Even better: at some of these employers, being treated therapeutically by a doctor with a DEA scheduled medicine forces you to take the urine test, fail it, and then inevitably listen to someone from HR ask you questions about your health history in order to ascertain if you really need to be taking the medicine. It's intrusive, infantilizing, and just not worth it when there are so many better employers out there.
>Even better: at some of these employers, being treated therapeutically by a doctor with a DEA scheduled medicine forces you to take the urine test, fail it, and then inevitably listen to someone from HR ask you questions about your health history in order to ascertain if you really need to be taking the medicine.
Don't grasp at straws, anyone with a brain would bring proof of prescription (or put their doctor's number down!) to the test and that gets sent along with the results.
I doubt people without a brain would get much out of drugs.
So now it's my urine and substantial pieces of my health history, including a pretty good drug-directed guess of what the actual underlying health condition is. Hope it's not an expensive one to insure. Oh, I'll write the doctor's number down too. I'll just fill out the HIPAA authorization form granting my potential employer access to my medical history. Good thing the practice's name doesn't include "behavioral health" anywhere in it.
Why bother with this nonsense when there are so many better employment options?
>I'll just fill out the HIPAA authorization form granting my potential employer access to my medical history
If I saw an auth form for any medical records release I would nope the fuck out too. That doesn't sound typical or correct. I have only seen releases for the results of the test which yes, if come back positive and you have proof of legal use will indicate you've been getting treatment based on someone's guess. However, it should stop there. If someone from HR starts asking medical questions about why you are getting treatment, that sounds like it's crossing a serious line and I'd be looking into whether that's legal or not. That sounds like a company that is hiring some shitty people, never mind whether they are good or not because they have a drug testing policy.
>Why bother with this nonsense when there are so many better employment options?
The issue is that virtually all practices will refuse to disclose any medical information to third parties without explicit written authorization.
I'm certain a lot of this behavior is illegal, but people who don't know or choose to ignore the law are everywhere, and litigation is expensive and time-consuming. I just want to build stuff, so I take these sorts of policies as a warning sign and look elsewhere.
