M
[email protected]
Guest
I applied for a job and was required to have a drug screening. Policy read that if ANYONE w/ confirmed positive will not be considered for employment. Must wait 6Mo to reaply or go through and complete a certified drug program before you can re-apply.
I was told to start training on the same day as testing. Due to circumstances the test was delayed. Employer instructed for me to return to training class. I was on the payroll as an employee during training for almost 2 weeks. I got 100% on my entrance exam, excelled in class and wasn't absent once. After almost 2 weeks my test results came in and I tested positive and they let me go. I don't take drugs and they wouldn't even hear my side or give me any reasons.
I then learned of another employee who tested positive who was allowed to re-test. On the re-test they tested negative. He missed one day of training and was able to resume working.
I paid for a drug screening out of my own pocket with a company that uses the same laboratory and tested under the same conditions. The test came back negative (as we figurred). They refused to allow a second testing or consider the results from the test I paid for. They said it was due to the type of substance detected. Even though the only thing that is written in the companies policy is that ANYONE with a confirmed positive will not be considered for employment.
Since they allowed one person to retest don't they have to allow everyone the same option?
We were hired before we received the results or took the test. We were on the payroll like everyone else that was hired. At that point wouldn't I be considered an employee and not a pre-employment applicant?
I know of several employees that worked for the employer that were there for 3 months that hadn't gone through the drug screening. When the company realized their oversight they required those employees to take the drug screening test. If they tested positive they lost their job. Even though they don't drug test current employee's unless there is a performance problem and show signs of or evidence to suspect otherwise. Wouldn't this be considered testing of a current employee rather than a pre-employment applicant?
This employer hasn't been consistant with ALL of the applicants. Some are tested before starting and others up to 5 months after starting there jobs.
This is a new company that has moved to our town and have already employed 300+ employees. They plan to hire close to 1000 total. We need the jobs in our area and don't want to make waves. But it isn't fare if they are not using fare hiring practices. Don't they have to treat everyone the same. If not, isn't that discrimination?
I was told to start training on the same day as testing. Due to circumstances the test was delayed. Employer instructed for me to return to training class. I was on the payroll as an employee during training for almost 2 weeks. I got 100% on my entrance exam, excelled in class and wasn't absent once. After almost 2 weeks my test results came in and I tested positive and they let me go. I don't take drugs and they wouldn't even hear my side or give me any reasons.
I then learned of another employee who tested positive who was allowed to re-test. On the re-test they tested negative. He missed one day of training and was able to resume working.
I paid for a drug screening out of my own pocket with a company that uses the same laboratory and tested under the same conditions. The test came back negative (as we figurred). They refused to allow a second testing or consider the results from the test I paid for. They said it was due to the type of substance detected. Even though the only thing that is written in the companies policy is that ANYONE with a confirmed positive will not be considered for employment.
Since they allowed one person to retest don't they have to allow everyone the same option?
We were hired before we received the results or took the test. We were on the payroll like everyone else that was hired. At that point wouldn't I be considered an employee and not a pre-employment applicant?
I know of several employees that worked for the employer that were there for 3 months that hadn't gone through the drug screening. When the company realized their oversight they required those employees to take the drug screening test. If they tested positive they lost their job. Even though they don't drug test current employee's unless there is a performance problem and show signs of or evidence to suspect otherwise. Wouldn't this be considered testing of a current employee rather than a pre-employment applicant?
This employer hasn't been consistant with ALL of the applicants. Some are tested before starting and others up to 5 months after starting there jobs.
This is a new company that has moved to our town and have already employed 300+ employees. They plan to hire close to 1000 total. We need the jobs in our area and don't want to make waves. But it isn't fare if they are not using fare hiring practices. Don't they have to treat everyone the same. If not, isn't that discrimination?