Post # 1
I went in for my first day at a new job today – to fill out paperwork and whatnot, and once I was given my contract and everything, the exec. director said, “Alright, now I’m going to send you to get your fingerprints/background check/drug test. Today.”
Don’t get me wrong, I have NO worries about passing all of these requirements…that’s not the point at all. I was just kind of surprised that the job posting didn’t mention these requirements (from what I’ve seen, they usually do note that these things are required if they are). I was also surprised that I wasn’t informed of them once I was offered the job. It seemed pretty clear that they deliberately sprang this at the last second to try to “catch” me.
Luckily, of course, there’s nothing to be caught, but it def. caught me off guard.
Is this common?
ETA: Obvie, I know they “can” do this…just being sarcastic.
Post # 3
@Sazerac: Very much so. It also depends on the field you’re going into.
Post # 4
@Sazerac: Yup, completely normal.
I had my fingerprints taken first day on the job, and had to go in for a drug test on 24 hrs notice before my offer was official.
It doesn’t make sense to list in the job requirements, “you will have to undergo a drug test” because then people can “prepare” for it.
Post # 6
I was drug tested for my current job, but it was done before they issued me my official offer letter. At first I thought they were joking about the drug test because it’s kind of a high level corporate job and I’ve gone through the interview process with three similar companies, none of which required a drug test. But they were serious! So I went and got it done about 4 hours after I was told it had to be done (it was also last second and had to be done immediatley). I’m wondering why they actually hired you though before testing you, usually it’s a pre-employment type of thing.
Post # 7
What would be the point of a drug test if they tipped you off beforehand?
Post # 8
Hmmm, most places will do it in the pre-employment process (no point in wasting time filling out new hire paperwork if you can’t pass the tests), but it’s very common to not mention those steps in the hiring process. Otherwise, it’s not as accurate, since extra notice gives candidates time to prepare.
Post # 9
@Rouquine: I did kind of expect it, because it’s a teaching job, but every other time I’ve had to do this stuff I’ve been given more than like 15 minutes notice…
Post # 10
@CanAmBride: The point I’m getting at is why bother going through the whole hiring/interview process only to then test someone and waste all that time? A lot of jobs I’ve seen clearly state some kind of policy w/r/t drug testing in the listing OR have you do a pre-screening thing as part of the interview or before the interview, so people who can’t pass it won’t bother applying.
It just seemed abrupt that this happened, literally, right after I had signed my contract.
Post # 11
@Sazerac: Not to bore you with HR talk, but there are a few different theories when it comes to testing and checks. You’ll most often see information about testing and checks in the job ad if it’s mandated by the state or feds, or if regular testing is a part of the job. Honestly, I rarely see companies test everyone who applies or everyone who interviews because it can get really costly. On the other hand, I’ve never seen a company have you fill out the new hire paperwork and then take you for testing/checks. That seems backwards to me, too.
Post # 12
Maybe b/c most people who this company hires will pass the test? So they don’t want to bother making tons of people take it who they won’t end up hiring?
Post # 13
i don’t get it, why are you so bothered when you expected it and you’ll pass anyway.