Drug testing and the workplace....

[lillygator]

so I am into my first MBA class which happens to be HR related and one of my essays is on drug and the workplace....and if I think it is justifiable. Now that I am reading about it and see it from the employers/company view as well as an individual view I am getting all confused.

Also, since there seem to be many angles...random testing, pre employment testing, post accident.

I was surprised to see how much on the internet felt that while yes, drug tests prove drugs have been used, the tests can prove impairment relating to specific jobs.

how many of you think drug testing is justifiable?

 

[Mouse House Mama]

I think it is completely justifiable. I don't want to work with someone who is high or might steal to feed their habit (among other things). It is also illegal. Not interested in working with theives either.

 

[lillygator]

I believe it is justifiable as well. Pre employment can help you screen out potentially bad employees.....etc.

 

[LisaZee]

I work in a pharmacy, so we are literally surrounded in drugs. We screen pre-employment and then our policy states we can test post-accident as well as if we have "reasonable suspicion" of an impairment at work. I think it is completely justifiable. I do know, however, that it's hard to create a case for that "reasonable suspicion"...

 

[Stacerita]

Definately justifiable.

 

[Geoff_M]

I think random testing is justified when the occupation calls for it (train engineer, forklift driver, heavy equipment operator, delivery truck driver, etc.), or when part of a pre-employment screening, but I don't think that random testing of ALL employees is really productive or cost-effective.

My large employer used to do random testing on all employees and quietly stopped it a couple years after it started. No official reason was given, but the conventional wisdom was that it is "catching" too few people to make it worth the expense. Particularly when you factor in the added cost of all of the false positives. I was once "flagged" for opiate use due to the dreaded "Poppy Seed Muffin" syndrome. I'm a rather straight laced conservative person, and my manager at the time (an un-repentant 60's "Hippie", I might add) couldn't keep dying from laughing when she had to call me into her office to tell me that she'd gotten a call from our occupational health department and I had to report for a re-test in a day. I was horrified and she apologist for her demeanor, but said I was the LAST person she thought she'd ever get that phone call for! Thankfully, I passed the re-test with flying colors (though I had to spit out a breadstick with poppy seeds on the outside at the unit luncheon the day of the re-test). I'm a desk jockey, and even if I was "using"... unless I gave someone probable cause to suspect I had a problem, it makes no sense to randomly test people in my line of work.

 

[Michelle67]

I had a post written and it was way too long. So I'll try again more briefly...which is inherently hard for me. Please be patient.

I have mixed feelings about them. On the one hand, I feel they are an invasion of privacy. On the other hand, I think they are justifiable in situations where the job entails the possibility of having someone else's life in your hands, such as pilots, bus drivers, surgeons, etc. Do I really care if my server in a restaurant smokes a doob after work? Nope, sure don't. On yet another hand (I have lots of hands) people like my ex can routinely go to work four or five hours after leaving a bar traveling on his lips, and not have any problems because alcohol is legal and nobody is testing for that. IMO if what you do outside of work is reasonably their business, in other words if impairment outside of the workplace somehow jeopardizes the quality of your work, then alcohol should matter as much as drugs.

I used to work for an inpatient drug and alcohol treatment center. I was really surprised during my interview process when I was told they would not be drug testing me for hiring purposes. Their policy was "give us a reason, and we will." And btw, their policy was to test for both drugs and alcohol, if given the reason to do it. I think that is a reasonable policy, although I still would have worked for them, and submitted my little cup, had they required pre-employment screening.

I am a SAHM right now, but up until April I was working for a pharmacy, delivering all levels of drugs (all levels/strengths used outside of a hospital anyhow) to SNFs, adult family homes, etc. Now since I was going around with bottles of morphine in the car, among other things, yes I think it makes perfect sense that they drug tested me and reserved the right (according to hiring agreement) to do so randomly with less than 24 hours notice. I think they can reasonably draw a line between someone who uses drugs and the safety of their inventory, not only due to profit loss, but particularly since controlled substances are just that; controlled. There can be a big problem for the pharmacists and their licenses if schedule C drugs are going missing.

Okay still got long. Darn. Sorry...

 

[Jen_in_NH]

I think it depends on the occupation. If you could endanger someone else, then I think the employer should have the right to test you.

The town I work for does pre-employment screening, post-incident testing, reasonable suspicion testing, and all of us with CDLs are in the random testing pool. Although in 10 years, I've only been pulled for the random one once. I have no problem with being tested. I know not everyone agrees with the idea, but I look at it as I have nothing to hide, so test me.

 

[WonderfulDreamer2]

As a nurse I have no problem with it at all. We have access to anything and there is a high incidence of nurses becoming abusers. Technology has made it harder. For example, if I go to give so much as Tylenol, none the less a sched. C drug, I have to input my private screen name and my fingerprint is electronically identified before I can have access to the meds. The machine makes it incredibly hard for someone to steal drugs.
I am in charge of childrens lives. If I'm doing drugs, you bet, as an employer and as a patient you have the right to know I am not high. We have a 0 tolerance although I have worked at a hospital where a co-worker tested positive for weed post accident. She was placed on a 1 year probation and had to submit to random drug tests during that year.
I agree with a pp who brought up the alcohol issue. In my line of work, you don't want me taking care of your child high or drunk.
But I'm also with the lady talking about the food server. If the kid making my sub at Quizno's is smoking the wacky weed every weekend, I really don't care.

 

[LisaB]

I can't agree with it. As a drug and alcohol counselor I seen too many false positives

 

[GoofyWaterCoaster]

Completely justifiable

 

[lillygator]

I can't agree with it. As a drug and alcohol counselor I seen too many false positives

can't agree with the drug testing as justifiable?


are there really that many false positives and if so, what causes those?

 

[bumbershoot]

"the tests can prove impairment relating to specific jobs. "

What does this mean?

 

[lillygator]

oops, I meant to type "can't".

 

[freckles and boo]

As a nurse I have no problem with it at all. We have access to anything and there is a high incidence of nurses becoming abusers. .

My aunt lost her license because of addiction and theft. I want the security of knowing healthcare workers are sober. She could have done some major damage when she was impaired.

 

[lillygator]

so should it be across the board or only for certain professions?

 

[DISUNC]

I think random testing is justified when the occupation calls for it (train engineer, forklift driver, heavy equipment operator, delivery truck driver, etc.), or when part of a pre-employment screening, but I don't think that random testing of ALL employees is really productive or cost-effective.

My one big issue with companies that DO drug test is that, Management was always exempt from it!

As far as the legal issue, let the cops figure that out. It is not a employers responsibility to play "Big Brother". Employers hire you to do a job, thats all that they should focus on.

Should employers also look into everbodies lives to see if they pay taxes? Murder? Drive too fast?

 

[pr surfer]

are there really that many false positives and if so, what causes those?

Robitussin DM caused me to test positive for Opiates and PCP through a urinalysis.

At the time of the test, I hadn't has as much as a beer, much less something illegal in close to 7 months.

 

[Michelle67]

For example, if I go to give so much as Tylenol, none the less a sched. C drug, I have to input my private screen name and my fingerprint is electronically identified before I can have access to the meds. The machine makes it incredibly hard for someone to steal drugs

Do you work in a hospital, or someplace else? Do you guys use a Pyxxis machine? One of the SNFs I used to deliver to used a Pyxxis, but only as the E kit. The others all had E kits that were kept locked in a cabinet and only the charge nurse had the key. That only protects the E kits, though; all regularly prescribed meds were kept in the med cart, and the only check was a ledger they had to initial as they gave meds, and periodic med counts. I heard a lot of stories about nurses getting caught signing for meds that they didn't actually give to patients. Can you imagine your family member being left in pain because the nurse was signing for their meds and stealing them instead of administering them to the patient? How horrible.

 

[NewCrew42]

I once knew of a company whose employees did piecework ( you know - got paid for each piece completed.) Management and Corporate kicked around the idea of drug screening but decided against it. They heard rumors that all the piecework employees were on speed and that productivity would greatly drop if they quit taking the drug. Drug testing was not implemented.