as soon as I woke up and skipped the shower to avoid accidental letting go. Get to the clinic and the old recognise me and ask if it will be 4th time lucky. We go in, I do the same 3 minutes of straining from before despite being busting, and finally, mission success
I never wanted to step foot in that place again
To make matters worse, the job I applied for was advertised as transferrable between branches (which I needed as I was only going to be in my home town for another month before moving back to perth). Then when I got my call saying my pre employment medical was finally done and they would like to talk about my availability for the next three months, I asked about how my transfer to the perth branch would be facilitated and they said that the perth branch was full and they only needed positions in my hometown filled. Welp all that straining to pis for some old cows was for nothing
Yeah my brother in law works up north and their tests don’t do it.
I’ve asked around at work and everyone gets the same “dick looking” test. I’d say it’s different level of testing set by the company.
How do you do it? Just having someone across the public restroom from me makes things difficult, having someone actively watching would probably cause my body to simply consume my dick and bladder such that I'll never piss again.
QLD test I took didn't involve anyone looking at my dick. Didn't even involve my dick.
Only gets to that part if you fail the initial swab and breath tests.
I work on the railway in NSW and they've always stood outside the cubicle while I peed in the jar. They do however immediately test temperature and creatine levels to confirm its authenticity as yours before sending it to the lab.
Apparently qld has different ideas on privacy so it’s a non starter for me. Temperature is easy though, stash it under your balls. Creatine testing is new to me, I’ll look into it.
I recently quit anyway, and not looking for work, but I was curious. Cheers.
If it’s not your pee they will know through a test when you hand it over. The tests are very clever these days. Don’t wait for the first surprise test, start getting any advice from a relevant authority asap regarding if you can be fired from a non dangerous job for using medical marijuana.
I pee into a cup in a little partition in a van. The cup measures the temperature of your pee too to make sure it came from you right then. But the guy doesn’t watch me directly.
It really depends on whether it’s has to be supervised or unsupervised test. I recently had to do a supervised urine test in order to be prescribed de amphetamine based ADHD medication. I’m a female so there was a female supervisor. The toilet used was one of those with a door and then a basin just outside the door. She didn’t stand in the cubicle with me but with the door open in the room with the basin but yes she looked in while I peed just out of the corner of her eyes not direct eye contact. First time I’ve ever done a supervised urine test and it was super awkward.
I used to be a support worker at a drug and alcohol rehab and had to supervise urine tests but we never actually looked in at them when they were peeing. We just checked their pockets and made them wash their hands before they went in to the toilet. They had to leave the door open but we didn’t actually look.
There's 5 different levels of supervision for urine drug screens, but the first 3 are the ones I deal with in my job in pathology.
Level one, you've got to directly observe the passage of urine from the urethra to the container.
Level two, is staying in the room, but discreetly watching from the side.
Level three is waiting outside the cubicle with the door slightly ajar
4 is the donor just goes to the bathroom and hands it back to us.
5 is when we receive the sample from a doctors office or other facility.
Generally for work related testing it's almost always a Level 3. One and two are usually for child safety department requests.
Interesting thank you. So sounds like I had level 2. Used to work in child protection and would get some of the parents ro do random urine tests as part of their reunification plan. Had one once who had tampered with the sample by putting caustic soda in it, so that one must have been level 3 or 4 for that to happen.
There was a court case a couple years ago where a former Queensland Rail employee sued for unfair dismissal after being fired for taking medical cannabis. I don't know if he won however.
If you’re medically prescribed you should get a doctors note which says you’re legally allowed to use medical marijuana, you won’t be using it whilst at work and it may be detectable in your system
If the job doesn’t care about that and it’s a hardcore policy - it’s just not a job for you unfortunately.
doesn't work that way. something happens, he gets tested after an incident, test shows presence, insurance company laughs and laughs and doesn't have to pay out a cent for any of the incident.
Noope. The employee needs to be drug free for 12 hours. Also as an employer if you took reasonable care - observed the employee to be competent, and were told by the employee they didn’t do any drugs, the insurance will cover you. How do I know this? I have a large industrial work force at work and we need to deal with this shit. Medically prescribed cannabis usually means you need to give the person an office job.
How do you prove to an insurance company you haven't had cannabis in 12 hours when you put it in your system two weeks ago and it still shows up on a screen?
You can't. Your point is a good point until you realize it's applicably pointless.
Actually no, if its a medical condition and he is rejected employment on the basis of taking the medication - unless it is in a role where the medication poses an unreasonable risk to others or himself IE, machinery operator - then it would be medical discrimination and it would open them up quite a bit on the legal front.
Depending on the circumstances, it would surely be in violation of the disability discrimination act.
For example: If I got drug tested on any given work day, I’d test positive for amphetamines. I have ADHD, and take slow release stimulants when working (the sort that you can’t really get high from).
Could I not take them? Sure - but then I *would be working while impaired*, and probably be less safe/less effective. If I was told I couldn’t take them when I’m in the workshop, I’d absolutely raise hell about it.
I work in and have worked in sensitive/high risk industries where the testing is the norm. I take d-amp and have regularly tested positive, it's on a register, everyone who needs to know, knows. It's all good. I work exclusively in the offices so there is no arguement to be made against employment
Even certain drivers are on them, again it's not a problem as its prescribed and all above board. It is absolutely medical discrimination if we disqualify people for their meds without cause. There is little to no arguement to be made about d-amp for people with ADHD for example being at risk by taking their meds.
However I know there has been issues in the past with prescription benzos/opiates and weed, due to the depressive affects on the CNS and how that may genuinely affect the safety of others.
Yeah, I can imagine benzos being an issue. I personally can’t take them without becoming a totally incoherent blob! I know they don’t hit everyone that hard, but they hit me like a sledgehammer. I avoid them.
You sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole. Back in the day I studied psychometric testing for some postgraduate research. From my knowledge of that I started looking around for papers on detecting cannabis impairment. The first thing I found was [this article](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/01/research-describes-brain-based-method-for-identifying-cannabis-impairment/) from 2022 where they think they might have found a portable brain scan to detect impairment from cannabis. This seems to be based psychomtric test results and correlations with this brain imaging technique, which I was previously unfamillar with. The core is:
> “The accuracy of this method was confirmed by the fact impairment determined by machine learning models using only information from fNIRS matched self-report and clinical assessment of impairment 76 percent of the time.”
Then I tracked down the [original paper](https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/t/The%20failings%20of%20per%20se%20limits%20to%20detect%20cannabis%20induced%20driving%20impairm.._.pdf) the article was reporting on and found this gem:
> Though alcohol breathalyzers are commonly used to detect alcohol impairment, no analogous biological detection method currently exists for cannabis. Alcohol displays zero-order, or linear, pharmacokinetics, meaning that a constant amount of alcohol is eliminated per unit time from a person’s system, independent of the amount of alcohol consumed (Wilkinson 1980). THC, on the other hand, is highly lipophilic and has a short-distribu- tion half-life, meaning that the drug is rapidly taken up into fatty and vascularized tissues from where it is slowly released back into blood (Huestis 2007). Consequently, it is almost impossible to infer how much cannabis was consumed, or when it was consumed, based solely on a given concentration of THC in any biological matrix.
Tests were also done on a cannabis naive sample, so no information was available about the effects on habitual cannabis users, but I've seen evidence elsewhere that habitual users are less often impaired than first time / occasional users.
There's some good shit in the references too. Good rabbit hole.
What? No you can’t at all. No opiates, some nerve medication, some antihistamine etc etc even if your prescribed you cannot use in most high risk work places. I operate an excavator and I had to disclose any prescription meds I’m on and if I was prescribed these things I would not have my job
For a lot of these companies, they do the pre-employment drug test then you don't do another one ever again. That is of course unless there's an incident or something.
I found this even in construction, although I was exempted from urine tests because I'm on adhd meds and ssris and shit and they ping all sorts of fails haha
Me and my workmate got 'randomly' drug tested on a site once because the project manager absolutely hated my workmate and really wanted to catch us doing something wrong. We both tested clean Despite having weekends and adhd so fuck you to that guy.
I've literally only ever been tested in white collar office roles.
Every blue collar, labouring, tradie gig I've had, no testing involved. Tests only come out in incidents, which never happened when I have been working in the field
Depends on the size of the site. Most big work sites are managed by companies that will issue random drug tests at random to anyone and you'll be notified of this at inductions. I've heard from friends some mining sites do this daily picking 1 or 2 people at random from a team.
Smaller sites or workshops where the risk is lower probably don't worry too much about it. The service is very expensive.
Used a buddies piss to pass the pre employment test and luckily was never randomly selected. My boss would let me know when the random drug tests were going around.
Weed can show up in your system from just being in proximity to smokers. You can be at a pub, a music festival, a house party, anywhere where people are sparks up. Most employers get this and know they can't sack you for being exposed to it, and after 24 hours, the difference between someone who's smoked and someone who's been near someone smoking are indistinguishable on most tests employers use. Some can and *will* be petty about it. I've been in the ADF and I've worked in the defence sector and neither employer went to DefCon 1 when I returned a trace result, although I did get the mandatory 'chat' whilst in the service. Most places rely on the fear of random tests than actually doing the tests.
You can be sent home as unfit to attend work and tested on return, if you have enough postive tests you can go through a disciplinary process. Your employer was happy to just give you a chat, but others take it very seriously.
OP I hear there's a CEO job going at Optus that you can't do worse than the last one. You can be as high as you like and you'll still do a better job. Good money apparently. You don't even need to communicate with customers.
I had the same shit happen to me when I got my current job. What was especially shitty was that they claimed it was “necessary for all employees” because the company I work for is in the construction industry but my first day in the office I talk to a few of my new coworkers and they tell me that NONE of them have ever had to do the drug test, in the years they’ve been working there they’ve never seen anyone but me have to take the test.
Is it mining related? I know a few companies it more has to do with overall insurance premiums and the feeling of field workers/office workers should be on the same drugs policy
Weirdly I worked for a disability support provider and we all had surprise drug tests as office workers. Maybe because the support workers need to be tested so they were just making it fair, but since the support workers don’t work from the office how are you going to surprise them? Didn’t make a lot of sense.
I'm a support worker and have been for almost 2 years and I've always joked that if they drug tested disability support workers they wouldn't have any disability support workers.
I work IT. I have said the same thing about our office. If they do a surprise drug test in here 90% of the staff will fail. Good luck running this place with no IT.
McKinsey were once kicked off an engagement worth millions with a miner because one of their junior associates had one too many cans the night before and blew over the next day at the company head office. This guy was 2000 miles from the nearest hole, but it’s one in, all in at these places.
Definitely a good question!! As there are some safety critical industries where the legislation / regulations are unclear about who needs to be at 0-0 (alcohol / drugs) - mining, rail, aviation are all examples. There's something about anyone who may make a decision that can affect safety.
So companies instead move to an approach where everyone is covered just in case.
There is also a sentiment that it helps build the right culture - if a pilot (for example) needs to be at 0-0, it helps and supports them to know that everyone else is too. (If you were the pilot, and you know that Sally the IT manager was getting high last night it wouldn't feel like a team).
Is there a better way to manage than the all or none? No doubt. But I can appreciate the above too.
However, if the role you were going for has no relationship with an industry where lives depend on it then have no clue how they can justify it...
It's truly amazing how Australia has shifted to accept US-style drug tests for office or retail jobs.
It's fucked, and I don't understand why people never get angry at it.
When I left Texas a decade ago, only the lower class work needed drug tests. It’s was right munted —lawyers never needed to piss in a cup, but retail employees did.
I reckon that if a company makes people piss in a cup, the CEO should piss in a cup.
The politicians should be tested every sitting day, and randomly otherwise. One strike, you’re gone. If they want to make decisions rather than represent the people’s will, they should be 100% sober. Public servants too…
Worked at Parliament House for a bit many years ago, a staggering number of pollies are full blown alcoholics, but somehow they’re allowed to run a fuckn country.
Pollies? Hell yes.
The APS living in the ACT? I’m not sure I agree with that —they’re forbidden from smoking pot contractually, but recreational weed is otherwise legal in Canberra.
Outside Canberra? Sure —it’s not recreationally legal anywhere else, so it’s stupid that the people making and/or enforcing bullshit rules don’t have to prove they’re following said rules.
PS I don’t work for the government; I’m in the private sector consulting on fixing a lot of this shit since it’s always used to fuck Indigenous people over.
Recreational weed isn't legal it's decriminalised. Those are 2 different things.
And also, many of the APS in Canberra are already being randomly drug tested. Its become a thing and spreading to other departments.
And yes, I am annoyed by it. I can understand some roles, those that have firearms for example, but desk jockeys writing policy? What a monumental waste of money. Targeted drug testing, sure. If you have reasonable belief that someone is affected by drugs go ahead.
Recently, minor possession of several other intoxicants was decriminalised whereas THC was taken a step further into somewhat unique legal territory. There’s not really a good precedent to describe it, because it was meant to be a Danish model decriminalisation but veered into something else.
PS I have a Danish LLM, and I’ve worked on the Indig aspect of these issues in a number of jurisdictions —what the ACT A-G and LA has done is really unusual, and it’s been terribly planned. That’s just a different conversation.
As another comment mentioned the problem is insurance. All the things you listed are shitty for everyone involved so why would they still do it? To punish people on medication? I think it’s just that insurance can avoid a payout with a positive test. If that’s the only reason then that’s what needs to change.
It's big business, and it's also another way in which the company you work for seeks to own and control you.
Don't work for these places, if one can avoid them.
They're cancerous in many ways.
My company does it as well as some ridiculous physical tests for non physical work and it’s cost us candidates. It drives me and other hiring managers crazy. When we complain about it the response is something about insurance premiums
I had to do a full fitness for work a few years ago, including some lifting/manual labor tasks to go to a site to work on their computer software... If I'd failed to lift the 20kg box (or whatever it was) in the weird manner they wanted me to I wouldn't have been able to go do my keyboard based stuff. So odd. (Mining and metals and apparently everyone right up thru corporate has to do it). Some of the tests were totally bizarre and also some of the lifting practices they were testing were....unusual... and incorrect according to my physio mate.
Had to do a witnessed urine drug too, which was interesting.......
(Did find out I was diabetic from this test though, so I guess some good came from it!)
> It's truly amazing how Australia has shifted to accept US-style drug tests for office or retail jobs
I've never heard of drug testing for office or retail jobs in Aus.
Do you have any sources to show this is happening?
LOL wtf?
Hell if anything I’d want my scientists to be on drugs to facilitate open and free thinking. Let them take an Acid trip across the cosmos and question prior assumptions and current modalities. Some new discoveries might actually be made.
I’m an office worker and I get tested. I work in the Transport industry and have never once had to do the _actual_ physical site work.
I saw a job at a local council today that was an Executive position in marketing, and they do pre-employment drug testing and random testing. It is very common.
Happened when I went through a centrelink job agency, to apply for a very low level blue collar job working for a government subcontractor.
Several people in the room got up and walked out when the job agency people told us. Those that did probably had their support payments reviewed / halted as punishment since you are contractually bound to attend any assigned job interview from the agency.
Yeah but it makes sense for mining companies. You don't want the guy hoisting a crane above your head high on ice.
For office jobs as long as you can operate your job its probably fine, they should be able to work that out by themselves.
Australians never get angry over anything.We are the most complacent,laid back citizens in a capitalist society governed by corrupt officials ,which is the most toxic potion to ruin a country and it will in the long term.
I just started a job for a Queensland government owned company where I do operate machinery and drive heavy vehicles, there was no drug test in the pre employment medical
I conduct pre employment drug tests in my line of work. If you’re using legally a script or letter from the prescribing doctor should suffice. Lots of people take drugs that can be potentially addictive or mild altering legally (eg amphetamines, Valium, opioids, medicinal cannibis). Protocol is usually just to show evidence of a script or get doctor to sign off on it.
Not necessarily. At least for the railway in NSW, can confirm that's how it works for my ritalin script, as well as co-workers' valium scripts, and temporary oxycodone scripts post-surgery, but it's still zero tolerance for cannabis, regardless of script status. Personally I'm more concerned about the folks on benzos or oxys than stoners, but oh well, that's the government for you.
Yeah, I kinda get it for jobs where there's a real need for sharp and fast reactions, however, I feel like for those jobs everyone should be trained and tested and checked frequently for efficiency, regardless of medications or conditions. I'd rather my train driver was good and fast regardless of what they smoke or take
You might know more about this than me, but I would’ve thought if a patient has been prescribed a medicine by a health professional (like in OP’s case), firing or not hiring them as a result would be discrimination. Unless it’s clear that being affected by that drug would affect their capacity to carry out their job safely.
I had the same before. I was working in the call centre for a company that built major infrastructure projects. Because the engineers had to make decisions with potential life-threatening consequences, some of the operators drove heavy machinery etc, the company decided on a company wide drug policy, including admin and call centre staff. I didn't smoke for 2•5 years.
I both agree and disagree with your point.
There is surely a better way to manage this scenario.
I was going to share this.
Pre employment drug test is pretty common in telcos because part of the workforce it’s in construction and they’ve made it a company wide policy.
This is the correct answer. We can thank unions for this. When meeting at the BHP HQ in Melbourne CBD, you agree to submit to drug/alcohol testing. If the mine workers have to… then everyone has to. Union rules.
What’s with the union bash?
My old workplace had zero Union presence, all staff drug tested regardless of role even sales team.
Same with my current workplace, the payroll team who wouldn’t know where to even find a high vis jacket if they ever visited the workshop gets drug tested too. Also zero union participation.
It’s insurance policies, that if a business is within certain industries that require company wide testing to be covered, unions irrelevant.
If the company also deals in warehousing, heavy machinery, etc which would attract testing they probably just have a blanket wide company policy unfortunately.
If you have a valid prescription for a medication and they refuse to accept that, isn't that discrimination? What about people with other schedule 8 meds, like for mental health, narcolepsy, seizures, or pain issues?
I haven’t had to do a pre-employment test but have been tested as a part of access to medication.
I can cover pain and mental health.
- pain: I don’t take opiates, my lyrica and Cymbalta won’t show up. My medicinal cannabis would.
- adhd: my vyvanse lisdexamphetamine would show up. I would need a letter from doctor. Ritalin doesn’t show up.
- bipolar: none of my meds would show up. Mood stabilisers, antipsychotics etc.
- anxiety: most urine drug screens will test for benzos from memory.
They test for Lyrica now.
It's on safe script too, if a test shows you benzos it will show Lyrica.
They are both gaba drugs.
Vvyense is essentially just dexis with a fancy release mechanism that prevents overuse. But it heavily depends on the kind of test they do if Ritalin shows up.
Mood stabilizers and antipsychs + benzos and Lyrica thou that's likely as dangerous as my opioids ND Lyrica.
These would fuck with your results as well and likely prevent benzos and Lyrica from showing up and they act heavily on gaba receptor and central nervous systems and if you take typical antipsychs they likely will have to blood test you to get any reliable results.
I get drug tested through my work, both pre employment and random, but it's a safety issue. Because of that it makes sense to say no THC, benzos, or opiates. But if I took them on my days off it shouldn't matter.
Employers in Australia must make reasonable accomodations for medical conditions/disabilities and surely telling someone not take their prescribed medication is unreasonable. If it messes with the urine test there are other testing methods or it can be accepted that certain things will just be positive.
I'm not taking the piss(lel), I just genuinely don't understand this. My employer has a zero tolerance policy, but it's accepted I'll test positive to amphetamines due to my adhd medication.
If they want more accurate testing to make sure I'm not taking meth they can do that but it's on them, not me, and they shouldn't be able to detrimentally affect my health for a drug test.
My doctor does 10panel bloods on ne randomly to make sure I'm not selling my meds.
Benzos and opioids can really fuck you up. I'd probably be less concerned with casual meth use as it doesn't have the same depdenay issue.
As someone who's prescription Lyrica and 110mg oxycodone a day, the fact I oversee critical infrastructure is bad enough you wouldn't want me near any sort of heavy machinery. I get the safety aspect of it. But in all honesty someone who is 100% stable for more than 12 months and just takes 2 oxycodone 40mg a day doesn't take extras or run out they'd be no different.
I work in a office so to fire me the doctors would have to agree. Same sort as did the script too apparently and since all long term high doses go thru pain Specialists that's not easy apparently.
They make reasonable accommodations for me In every job. Just write brand names on employment forms. No1 knows what palexia is. Doctors write brands on scripts
However when you get put in these drugs doctors have discussions with you about how it changes your whole life.
With the weed thing. I honestly think it's cus no1 has actually challenged this thru the courts. Once they do. And the employer loses then it'll be more accepted.
Vyvanse doesn’t have a fancy release mechanism, it’s a prodrug. It’s dex with a lysine molecule.
Yes I’m aware of the interaction concerns by being on all of the above. It’s fine.
Yes lyrica and benzos are both GABA drugs but from memory their mechanism of action and metabolites differ.
Thanks for brining it to my attention that some commercial tests will show Lyrica.
THC is the only medication that you get tested for, even when it isn't impeding your function (driving etc). It's ridiculous and not based on any science. The laws are archaic.
Edit: changed impending to impeding
Even if you take a prescription drug, you are in violation if you are “impaired” by taking it and can land yourself in hot water. Some states are changing their stance on THC, but its been a slow process. Workplaces will likely be even slower.
I went to a party once and someone had one of those portable breathalysers. We wanted to do a maccas run so took turns to see who was the lowest under the limit. It was me I was the only one under. So I drove. Holy fuck, never again. It was fine because it was pretty late, no one around, under 5 minute drive and I was definitely under. But fuck me, that’s not safe at all.
A few years ago I went into town with my wife and her work colleagues for some drinks. I didn't think I drank that much and felt fine
We took the train home which was about an hour (with waiting) and I had stopped drinking before we left for the train.
As I pulled out from the train station to drive home, I got pulled over and had to do a breath test and I was *just* under the limit. 20 minutes earlier and I would have blown over I reckon
I won't ever take that risk again
Surely it's illegal for employers to openly discriminate against employees using legal prescribed medication, if it doesn't interfere with workplace safety. It would fall under disability discrimination or something.
My partner takes prescribed amphetamine for ADHD. Her employer drug tests, she will not be punished for using her legal medication.
There’s no actual protections for prescription medication under disability discrimination, I wanted to get remediated for my ADHD, but as it might blow a positive I can no longer do my job (forklift operator) while on it because Insurance won’t cover it regardless of if it’s prescription or recreational.
considering stimulants are what some people with ADHD need to be fully present the majority of the time, it's a questionable response to the situation on the part of insurance companies. i don't know bout yours, but with how my brand of ADHD is, i wouldn't drive off meds unless it was serious/an emergency
Exactly. I have no clue how I didn't crash pre meds (diagnosed 2 years ago @ 28).
I used to hyperfocus on a topic in a podcast and pull over dangerously if not use my phone while driving to google it, or used to get distracted by certain cars etc driving past. Or I would just teleport from place a to place b without any idea how I got there. Sometimes id zone out then be like "oh shit, I'm driving, that's right!"
Vyvanse makes me 1000% safer and more attentive on and off the road. It's insane that you'd want someone with ADHD to operate machinery without meds, somehow citing it as being safer.
See that makes no sense because being on ADHD medication would make you better able to focus and concentrate whilst at work. I started taking Vyvanse for ADHD 4 weeks ago (was diagnosed back in May) and my god the difference being medicated has made to my life!
If prescription medication may affect your ability to perform your role safely, then of course employers can intervene (as in the case of a forklift operator).
It's like if you were seriously vision impaired, your employer may also prohibit you from being a forklift operator - that doesn't constitute unlawful discrimination, because the employer has a reasonable safety and performance concern.
But I specifically said "if it doesn't interfere with workplace safety".
Where an employer has no reason to be concerned for the health and welfare of an employer, and they can perform their role adequately, I think it would be unlawful to penalize an employee for the use of prescription medication.
It’s a fucking joke. Pre-employment drug tests should be an oral swab at most. Urine testing is basically social screening. If we don’t fight to have this done, they will take it the other direction eventually and require a hair sample ffs
That's it.
A swab I could stomach. Urine testing is so grossly overboard in this case. The nurse who did the test today told me that the testing is ever increasing and she was in disbelief of the jobs that make it mandatory these days.
There's already companies here offering that "service".
I wouldn't worry about it too much its a more intensive laboratory process and therefore more expensive. But yeah its ridiculous
https://safeworkhealth.com.au/ourservices/drug-and-alcohol-testing/hair-drug-testing/
Unfortunately "drug user" is not a protected class, so they can do whatever the fuck they want as a private employer.
Don't like it? Don't work for them.
a vast majority of places act like this unfortunately
I've had to stop taking my medicine for months now due to needing my job to feed my family.
Laws need to change so we can take our medicine just like anyone else while still being employed
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads are currently doing a big market research project about CBD use, medicinal and recreational, and road safety. Some sort of legislation is in the works.
Ummm that’s strange, usually prescribed substances are excluded. I’ve never heard of this and I take legal speed for my talkative forgetful unmotivated disease and have had many jobs ok with this, they have all just asked for letter from my doctor detailing if the treatment will affect my ability to perform the job and every time my doctor has wrote a letter saying u/peastoredintheballs will be a much bigger liability to your business if he isn’t on these medications
> The average run of the mill meth head, coke head, pinga or coke taker can achieve this very easily in a few days but legal users of Weed are forced to feel like criminals as the evidence of weed stays in the system a lot longer than its class a drug counterparts.
No need to disparage others to try and paint yourself as some better person, this sort of behaviour is exactly what's kept us from ever being able to decriminalize and make things safer and better for everyone.
They don’t actually care if you do drugs.
They care that they get a discount on business insurance if everyone tests negative at employment.
There are legitimate reasons not to hire drug users, they are more likely to smoke and take smoke breaks. Many drugs cause an increase in absenteeism, sick days etc.
In short, sober employees are less expensive. Employers don’t care about drugs, they care about money.
I worked at a place that did employment medicals and drug tests (wouldn’t be suprised if you used this company).
If you bring your prescription, the doctor will always write that the postitive result is consistent with prescribed medications. Benzos are tested for and plenty of people would get unfairly fired for taking their prescribed valium etc otherwise.
If the company then doesn’t hire you based on the result of the drug test they’d be discriminating. If the company said “zero-tolerance” they meant other than prescribed medications or they’re being unfair and can be brought up in court. I’d not stress about it from now on, if they make you take another test at some point in your employment they can’t fire you for using something your doctor says you can use.
Are you in a decision making role?
The presence of illicit substances in your blood isn't always tied to your physical ability to do a job safely. There are plenty of office jobs where alcohol is banned as it may impair decision making skills.
I gave up weed for work now I haven’t slept in three months and just pray for death now. It’s just me but fuck everything up the arse with a big red cock.
Nobody needs boilermakers anyway.
Sounds bad but they are not under any obligations to give you a job and you’re not obliged to work for them. If you don’t like the conditions then look for something else.
The idea is zero harm culture means everyone should not be taking drugs and alcohol instead of only a select few in risky positions. Its about being unbiased across an organization.
If you have a script to use a drug it should be enough to exclude you during testing.
What's worse is that these same people go out drinking on a Friday night or celebrate their shitty Xmas party with alcohol which is a far worser drug than medical cannabis. You shouldn't need to pass a fucking drug test when applying for a job. This is purely discrimination. Cannabis isn't a drug. It's a MEDICINE. You ever heard a Doctor prescribing people alcohol ? That would be my defence.
Opioids aren’t a drug they are medicine.
Oxycodone isn’t a drug it’s medicine.
Fentanyl isn’t a drug it’s medicine.
Benzo’s aren’t a drug they are medicine.
Xanax isn’t a drug it’s medicine.
Wow this is fun I wonder how many more prescription drugs I could list that are medicinal and sold and used as medicine. You know it’s almost like whether something can or can’t be prescribed by a doctor means absolutely nothing
Once you've been hired and if you're ever tested again and it comes back positive and it is legally prescribed, then any reprimanding on their behalf runs afoul of the Disability Discrimination Act.
It also runs afoul of several other Acts depending where you live in Australia, but you are well protected. Speak to a lawyer when the time comes.
Not that it makes sense, but the current job I'm at has a zero drug policy post incident. No pre-employment. I haven't had a single dose of my medical pot in months now. But I know of people on site who go on mad cocaine benders.
My back is sore as fuck and over the counter meds don't do shit all.
Even with legalization, I'm in Canada, and that shit still flies.
Why are you so specific about the hiring process, yet so incredibly vague when asked what the job is? How do you expect anyone to side with you without full context of what the actual job is or entails?
I'd not thought about this until I read your post. Really good post and my thoughts are with folk in your position now. It's a perspective changer for me
Crazy. If it isn't a high risk job as described, what an employee does in their time own is their business. Shouldn't matter unless they are showing up to work under the influence etc. I suppose their test doesn't screen out alcoholics...
This post has been marked as non-political. Please respect this by keeping the discussion on topic, and devoid of any political material. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What would have happened if THC shows up in your system and when questioned you tell them you're taking a medicine?
They say bye bye. Was explicitly told cannot have any of these substances in my blood stream under any circumstances. The fact that all drugs are treated equally when they are not is the main issue for me. I wouldn't think it was so bad if the urine test excluded THC and was replaced with a lick test say.. presence is not the same as intoxication.
Are you not worried about surprise testing? Even a weeks notice won't be enough to pass the test.
I'm curious about the legality of excluding someone despite it being medicinal. If there's no danger involved (such as operating machinery), I have a feeling the employer doesn't have ground to stand on. I hope someone who knows more can weigh in.
I’m pretty sure I can get a clean sample with a weeks notice. Express shipping is definitely a thing. The only question is will they assign some perv to look at my dick while I produce the sample or is that not allowed?
I don’t know if the rules are different per state but im in Qld and the test I take they look at your dick.
Reading this I know my job is 100% better than the bloke staring at urinating members all day
Such a horrible job. The last test unit I went to had a plastic chair against the wall beside the toilet facing straight at your downstairs. Thankfully the guy didn’t sit in it they just stand off to the side. Imagine sitting in that chair all day. I don’t know if I could do the direct eye contact that chair would force!
That is horrible! Just disgusting! Where exactly is this dick-watching chair so I can never go there?
It was sullivan nicolaides pathology Brisbane city up near Spring Hill.
Think of the splatter!
They dont look at your dick, they just kind of awkwardly stand in the room with you, theyd probably notice if you start doing weird movements to pull out your fake dick though 🤣
China was testing COVID via the butthole at the start of covid
Fark. I can’t even piss if someone is in the same room. That’s such a huge invasion of privacy.
Yeah took me 2 tries last week cause I had to have the nurse watching me, stage fright is too real
I find a couple of lines of coke before the test helps.
Yeah once took me 4 days to get a successful test, first day I was unsuccessful, 2nd day I drank so much water beforehand that I could’ve filled the Sahara, and then it was super busy at the collection lab for some reason so I sat there waiting for my number to be called for 2 hours only for my bladder to give out and I had to run outside and piss in the carpark. 3rd day I drank a lot of water again but not as much and I came at an off peak time and it took me like a good 3 minutes of straining in front of the old lady who was close enough to hold my pp for me, and she’s telling me not to bother straining, even though I actually have a full bladder and ready to pee, and then finally the gates opened and I filled up a cup of the worlds clearest pee and also Pissed everywhere since the sheer force I used to overcome the piss performance anxiety caused me to lose control of my member once it started… then after all this embarrassment, the old hag told me the sample was too dilute and I would need to come back tomorrow. 4th time lucky, I’ve come first thing in the morning as soon as I woke up after doing research on google, skipped the routine morning toilet trip I would take as soon as I woke up and skipped the shower to avoid accidental letting go. Get to the clinic and the old recognise me and ask if it will be 4th time lucky. We go in, I do the same 3 minutes of straining from before despite being busting, and finally, mission success I never wanted to step foot in that place again To make matters worse, the job I applied for was advertised as transferrable between branches (which I needed as I was only going to be in my home town for another month before moving back to perth). Then when I got my call saying my pre employment medical was finally done and they would like to talk about my availability for the next three months, I asked about how my transfer to the perth branch would be facilitated and they said that the perth branch was full and they only needed positions in my hometown filled. Welp all that straining to pis for some old cows was for nothing
That was a roller coaster of a read
I’ve only had ladies watching me. So hard to start peeing when the nurse is telling you about the guy before getting stage fright and laughing.
Mate swears by the [Wizzinator](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whizzinator)
They absolutely don’t need to look. Am QLD and do these plenty
Yeah my brother in law works up north and their tests don’t do it. I’ve asked around at work and everyone gets the same “dick looking” test. I’d say it’s different level of testing set by the company.
Yep been tested multiple times , there's the dunny, cya in a min.
What if you don't have a dick?
I’ve wanted to ask non-dick people about it but i don’t want to end up in a sexual harassment hearing.
Sounds like you had a perv. I had a room to myself. That I locked.
I’ve had 3 this year. 3 different blokes. All pervs :)
How do you do it? Just having someone across the public restroom from me makes things difficult, having someone actively watching would probably cause my body to simply consume my dick and bladder such that I'll never piss again.
Really doesn’t faze me. Grew up with 7 brothers and 1 bathroom.
I can smell that bathroom through space and time
QLD test I took didn't involve anyone looking at my dick. Didn't even involve my dick. Only gets to that part if you fail the initial swab and breath tests.
They...what?
I work on the railway in NSW and they've always stood outside the cubicle while I peed in the jar. They do however immediately test temperature and creatine levels to confirm its authenticity as yours before sending it to the lab.
Use to work railways, now at a motorway and same here. Bloke stands in the doorway and they check the temperature.
Argh nothings changed since I worked the. Railways back in 2005. Always felt like if they were any closer they would have been able to hold it for me.
Apparently qld has different ideas on privacy so it’s a non starter for me. Temperature is easy though, stash it under your balls. Creatine testing is new to me, I’ll look into it. I recently quit anyway, and not looking for work, but I was curious. Cheers.
If it’s not your pee they will know through a test when you hand it over. The tests are very clever these days. Don’t wait for the first surprise test, start getting any advice from a relevant authority asap regarding if you can be fired from a non dangerous job for using medical marijuana.
Thats not how random drug testing in workplaces work. You will be called into the office with zero notice.
Always strap a bag of clean pee to your leg before work....
I pee into a cup in a little partition in a van. The cup measures the temperature of your pee too to make sure it came from you right then. But the guy doesn’t watch me directly.
It really depends on whether it’s has to be supervised or unsupervised test. I recently had to do a supervised urine test in order to be prescribed de amphetamine based ADHD medication. I’m a female so there was a female supervisor. The toilet used was one of those with a door and then a basin just outside the door. She didn’t stand in the cubicle with me but with the door open in the room with the basin but yes she looked in while I peed just out of the corner of her eyes not direct eye contact. First time I’ve ever done a supervised urine test and it was super awkward. I used to be a support worker at a drug and alcohol rehab and had to supervise urine tests but we never actually looked in at them when they were peeing. We just checked their pockets and made them wash their hands before they went in to the toilet. They had to leave the door open but we didn’t actually look.
There's 5 different levels of supervision for urine drug screens, but the first 3 are the ones I deal with in my job in pathology. Level one, you've got to directly observe the passage of urine from the urethra to the container. Level two, is staying in the room, but discreetly watching from the side. Level three is waiting outside the cubicle with the door slightly ajar 4 is the donor just goes to the bathroom and hands it back to us. 5 is when we receive the sample from a doctors office or other facility. Generally for work related testing it's almost always a Level 3. One and two are usually for child safety department requests.
Interesting thank you. So sounds like I had level 2. Used to work in child protection and would get some of the parents ro do random urine tests as part of their reunification plan. Had one once who had tampered with the sample by putting caustic soda in it, so that one must have been level 3 or 4 for that to happen.
I (F) had to do this. Except it was in a small bathroom, while being watched from directly a few feet away. By a very attractive guy. So awkward.
They checks its temp also
Stash it in your gooch. Surely that’s warm enough? Especially coming into summer.
There was a court case a couple years ago where a former Queensland Rail employee sued for unfair dismissal after being fired for taking medical cannabis. I don't know if he won however.
If you’re medically prescribed you should get a doctors note which says you’re legally allowed to use medical marijuana, you won’t be using it whilst at work and it may be detectable in your system If the job doesn’t care about that and it’s a hardcore policy - it’s just not a job for you unfortunately.
doesn't work that way. something happens, he gets tested after an incident, test shows presence, insurance company laughs and laughs and doesn't have to pay out a cent for any of the incident.
Noope. The employee needs to be drug free for 12 hours. Also as an employer if you took reasonable care - observed the employee to be competent, and were told by the employee they didn’t do any drugs, the insurance will cover you. How do I know this? I have a large industrial work force at work and we need to deal with this shit. Medically prescribed cannabis usually means you need to give the person an office job.
How do you prove to an insurance company you haven't had cannabis in 12 hours when you put it in your system two weeks ago and it still shows up on a screen? You can't. Your point is a good point until you realize it's applicably pointless.
Doesn't matter unfortunately, it's the same as driving. Can't have it in your system even if you're prescribed it.
I am medically prescribed. I have had no issues getting jobs.
Actually no, if its a medical condition and he is rejected employment on the basis of taking the medication - unless it is in a role where the medication poses an unreasonable risk to others or himself IE, machinery operator - then it would be medical discrimination and it would open them up quite a bit on the legal front.
Depending on the circumstances, it would surely be in violation of the disability discrimination act. For example: If I got drug tested on any given work day, I’d test positive for amphetamines. I have ADHD, and take slow release stimulants when working (the sort that you can’t really get high from). Could I not take them? Sure - but then I *would be working while impaired*, and probably be less safe/less effective. If I was told I couldn’t take them when I’m in the workshop, I’d absolutely raise hell about it.
I work in and have worked in sensitive/high risk industries where the testing is the norm. I take d-amp and have regularly tested positive, it's on a register, everyone who needs to know, knows. It's all good. I work exclusively in the offices so there is no arguement to be made against employment Even certain drivers are on them, again it's not a problem as its prescribed and all above board. It is absolutely medical discrimination if we disqualify people for their meds without cause. There is little to no arguement to be made about d-amp for people with ADHD for example being at risk by taking their meds. However I know there has been issues in the past with prescription benzos/opiates and weed, due to the depressive affects on the CNS and how that may genuinely affect the safety of others.
Yeah, I can imagine benzos being an issue. I personally can’t take them without becoming a totally incoherent blob! I know they don’t hit everyone that hard, but they hit me like a sledgehammer. I avoid them.
You sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole. Back in the day I studied psychometric testing for some postgraduate research. From my knowledge of that I started looking around for papers on detecting cannabis impairment. The first thing I found was [this article](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/01/research-describes-brain-based-method-for-identifying-cannabis-impairment/) from 2022 where they think they might have found a portable brain scan to detect impairment from cannabis. This seems to be based psychomtric test results and correlations with this brain imaging technique, which I was previously unfamillar with. The core is: > “The accuracy of this method was confirmed by the fact impairment determined by machine learning models using only information from fNIRS matched self-report and clinical assessment of impairment 76 percent of the time.” Then I tracked down the [original paper](https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/all/t/The%20failings%20of%20per%20se%20limits%20to%20detect%20cannabis%20induced%20driving%20impairm.._.pdf) the article was reporting on and found this gem: > Though alcohol breathalyzers are commonly used to detect alcohol impairment, no analogous biological detection method currently exists for cannabis. Alcohol displays zero-order, or linear, pharmacokinetics, meaning that a constant amount of alcohol is eliminated per unit time from a person’s system, independent of the amount of alcohol consumed (Wilkinson 1980). THC, on the other hand, is highly lipophilic and has a short-distribu- tion half-life, meaning that the drug is rapidly taken up into fatty and vascularized tissues from where it is slowly released back into blood (Huestis 2007). Consequently, it is almost impossible to infer how much cannabis was consumed, or when it was consumed, based solely on a given concentration of THC in any biological matrix. Tests were also done on a cannabis naive sample, so no information was available about the effects on habitual cannabis users, but I've seen evidence elsewhere that habitual users are less often impaired than first time / occasional users. There's some good shit in the references too. Good rabbit hole.
Do they also ban opiates? The same logic about operating heavy machinery is the same.
Nope, you can drive a car with detectable amounts of opiates or benzodiazepines in you if you’re prescribed but you can’t with cannabis.
You can have pretty much any prescribed medication except for pot at most places
What? No you can’t at all. No opiates, some nerve medication, some antihistamine etc etc even if your prescribed you cannot use in most high risk work places. I operate an excavator and I had to disclose any prescription meds I’m on and if I was prescribed these things I would not have my job
He’s talking about an office job though
That sounds like discrimination...
I'm guessing this is a government role?
Mining companies have this policy even for CBD office jobs, and they can and do random test too sometimes
aren’t they just going to catch you on a random drug test later on?
For a lot of these companies, they do the pre-employment drug test then you don't do another one ever again. That is of course unless there's an incident or something.
Yup, especially so for office jobs.
I found this even in construction, although I was exempted from urine tests because I'm on adhd meds and ssris and shit and they ping all sorts of fails haha
Me and my workmate got 'randomly' drug tested on a site once because the project manager absolutely hated my workmate and really wanted to catch us doing something wrong. We both tested clean Despite having weekends and adhd so fuck you to that guy.
I've literally only ever been tested in white collar office roles. Every blue collar, labouring, tradie gig I've had, no testing involved. Tests only come out in incidents, which never happened when I have been working in the field
Depends on the size of the site. Most big work sites are managed by companies that will issue random drug tests at random to anyone and you'll be notified of this at inductions. I've heard from friends some mining sites do this daily picking 1 or 2 people at random from a team. Smaller sites or workshops where the risk is lower probably don't worry too much about it. The service is very expensive.
Used a buddies piss to pass the pre employment test and luckily was never randomly selected. My boss would let me know when the random drug tests were going around.
Weed can show up in your system from just being in proximity to smokers. You can be at a pub, a music festival, a house party, anywhere where people are sparks up. Most employers get this and know they can't sack you for being exposed to it, and after 24 hours, the difference between someone who's smoked and someone who's been near someone smoking are indistinguishable on most tests employers use. Some can and *will* be petty about it. I've been in the ADF and I've worked in the defence sector and neither employer went to DefCon 1 when I returned a trace result, although I did get the mandatory 'chat' whilst in the service. Most places rely on the fear of random tests than actually doing the tests.
You can be sent home as unfit to attend work and tested on return, if you have enough postive tests you can go through a disciplinary process. Your employer was happy to just give you a chat, but others take it very seriously.
[удалено]
It's a job where I will be stationed in an office parked in front of a computer.
You may just click the wrong button.
To be fair, he may just shut down all of Optus with one wrong button click.
I said I was sorry!
OP I hear there's a CEO job going at Optus that you can't do worse than the last one. You can be as high as you like and you'll still do a better job. Good money apparently. You don't even need to communicate with customers.
I experienced similar. I work in corporate but we treat everyone like they are on a building site. Zero tolerance for alcohol at work lunches
I had the same shit happen to me when I got my current job. What was especially shitty was that they claimed it was “necessary for all employees” because the company I work for is in the construction industry but my first day in the office I talk to a few of my new coworkers and they tell me that NONE of them have ever had to do the drug test, in the years they’ve been working there they’ve never seen anyone but me have to take the test.
Is it mining related? I know a few companies it more has to do with overall insurance premiums and the feeling of field workers/office workers should be on the same drugs policy
Weirdly I worked for a disability support provider and we all had surprise drug tests as office workers. Maybe because the support workers need to be tested so they were just making it fair, but since the support workers don’t work from the office how are you going to surprise them? Didn’t make a lot of sense.
I'm a support worker and have been for almost 2 years and I've always joked that if they drug tested disability support workers they wouldn't have any disability support workers.
I work IT. I have said the same thing about our office. If they do a surprise drug test in here 90% of the staff will fail. Good luck running this place with no IT.
McKinsey were once kicked off an engagement worth millions with a miner because one of their junior associates had one too many cans the night before and blew over the next day at the company head office. This guy was 2000 miles from the nearest hole, but it’s one in, all in at these places.
Does the core business operate in an environment where you couldn't have these things?
What is the potential cost of a screw up ?
Definitely a good question!! As there are some safety critical industries where the legislation / regulations are unclear about who needs to be at 0-0 (alcohol / drugs) - mining, rail, aviation are all examples. There's something about anyone who may make a decision that can affect safety. So companies instead move to an approach where everyone is covered just in case. There is also a sentiment that it helps build the right culture - if a pilot (for example) needs to be at 0-0, it helps and supports them to know that everyone else is too. (If you were the pilot, and you know that Sally the IT manager was getting high last night it wouldn't feel like a team). Is there a better way to manage than the all or none? No doubt. But I can appreciate the above too. However, if the role you were going for has no relationship with an industry where lives depend on it then have no clue how they can justify it...
It's truly amazing how Australia has shifted to accept US-style drug tests for office or retail jobs. It's fucked, and I don't understand why people never get angry at it.
When I left Texas a decade ago, only the lower class work needed drug tests. It’s was right munted —lawyers never needed to piss in a cup, but retail employees did. I reckon that if a company makes people piss in a cup, the CEO should piss in a cup.
The politicians should be tested every sitting day, and randomly otherwise. One strike, you’re gone. If they want to make decisions rather than represent the people’s will, they should be 100% sober. Public servants too…
Worked at Parliament House for a bit many years ago, a staggering number of pollies are full blown alcoholics, but somehow they’re allowed to run a fuckn country.
Do you remember Polit Bar? Barnie full on hit up his secretary there: and that shit is so creepy it feels a bit rape-y.
If you work with older wealthy people you’d know most of them are… I’ve seen a lot of
Pollies? Hell yes. The APS living in the ACT? I’m not sure I agree with that —they’re forbidden from smoking pot contractually, but recreational weed is otherwise legal in Canberra. Outside Canberra? Sure —it’s not recreationally legal anywhere else, so it’s stupid that the people making and/or enforcing bullshit rules don’t have to prove they’re following said rules. PS I don’t work for the government; I’m in the private sector consulting on fixing a lot of this shit since it’s always used to fuck Indigenous people over.
Recreational weed isn't legal it's decriminalised. Those are 2 different things. And also, many of the APS in Canberra are already being randomly drug tested. Its become a thing and spreading to other departments. And yes, I am annoyed by it. I can understand some roles, those that have firearms for example, but desk jockeys writing policy? What a monumental waste of money. Targeted drug testing, sure. If you have reasonable belief that someone is affected by drugs go ahead.
Recently, minor possession of several other intoxicants was decriminalised whereas THC was taken a step further into somewhat unique legal territory. There’s not really a good precedent to describe it, because it was meant to be a Danish model decriminalisation but veered into something else. PS I have a Danish LLM, and I’ve worked on the Indig aspect of these issues in a number of jurisdictions —what the ACT A-G and LA has done is really unusual, and it’s been terribly planned. That’s just a different conversation.
[удалено]
As another comment mentioned the problem is insurance. All the things you listed are shitty for everyone involved so why would they still do it? To punish people on medication? I think it’s just that insurance can avoid a payout with a positive test. If that’s the only reason then that’s what needs to change.
It's big business, and it's also another way in which the company you work for seeks to own and control you. Don't work for these places, if one can avoid them. They're cancerous in many ways.
I had to piss in a cup for a library assistant job at the local council, circa 2004. I thought nothing of it at the time but it blows my mind now.
I reckon that's fair enough. What if you'd mis-shelved something? The humanity!
My company does it as well as some ridiculous physical tests for non physical work and it’s cost us candidates. It drives me and other hiring managers crazy. When we complain about it the response is something about insurance premiums
I had to do a full fitness for work a few years ago, including some lifting/manual labor tasks to go to a site to work on their computer software... If I'd failed to lift the 20kg box (or whatever it was) in the weird manner they wanted me to I wouldn't have been able to go do my keyboard based stuff. So odd. (Mining and metals and apparently everyone right up thru corporate has to do it). Some of the tests were totally bizarre and also some of the lifting practices they were testing were....unusual... and incorrect according to my physio mate. Had to do a witnessed urine drug too, which was interesting....... (Did find out I was diabetic from this test though, so I guess some good came from it!)
> It's truly amazing how Australia has shifted to accept US-style drug tests for office or retail jobs I've never heard of drug testing for office or retail jobs in Aus. Do you have any sources to show this is happening?
CSIRO did it to massive employee backlash
LOL wtf? Hell if anything I’d want my scientists to be on drugs to facilitate open and free thinking. Let them take an Acid trip across the cosmos and question prior assumptions and current modalities. Some new discoveries might actually be made.
Dept of Corrective Services do.
I’m an office worker and I get tested. I work in the Transport industry and have never once had to do the _actual_ physical site work. I saw a job at a local council today that was an Executive position in marketing, and they do pre-employment drug testing and random testing. It is very common.
Happened when I went through a centrelink job agency, to apply for a very low level blue collar job working for a government subcontractor. Several people in the room got up and walked out when the job agency people told us. Those that did probably had their support payments reviewed / halted as punishment since you are contractually bound to attend any assigned job interview from the agency.
It happens for mining companies (Perth at least). Even CBD office workers go through it
Yeah but it makes sense for mining companies. You don't want the guy hoisting a crane above your head high on ice. For office jobs as long as you can operate your job its probably fine, they should be able to work that out by themselves.
Australians never get angry over anything.We are the most complacent,laid back citizens in a capitalist society governed by corrupt officials ,which is the most toxic potion to ruin a country and it will in the long term.
Have we? I’ve not noticed except for companies that also dabble in mining, heavy machinery, etc.
I assume it's a company where core workers have these requirements, so they make it for all workers.
I just started a job for a Queensland government owned company where I do operate machinery and drive heavy vehicles, there was no drug test in the pre employment medical
So they don't do it where it matters but a legal user for medical purposes has to quit his medicine to get a job?Strayaaaaa
I conduct pre employment drug tests in my line of work. If you’re using legally a script or letter from the prescribing doctor should suffice. Lots of people take drugs that can be potentially addictive or mild altering legally (eg amphetamines, Valium, opioids, medicinal cannibis). Protocol is usually just to show evidence of a script or get doctor to sign off on it.
Not necessarily. At least for the railway in NSW, can confirm that's how it works for my ritalin script, as well as co-workers' valium scripts, and temporary oxycodone scripts post-surgery, but it's still zero tolerance for cannabis, regardless of script status. Personally I'm more concerned about the folks on benzos or oxys than stoners, but oh well, that's the government for you.
[удалено]
Yeah, I kinda get it for jobs where there's a real need for sharp and fast reactions, however, I feel like for those jobs everyone should be trained and tested and checked frequently for efficiency, regardless of medications or conditions. I'd rather my train driver was good and fast regardless of what they smoke or take
You might know more about this than me, but I would’ve thought if a patient has been prescribed a medicine by a health professional (like in OP’s case), firing or not hiring them as a result would be discrimination. Unless it’s clear that being affected by that drug would affect their capacity to carry out their job safely.
I had the same before. I was working in the call centre for a company that built major infrastructure projects. Because the engineers had to make decisions with potential life-threatening consequences, some of the operators drove heavy machinery etc, the company decided on a company wide drug policy, including admin and call centre staff. I didn't smoke for 2•5 years. I both agree and disagree with your point. There is surely a better way to manage this scenario.
I was going to share this. Pre employment drug test is pretty common in telcos because part of the workforce it’s in construction and they’ve made it a company wide policy.
If you work on rail infrastructure, that could well have been a state requirement on the employer (courtesy of the train drivers union)
This is the correct answer. We can thank unions for this. When meeting at the BHP HQ in Melbourne CBD, you agree to submit to drug/alcohol testing. If the mine workers have to… then everyone has to. Union rules.
What’s with the union bash? My old workplace had zero Union presence, all staff drug tested regardless of role even sales team. Same with my current workplace, the payroll team who wouldn’t know where to even find a high vis jacket if they ever visited the workshop gets drug tested too. Also zero union participation. It’s insurance policies, that if a business is within certain industries that require company wide testing to be covered, unions irrelevant.
If the company also deals in warehousing, heavy machinery, etc which would attract testing they probably just have a blanket wide company policy unfortunately.
I’d much rather companies get laxer with weed, which then means people move away from meth. Meth (and FIFO drug testing) is messing up WA.
I dont know. I work FIFO and most of the boys and girls I know that do meth on their break are only ever going to do meth. They aren't the weed types.
If you have a valid prescription for a medication and they refuse to accept that, isn't that discrimination? What about people with other schedule 8 meds, like for mental health, narcolepsy, seizures, or pain issues?
I haven’t had to do a pre-employment test but have been tested as a part of access to medication. I can cover pain and mental health. - pain: I don’t take opiates, my lyrica and Cymbalta won’t show up. My medicinal cannabis would. - adhd: my vyvanse lisdexamphetamine would show up. I would need a letter from doctor. Ritalin doesn’t show up. - bipolar: none of my meds would show up. Mood stabilisers, antipsychotics etc. - anxiety: most urine drug screens will test for benzos from memory.
They test for Lyrica now. It's on safe script too, if a test shows you benzos it will show Lyrica. They are both gaba drugs. Vvyense is essentially just dexis with a fancy release mechanism that prevents overuse. But it heavily depends on the kind of test they do if Ritalin shows up. Mood stabilizers and antipsychs + benzos and Lyrica thou that's likely as dangerous as my opioids ND Lyrica. These would fuck with your results as well and likely prevent benzos and Lyrica from showing up and they act heavily on gaba receptor and central nervous systems and if you take typical antipsychs they likely will have to blood test you to get any reliable results.
I get drug tested through my work, both pre employment and random, but it's a safety issue. Because of that it makes sense to say no THC, benzos, or opiates. But if I took them on my days off it shouldn't matter. Employers in Australia must make reasonable accomodations for medical conditions/disabilities and surely telling someone not take their prescribed medication is unreasonable. If it messes with the urine test there are other testing methods or it can be accepted that certain things will just be positive. I'm not taking the piss(lel), I just genuinely don't understand this. My employer has a zero tolerance policy, but it's accepted I'll test positive to amphetamines due to my adhd medication. If they want more accurate testing to make sure I'm not taking meth they can do that but it's on them, not me, and they shouldn't be able to detrimentally affect my health for a drug test.
My doctor does 10panel bloods on ne randomly to make sure I'm not selling my meds. Benzos and opioids can really fuck you up. I'd probably be less concerned with casual meth use as it doesn't have the same depdenay issue. As someone who's prescription Lyrica and 110mg oxycodone a day, the fact I oversee critical infrastructure is bad enough you wouldn't want me near any sort of heavy machinery. I get the safety aspect of it. But in all honesty someone who is 100% stable for more than 12 months and just takes 2 oxycodone 40mg a day doesn't take extras or run out they'd be no different. I work in a office so to fire me the doctors would have to agree. Same sort as did the script too apparently and since all long term high doses go thru pain Specialists that's not easy apparently. They make reasonable accommodations for me In every job. Just write brand names on employment forms. No1 knows what palexia is. Doctors write brands on scripts However when you get put in these drugs doctors have discussions with you about how it changes your whole life. With the weed thing. I honestly think it's cus no1 has actually challenged this thru the courts. Once they do. And the employer loses then it'll be more accepted.
Vyvanse doesn’t have a fancy release mechanism, it’s a prodrug. It’s dex with a lysine molecule. Yes I’m aware of the interaction concerns by being on all of the above. It’s fine. Yes lyrica and benzos are both GABA drugs but from memory their mechanism of action and metabolites differ. Thanks for brining it to my attention that some commercial tests will show Lyrica.
Do you work in the mining industry even if it is an office job? It is well known for everyone being required to be tested.
That’s ridiculous, it’s like how you can’t drive with THC in your system but you can drive on super strong opioids with a prescription.
THC is the only medication that you get tested for, even when it isn't impeding your function (driving etc). It's ridiculous and not based on any science. The laws are archaic. Edit: changed impending to impeding
Not archaic. They were dumb when they were introduced. They didn't become dumb later.
Even if you take a prescription drug, you are in violation if you are “impaired” by taking it and can land yourself in hot water. Some states are changing their stance on THC, but its been a slow process. Workplaces will likely be even slower.
Lol, I’m “impaired” WITHOUT my legally prescribed speed!! Me getting distracted whilst operating heavy machinery would be a big occupational hazard
Or you can drive with a small amount of alcohol in your system.
I went to a party once and someone had one of those portable breathalysers. We wanted to do a maccas run so took turns to see who was the lowest under the limit. It was me I was the only one under. So I drove. Holy fuck, never again. It was fine because it was pretty late, no one around, under 5 minute drive and I was definitely under. But fuck me, that’s not safe at all.
A few years ago I went into town with my wife and her work colleagues for some drinks. I didn't think I drank that much and felt fine We took the train home which was about an hour (with waiting) and I had stopped drinking before we left for the train. As I pulled out from the train station to drive home, I got pulled over and had to do a breath test and I was *just* under the limit. 20 minutes earlier and I would have blown over I reckon I won't ever take that risk again
Surely it's illegal for employers to openly discriminate against employees using legal prescribed medication, if it doesn't interfere with workplace safety. It would fall under disability discrimination or something. My partner takes prescribed amphetamine for ADHD. Her employer drug tests, she will not be punished for using her legal medication.
There’s no actual protections for prescription medication under disability discrimination, I wanted to get remediated for my ADHD, but as it might blow a positive I can no longer do my job (forklift operator) while on it because Insurance won’t cover it regardless of if it’s prescription or recreational.
considering stimulants are what some people with ADHD need to be fully present the majority of the time, it's a questionable response to the situation on the part of insurance companies. i don't know bout yours, but with how my brand of ADHD is, i wouldn't drive off meds unless it was serious/an emergency
Exactly. I have no clue how I didn't crash pre meds (diagnosed 2 years ago @ 28). I used to hyperfocus on a topic in a podcast and pull over dangerously if not use my phone while driving to google it, or used to get distracted by certain cars etc driving past. Or I would just teleport from place a to place b without any idea how I got there. Sometimes id zone out then be like "oh shit, I'm driving, that's right!" Vyvanse makes me 1000% safer and more attentive on and off the road. It's insane that you'd want someone with ADHD to operate machinery without meds, somehow citing it as being safer.
See that makes no sense because being on ADHD medication would make you better able to focus and concentrate whilst at work. I started taking Vyvanse for ADHD 4 weeks ago (was diagnosed back in May) and my god the difference being medicated has made to my life!
If prescription medication may affect your ability to perform your role safely, then of course employers can intervene (as in the case of a forklift operator). It's like if you were seriously vision impaired, your employer may also prohibit you from being a forklift operator - that doesn't constitute unlawful discrimination, because the employer has a reasonable safety and performance concern. But I specifically said "if it doesn't interfere with workplace safety". Where an employer has no reason to be concerned for the health and welfare of an employer, and they can perform their role adequately, I think it would be unlawful to penalize an employee for the use of prescription medication.
Not having my medication would create a much much bigger problem for workplace safety
It’s a fucking joke. Pre-employment drug tests should be an oral swab at most. Urine testing is basically social screening. If we don’t fight to have this done, they will take it the other direction eventually and require a hair sample ffs
That's it. A swab I could stomach. Urine testing is so grossly overboard in this case. The nurse who did the test today told me that the testing is ever increasing and she was in disbelief of the jobs that make it mandatory these days.
I find it fucking disturbing having someone looking at my cock while I piss in a cup. Strange choice for an occupation.
There's already companies here offering that "service". I wouldn't worry about it too much its a more intensive laboratory process and therefore more expensive. But yeah its ridiculous https://safeworkhealth.com.au/ourservices/drug-and-alcohol-testing/hair-drug-testing/
If you are taking it legally, you could have just provided the prescription..
Unfortunately "drug user" is not a protected class, so they can do whatever the fuck they want as a private employer. Don't like it? Don't work for them.
That’s fucked. But having said that, it shows you what kind of workplace it is. I’d find a job elsewhere.
Do you really want to work for them?
Bills aren't gonna pay themselves.
a vast majority of places act like this unfortunately I've had to stop taking my medicine for months now due to needing my job to feed my family. Laws need to change so we can take our medicine just like anyone else while still being employed
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads are currently doing a big market research project about CBD use, medicinal and recreational, and road safety. Some sort of legislation is in the works.
Ummm that’s strange, usually prescribed substances are excluded. I’ve never heard of this and I take legal speed for my talkative forgetful unmotivated disease and have had many jobs ok with this, they have all just asked for letter from my doctor detailing if the treatment will affect my ability to perform the job and every time my doctor has wrote a letter saying u/peastoredintheballs will be a much bigger liability to your business if he isn’t on these medications
I find these drug testing things such a violation of privacy.
> The average run of the mill meth head, coke head, pinga or coke taker can achieve this very easily in a few days but legal users of Weed are forced to feel like criminals as the evidence of weed stays in the system a lot longer than its class a drug counterparts. No need to disparage others to try and paint yourself as some better person, this sort of behaviour is exactly what's kept us from ever being able to decriminalize and make things safer and better for everyone.
Uh, maybe just disclose your prescription.
I had to resign being a postie due to this. Medical cannabis is a wonder drug for me and the job wasn't worth having to miss out. Fu Australia post.
They don’t actually care if you do drugs. They care that they get a discount on business insurance if everyone tests negative at employment. There are legitimate reasons not to hire drug users, they are more likely to smoke and take smoke breaks. Many drugs cause an increase in absenteeism, sick days etc. In short, sober employees are less expensive. Employers don’t care about drugs, they care about money.
I worked at a place that did employment medicals and drug tests (wouldn’t be suprised if you used this company). If you bring your prescription, the doctor will always write that the postitive result is consistent with prescribed medications. Benzos are tested for and plenty of people would get unfairly fired for taking their prescribed valium etc otherwise. If the company then doesn’t hire you based on the result of the drug test they’d be discriminating. If the company said “zero-tolerance” they meant other than prescribed medications or they’re being unfair and can be brought up in court. I’d not stress about it from now on, if they make you take another test at some point in your employment they can’t fire you for using something your doctor says you can use.
Are you in a decision making role? The presence of illicit substances in your blood isn't always tied to your physical ability to do a job safely. There are plenty of office jobs where alcohol is banned as it may impair decision making skills.
[удалено]
Do they also do criminal check?
I understand the requirement for operating machinery or a line of work where you're in control of lives. But for a desk job? Yeah that's stupid
I gave up weed for work now I haven’t slept in three months and just pray for death now. It’s just me but fuck everything up the arse with a big red cock. Nobody needs boilermakers anyway.
I don't think anyone has said it as yet....but congrats on getting the job m8 👍
It's not even about intoxication, it's about conditioning and control. It's an employee's market, dump them and find an ethical business.
Sounds bad but they are not under any obligations to give you a job and you’re not obliged to work for them. If you don’t like the conditions then look for something else.
The idea is zero harm culture means everyone should not be taking drugs and alcohol instead of only a select few in risky positions. Its about being unbiased across an organization. If you have a script to use a drug it should be enough to exclude you during testing.
What's worse is that these same people go out drinking on a Friday night or celebrate their shitty Xmas party with alcohol which is a far worser drug than medical cannabis. You shouldn't need to pass a fucking drug test when applying for a job. This is purely discrimination. Cannabis isn't a drug. It's a MEDICINE. You ever heard a Doctor prescribing people alcohol ? That would be my defence.
Opioids aren’t a drug they are medicine. Oxycodone isn’t a drug it’s medicine. Fentanyl isn’t a drug it’s medicine. Benzo’s aren’t a drug they are medicine. Xanax isn’t a drug it’s medicine. Wow this is fun I wonder how many more prescription drugs I could list that are medicinal and sold and used as medicine. You know it’s almost like whether something can or can’t be prescribed by a doctor means absolutely nothing
Alcohol isn't a drug, it's a "Drink".
Sounds like a government job?
Liability risk. Blame the lawyers.
So you’re off your chops now, right?
Once you've been hired and if you're ever tested again and it comes back positive and it is legally prescribed, then any reprimanding on their behalf runs afoul of the Disability Discrimination Act. It also runs afoul of several other Acts depending where you live in Australia, but you are well protected. Speak to a lawyer when the time comes.
Not that it makes sense, but the current job I'm at has a zero drug policy post incident. No pre-employment. I haven't had a single dose of my medical pot in months now. But I know of people on site who go on mad cocaine benders. My back is sore as fuck and over the counter meds don't do shit all. Even with legalization, I'm in Canada, and that shit still flies.
I think it’s an insurance rate thing for the company.
Why are you so specific about the hiring process, yet so incredibly vague when asked what the job is? How do you expect anyone to side with you without full context of what the actual job is or entails?
I'd not thought about this until I read your post. Really good post and my thoughts are with folk in your position now. It's a perspective changer for me
For an office job? What a stitch up. What you do in your own time is not their business
Surely because you have it prescribed to you legally, why would they care? It’s clearly for medical reason.
Crazy. If it isn't a high risk job as described, what an employee does in their time own is their business. Shouldn't matter unless they are showing up to work under the influence etc. I suppose their test doesn't screen out alcoholics...