Quote Originally Posted by Burnt Toast
This is not known as a "monitored" collection. This is known as a "directly observed" collection.

"Monitored collection" and "directly observed collection" are two different situations. A "monitored" collection occurs in situations where water sources cannot be secured to deter tampering (ie; multi-stall bathroom, or if the facility is an ancient building with only one shutoff valve - the water main to the facility). A monitor is assigned to keep others from entering the bathroom (multi-stall) and to deter the use of unsecured water sources. The monitor is not to be inside the bathroom stall with the donor.

In a "directly observed" collection, an observer (of the same gender) is inside the bathroom stall and in adherence to established protocol, directly watch the flow of urine exit the donors body and into the specimen cup. In employment-related situations, D/O collections are performed if the donor is suspected of tampering, or if its a "Follow up/ Return to Duty" test.
Thanks for the clarification, BT. So since this is my first pre-employment test the likelihood of it being directly observed is slim to nil? Is that correct? Unless I get caught using a substitute they have no reason to suspect me of tampering. Only if the bottle falls down my pant leg when I walk in the door are they likely to do a directly observed collection. Assuming I get into the stall with it safely, I'm good to go, right?