(no subject)
May. 20th, 2004 05:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyHe 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 03:43 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:28 pm (UTC)It defies logic, but that's the way it is.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:41 pm (UTC)