Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 5:32:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 8:21:13 GMT -5
So, are we going to test Congress and the POTUS and everyone else?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 1, 2012 8:24:38 GMT -5
Get the laws changed. Your problem solved.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 5:32:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 8:30:57 GMT -5
It doesn't affect me either way. Like i said, i have been peeing i a cup for years. But, i think that people should be concerned about the creeping invasion of every entity from your boss to your govt in your own personal autonomy and destiny.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 5:32:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 9:23:27 GMT -5
As long as the employeer announces the start of the drug testing program and applies it evenly throughout all the employees it's legal. At my last company we had pre-employment, random and post accident drug testing; this isn't uncommon, especially not in industries where someone could get injured or injure someone else when intoxicated at work. At that job we had people using forklifts, trucks, climbing heights, etc. Prior to starting the drug testing, they made an announcement a month prior to the first test, and even explained how long different drugs will stay in your system (if I'm remembering right, pot stayed the longest - 30 days). They still lost 2/3 of their minimum wage warehouse workers - I guess they figured the job was so crappy it wasn't worth giving up smoking dope over it. This seems perfectly fair to me. I think marijuana should be legal, but I dopn't have much in the way of sympathy for people who choose to break the law. And while I don't think smoking a joint on Saturday night will impair anyone's performance on Monday morning, if you can't stop using for 30 days it has stopped being a hobby and I don't want you working for me.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 1, 2012 10:29:32 GMT -5
It doesn't affect me either way. Like i said, i have been peeing i a cup for years. But, i think that people should be concerned about the creeping invasion of every entity from your boss to your govt in your own personal autonomy and destiny. I think what is pushing this is company liability. That's why we do drug testing post accident at my current job- if you have someone run their forklift into the wall while under the influence and did nothing about it (or didn't test him, so you didn't know he was under the influence) and he later runs over a co-worker and kills him, you as a company would have a great deal of liability. Yes it does infringe on your personal life, but at some point your right to be high overlaps my right to a safe workplace.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 1, 2012 10:32:09 GMT -5
It is really something that is going to wind up hurting the poor and those near poverty level trying to get on their feet. They will implement these kinds of stringent standards for cashiers and burger flippers and put them out in the street while our House of Lords could be bombed out of their minds voting on bills or pressing the Red Nuke button and that kind of testing won't apply to them. Employer mandated random, post accident and reasonable suspicion alcohol and drug testing will no more impact the poor and near poverty level employees as a whole than any other social or economic group of employees. Alcohol abuse or drug use knows no social or economic boundaries. At my current job we do a pre-hire and a post-accident drug test but we haven't been able to start a random drug testing program because two groups - the corporate higher ups and the sales force - refuse to participate, and our lawyer says we can't exclude any employees from the random drug pool or we'll be sued. I think the higher ups think it's degrading to pee in a cup, and I know the sales guys routinely take clients out for lunches and dinners where alcohol flows freely. So at least in our company it's not the low wage earners, it's actually the more highly paid people that don't want to take the test.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 1, 2012 10:53:41 GMT -5
I don't believe in random drug/alcohol testing for employees who are not in covered positions (DOT/FAA and DOT/FHWA) or other positions where the safe operation of equipment is paramount. Even in work settings where drugs are dispensed (hospitals, clinics) I don't believe in random testing.
The only time non-covered employees should be alcohol/drug screened is for reasonable suspicion or cause and post-accident.
And as for a sales force, I am okay with alcohol with their lunches or dinners with clients as long as they are not meeting other customers after their meals are over. The smell of alcohol on a sales person's breath may give a customer the wrong impression.
I would imagine, even without a Drug/Alcohol Free Workplace policy, an executive clearly under the influence of alcohol (for no legitimate reason) or drugs would most likely get disciplined or canned (unless he was the business owner).
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 1, 2012 11:05:19 GMT -5
I think the laws should be enforced even.y or not at all. If the POTUS and congress start having to go thru invasive security to fly like the rest of us peons, I'd be more inclined to be less pissed about the bullshit of it all. Besides the fact that it does not increase flying safety, it's a. Buddy boondoggle. But if you are going to test, then all are tested. I'd not think you should be doing illegal drugs, period, but I don't agree with the law as it stands. Change the law. Voters are not powerless no matter how much we feel our vote doesn't matter.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 5:32:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 11:25:10 GMT -5
It doesn't affect me either way. Like i said, i have been peeing i a cup for years. But, i think that people should be concerned about the creeping invasion of every entity from your boss to your govt in your own personal autonomy and destiny. I think what is pushing this is company liability. That's why we do drug testing post accident at my current job- if you have someone run their forklift into the wall while under the influence and did nothing about it (or didn't test him, so you didn't know he was under the influence) and he later runs over a co-worker and kills him, you as a company would have a great deal of liability. Yes it does infringe on your personal life, but at some point your right to be high overlaps my right to a safe workplace. I don't disagree with drug testing to some extent and depending on one's position. But, will that solve the problems? And, if someone is at risk, perhaps everyone should be drug/alcohol tested every morning? Would that not make even more sense? And, is there a difference between a legitimate medical use versus illegal or legal use of alcohol, etc? And how often for testing? Preemployment, every day, every month,, etc? How far back to go? Hair follicles for THC that they used months ago? And, on an on.
|
|
sheilaincali
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 17:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by sheilaincali on Oct 1, 2012 11:43:32 GMT -5
We pre-employment drug test everyone. They are all placed in a random pool and quarterly an independent 3rd party sends me the list of who was selected from which tests. I send them up at my discretion anytime during that quarter. Usually we wait for slow times, rain days, etc. Our insurance company requires the program- we also have to post accident drug test everyone and have the option to require an employee submit to a drug test for reasonable suspicion. Some of my employees are DOT drivers so they are in a different drug testing pool because we are required to test them for specific drugs and comply with DOT requirements.
I make no apologizes for drug testing employees. You want to work here fine- go pee in a cup. You don't want to pee in a cup? fine go work somewhere else. Simple as that.
We get no personal medical information- I get a sheet that says "John Doe, negative" from the testing company. If someone tests positive they contact the individual first to allow them to retest or provide proof of any medications that they have been prescribed.
If you fail a drug test you are fired immediately. Over the years we have lost a few people to failed drug tests. Our insurance company is very strict on DUI's we can't employee anyone with a DUI on their driving record if they will be expected to drive any company vehicle. So salesmen, drivers, supervisors, etc if they get a DUI they are fired. Historically we have had to fire more people for getting DUI's than for failing drug tests.
Every employer that both DH and I have had (with the exception of a pizza place when DH was in high school) has require a drug test.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 1, 2012 12:07:57 GMT -5
DFs work doesn't and never has. Frankly, it should because there are big machines being worked on in the shop. The office staff is probably okay because they are old and I do mean, OLD. But the shop is another story.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 1, 2012 12:43:28 GMT -5
So, truly honest question here as I know almost nothing about recreational drug use. For alcohol there are blood/breath tests which can pretty clearly measure if someone is impaired. Do the same tests exist for say marijuanna? I mean if someone injures themselves on the job and blows a .12 they were pretty clearly impaired and the employer can take dismissive action. Is there a similar test that can determine if someone is impaired from marijuanna use? If so, then I think blanket drug testing for all positions may be an invasion of privacy but think the employer has a right to test when an incident occurs.
If there are no such tests available then why should the employer not use any means legally permissable to screen out potential risks?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 5:32:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 12:46:48 GMT -5
They can do THC testing. And, also hair follicle testing as well.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 1, 2012 12:57:52 GMT -5
Thanks shooby, but if I understand the tests, residue can remain for in excess of 30 days after the last hit (is that correct?).
I would hope someone would not be impaired a month after their last joint. Is there a way to accurately the amount if impact to a person's system at the time of an incident?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Oct 1, 2012 13:02:04 GMT -5
Not to my knowledge. Which is a major problem with drug testing, IMO. I suppose if you were doing baseline tests and the person consistently tested around the same level, then you did a post-accident test and they tested much higher, that might be indicative... but that's assuming you wouldn't immediately fire someone who tested positive for any amount.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 5:32:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 13:13:44 GMT -5
A lot of people on these boards openly admit to using MJ or so i have seen. And, it is illegal and if you then become subject to testing you may lose your job. So, i am not sure why people would risk that.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 1, 2012 13:16:24 GMT -5
My ex-employer offered alcohol and drug rehab (out patient) as an employee benefit. But you had to step forward and ask for assistance. But if you were directed to report for a random drug/alcohol screen or were told you were being taken by management for a reasonable suspicion or cause and/or post-accident screening and you then raised your hand you needed help with a drug or alcohol problem, it was too late. You were terminated.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 1, 2012 13:23:48 GMT -5
So if there is not way to accurately measure if someone was/is drug impaired when an incident happens at work, how can anyone reasonably object to drug testing in the workplace for everyone?
Don't employers have a right to protect themselves as well?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 1, 2012 13:28:20 GMT -5
So if there is not way to accurately measure if someone was/is drug impaired when an incident happens at work, how can anyone reasonably object to drug testing in the workplace for everyone? Don't employers have a right to protect themselves as well? If there is an accident at work, the employee must be immediately taken for an alcohol/drug screen. This may help you how drug screens work. The levels do periodically change as drug screens become more sophisticated. This link is not the be-all end-all on the subject. Just a rough guide. www.redwoodtoxicology.com/resources/cutoffs_methods/screen-confirm_urine.html
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 1, 2012 13:30:40 GMT -5
So if there is not way to accurately measure if someone was/is drug impaired when an incident happens at work, how can anyone reasonably object to drug testing in the workplace for everyone? Don't employers have a right to protect themselves as well? What do you mean "protect themselves". ETA: sorry. I thought you wrote "Don't employees have a right to protect themselves as well?["
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 5:32:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 13:42:05 GMT -5
My MJ use is LEGAL in my state. However, drug testing still considers ALL MJ use as "fail." I think that is crap. You can/will test positive even 30 days after use. The THC is gone within hours, but the metabolite is what is tested for, and it exists in your fat for days/weeks/months after use. It has no effects on your brain at that point, just lingers in your body fat as a waste product waiting for elimination by the body.
I have a Vicodin rx for my torn/damaged shoulder. I can take that, and pass the test because I have an RX. I could take it at work. I, personally, would never smoke before working or while at work. I find that ludicrous, just like drinking at work...
I could work under the influence of Vicodin and be fine working, but if I smoked a joint 3 weeks ago on a Saturday night with friends I would fail a drug test. I think that is incredibly stupid.
Not to mention, many people use fake urine or other methods to pass drug testing for employment. I believe the biggest users know the best way to beat testing... And, ultimately they were the people you wanted to catch in the first place...
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 1, 2012 13:51:18 GMT -5
Shasta - I get what you're saying about the Vicodin, but is there a way to measure the levels of it or how it impacts your ability to function?
That's what I'm trying to understand, if there is no way to measure the level of impairment how can an employer protect themselves from people who abuse any kind of drug (legal or not). If there are not ways to measure impairment accurately then how are employers supposed to protect themselves other than using universal drug screening?
You can measure impairment for alcohol and set clear guidelines. It seems pretty one-sided to say the employers have no right to protect themselves from employees who may choose to come to work impaired. I'm just trying to figure out if the same measurement standards can be applied to drug use as are applied to alcohol use in a fair and equal manner.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 1, 2012 13:55:21 GMT -5
Thanks shooby, but if I understand the tests, residue can remain for in excess of 30 days after the last hit (is that correct?). I would hope someone would not be impaired a month after their last joint. Is there a way to accurately the amount if impact to a person's system at the time of an incident? It can remain even longer, captain, depending on frequency of use and the test used. Remains in fingernails, for instance, for around 90 days. While the person would not be impaired 30 days after their last toke, the urine sample would probably show traces if the tested person was a very frequent user. In the cases I've seen, the company didn't care if the person was impaired at the time of testing. They cared that the person had used an illegal substance ... period.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 5:32:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 14:07:40 GMT -5
Companies HAVE to protect themselves
We live in a very litigious society.....and drug testing is one way to reduce contingent liability
You cant stop everything....but a workplace that randomly tests will have a better time in court if one of their employees goes out and does something tragic while impaired
Is testing employees right?
My job is to lessen risk for the company......so yes, i have this policy in place
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 5:32:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 22:06:51 GMT -5
Message deleted by Rockin Ghouling.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,974
|
Post by cronewitch on Oct 1, 2012 23:16:32 GMT -5
MJ isn't the only drug that can be a problem. We drug test and most of us don't have a problem not using any illegal drug ever but we fail a lot of people who want to work for us. Some don't bother to even take the test. Some tell the payroll clerk they want to other payroll clerk to test them, she was fired for using meth and I am sure let her friends work while on drugs. Her office had a lot of drug cooking materials left like little pieces of foil. Her job wasn't dangerous but she did it wrong because of her drug abuse like letting others work knowing they were on drugs.
The best part of testing is it helps some people avoid them altogether forever. My ISO has worked where they drug test the last 40 years or so. He smoked pot in Nam but when he knew three days out sick meant a new drug test he stopped using it altogether. He thinks the men he works with that smoke pot are risking losing a great job over it so are acting stupid doing it.
Another nice thing about drug testing is it rewards those who don't use anything. Something like 40% of young adults have messed up criminal records or use drugs or something so leave more good jobs for the law abiding kids.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,510
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 1, 2012 23:16:42 GMT -5
Rock It-I think I would tell your employees charges are coming of which local management has no control and it's time to clean up their systems.
|
|
sheilaincali
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 17:55:24 GMT -5
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by sheilaincali on Oct 2, 2012 8:47:57 GMT -5
Companies HAVE to protect themselves We live in a very litigious society.....and drug testing is one way to reduce contingent liability You cant stop everything....but a workplace that randomly tests will have a better time in court if one of their employees goes out and does something tragic while impaired Is testing employees right? My job is to lessen risk for the company......so yes, i have this policy in place Shasta- you mentioned people tricking drug tests with borrowed urine samples and that sort of thing. We suspected that was happening so now we escort them to the clinic for their drug tests. If I drive to where they are working, pick them up and take them directly to the testing facility they have no chance to pick up a sample. Plus the first thing the test administrator does is a temperature test on the sample.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 2, 2012 11:43:42 GMT -5
Fooling those tests isn't as easy as the druggies think. As the druggies have gotten sneakier, so have the tests!
|
|