[central_va]

I do see some of that where I work. We can find a good person to hire, but after we tell them to pee in a cup, we never see them again. Some people don’t even bother to apply. They get more money from welfare, so why work for just above minimum?

Pay more then you will get a better quality of candidate. This isn't rock surgery.

[HiTech RedNeck]

True, those who earn more are willing to run a stricter gantlet in order to get the work. This is one reason I wonder why rank and file police salaries are so relatively little. Double that, and now you can support character examination out the whatsis, at least if the unions will allow it (which might stymie such a plan). Salary costs are not the biggest costs in PDs.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

>>Pay more then you will get a better quality of candidate. This isn’t rock surgery.<<

We pay $14/hr for entry-level manufacturing work. $14.90 at the end of 1st year. $0.50 extra for 2nd shift. Great benefits and lots of OT. HS Diploma and 18+ are only requirements. Most of our employees W2 $50k+ a year, for basic machine operation. Not too shabby.

We lose 2 out of every 5 candidates to failed drug screens.

[alexander_busek]

I do see some of that where I work. We can find a good person to hire, but after we tell them to pee in a cup, we never see them again. Some people don't even bother to apply. They get more money from welfare, so why work for just above minimum? Pay more then you will get a better quality of candidate. This isn't rock surgery.

I would refuse to "pee into a cup" - for political reasons (i.e., because I view it as an infringement of my right to privacy), and because I regard it as undignified - not because I feared any revelation of drug-use. I would instead look for a different job - one for which "peeing into a cup" was not a prerequisite.

The refusal to participate in such an undignified procedure is not necessarily a question of "quality."

Regards,