conuly | (no subject)

(no subject)

He couldn't pee for the drug test, so he lost his job. The man in question says he should be allowed to take a hair or blood test instead, and the company says no, they don't have to do that.

Why? The hair test is supposed to be more accurate, so why not allow that? The blood test is just as hard to falsify, so why not do that? Are they significantly more expensive? Is there some sort of moral pride in only allowing urine tests? I don't understand.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

THAT is weird. And stupid.

But if his contract says urine test, he has to take it. They were within their rights firing him.

Hair and blood tests are also more expensive.

But he couldn't take it. How can they fire him for being unable to pee? That's not a critical part of his job.

I'm not sure, but if that's the literal wording of the contract that he MUST take a urine test when asked.....

It defies logic, but that's the way it is.

That's why he's suing. His claim is that it doesn't just defy logic, it defies the law.

Hair tests can't be that expensive. There was a school in Beijing that had drug problems, so they made the kids take hair tests every couple of months.

hair tests do cost fractionally more than urine tests, but detect drug use over long periods of time. Companies don't care though, it's all about the bottom line for them.