I don't know about the tests that employees get but I know the procedure that the military used for urine tests. If the first test was positive, a second test was scheduled to verify the first one. One positive test was not enough to be conclusive. Also, prior to being tested, we were required to fill out a form that listed all meds that we were taking.
In general, testing was done randomly. That is, we never knew when it would happen ahead of time, and we never knew which numbers would be picked that day. They went by the last digit in your SSN. For example, at morning quarters it would be announced that all people with a SSN ending in 7 had to report to room such-and-such for urine testing. We went to the room to fill out the paperwork, and then one at a time go with an observer to the restroom.
Chain of custody was very important. Any little flaw in the procedure and the test results were thrown out. When there was a question about the results, it was always ruled in favor of the military member.
I don't know about today. I'll have to ask around. When I first served in the early 70's drug use was rampant and in the open, especially weed. People stood around outside their barracks smoking pot and offering it to passersby. We were coached to lie on the forms that we filled out about drug use.
When I was under the "random testing" procedure, a positive reading was all it took. If you wanted to dispute the findings, they retested, using the same urine supplied during the prior test. We made various things for many different airlines, so we fell under FAA rules. No doubt a different standard. This was prior to 9/11/2001.
When we gave samples, we could turn away from the observer. Are you saying they had to face you? I would be in there for days! It took a long time before even my wife could watch me go.
In the Navy, a retest meant new urine sample.
Depends on your sex.
Yes, I am aware of that. Glad I can face away, but it still is no picnic for me. I know they take the temperature right away to assure it came from me, not a baggie or bottle. Thanks for your input from the other side of the testing procedure.
The "donor" isn't told when the retest will be.
Blood testing would require more of a medically trained staff. There is not as much experience needed to take a urine sample. Just follow procedures. Added cost would be passed on the the companies that have the subjects that are tested. That would end up being passed to the consumer. There is also a hair follicle test. No way to mask usage, and they can test backwards about 6 months. Not sure why there are not more tests done this way. They do not need hair from the head, for anyone that is bald. Any body hair will work.
so.. I think it's good that they want to make sure people who are on drugs to take urine test if they fail then they can't see $$ in their hand but doesn't happen here in california but only happen for people who are on probation that is also requirement tho 
Oh man.... I feel your pain brother but the reality is that's how the system works. I like how you think though. I wonder how many people on welfare would fail the drug test.
Far as I am concerned, as long you are on welfare-- you are at the mercy of the government. And they should, so I support the drug-test concept.
However the whole "government controls us" is why I am planning to turn off the lightbulb permanently, so to speak, or be homeless rather than resorting to disability welfare. So far I am independent.
I think most of the reason tax payers complain about welfare recipients wasting their money on drugs and alcohol is because it is the tax payers' money that supports welfare. Most people don't really care how others live but they do care how their tax money is spent.
