Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
What is the last month of the year?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by DippityShurff
 - Aug 16, 2005, 11:39 AM
Random drug testing on employees is an integral thing we do in our agency.  Once you are notified that you have been selected, you are immediately taken to the testing facility.  Doesn't take long and the immediacy certainly lessens the change of countermeasures.  I have no problem with taking random drug tests for any "safety sensitive" position.  It does have a scientific basis.  Now, should an employee come back hot on the initial test, there is no adverse action at this point.  This test is then subjected to something called a Mass Spec test, which I'm told is extremely accurate. By the way, I just told you everything I know about "mass spec"  Do we ever have anyone who slips through the cracks?  I suppose.  Those that have been caught on this test were (admittedly subjective here) people I had my suspicions about anyway.  My only complaint is that I have been selected 4 times in a year.  prior to that, one time in  just about forever.  Oh well, ain't randomicity great. If I were the king of the world, I would do away with polygraph pre-employment screening. I would assuredly keep drug testing.
Posted by Jeffery
 - Jul 02, 2005, 03:51 PM
Quote from: dimas on Jul 02, 2005, 02:39 PMNYPD is now using hair analysis due to the fact that urinalysis is actually quite easy to beat and many drugs have clearance times of a few days in urine.
That would explain the increasing numbers of bald cops I am seeing.  ;D
Posted by dimas
 - Jul 02, 2005, 02:39 PM
Mr. Hall is correct in his statement.  It varies from agency to agency, however just as Mr. Hall pointed out, why would it matter unless you have something to hide?


As it is agencies who are having problems with substance abuse in their ranks are using varying methods of testing.  NYPD is now using hair analysis due to the fact that urinalysis is actually quite easy to beat and many drugs have clearance times of a few days in urine.


Ultimately, this depends on the department you apply for and what their protocols are for this.  
Posted by polyscam
 - Jun 30, 2005, 04:25 AM
Contact the agency in question.  Unless you're a recent chemotherapy patient the type of testing should be immaterial, unless you are attempting to hide something...