Drug Testing "new" teachers??

[lillygator]

New Manatee teachers may face drug testing

By Christopher O'Donnell


Published: Thursday, September 10, 2009 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 at 11:20 p.m.
MANATEE COUNTY - School district officials are proposing that all new employees and substitute teachers pass a drug test before being hired. School Board members will review the policy at a meeting Monday night.

"It's a deterrent," said Darcy Hopko, assistant superintendent. "We would like anyone that comes on board to be totally clear of any kind of drugs."

If adopted, new hires would have to submit a urine sample for the test that detects most recreational drugs and also some prescription drugs such as methadone and barbiturates.

Each test costs the district $44. The district hires around 250 new employees each year.

The district already tests bus drivers and custodians.

Current teachers and other workers would be exempt unless the district suspects them of drug use, Hopko said.

Pat Barber, president of the Manatee Education Association, said the union does not have a position on testing new hires.

"It's a management prerogative to make a policy for pre-employment testing," she said.

School Board member Harry Kinnan said testing would bring the district in line with local companies such as Tropicana, which tests all workers.

"We do random-test our student athletes," Kinnan said. "I think in this environment this is a reassurance that we do have a drug-free workplace."

this is a county over from us, but I guess I thought all teachers were drug tested and background checked before hiring? I'm in a support dept at a hospital and we drug test all new hires...

 

[trip]

Don't most companies drug test new hires?

 

[lillygator]

that is what I thought....been with my employer almost 8 yrs and we've drug tested all new hires....my mom is an HR director for a mfg plant, drug tests all new hires, hubby is a grocery store mgr drug tests all new hires.....

as well as random testing and worker's comp testing.

I guess my thinking is more along the lines, if the drug testing is not so impt are they truly running backgrounds on these employees?

 

[Explodo]

I get a drug test every three months whether I need it or not. Plus I can be tested at the request of my management at will. The big secret to passing your drug test? Don't do drugs. For Pete's sake, it's not rocket surgery.

 

[aprilgail2]

ok so--they already test custodians and athletes but not teachers?!?!? That is insane!
I got tested at work about 25 years ago when I was hired but thats it, they don't test again unless you get in an accident or get hurt--and I sure would not chance it and blow my pension! I know a lot of the guys that retire say the first thing they are going to do is smoke a nice big fatty!

 

[MushyMushy]

I don't agree with random drug testing in general for jobs where the workers aren't handling heavy machinery or driving. Where do you draw the line into the intrusion of people's personal lives?

 

[maelstrom]

I don't agree with random drug testing in general for jobs where the workers aren't handling heavy machinery or driving. Where do you draw the line into the intrusion of people's personal lives?

Agreed! I don't understand why companies feel the need to drug test grocery store cashiers and the people who fold clothes at Wal-Mart. I honestly do not care if those workers are high, as long as they're doing their job. And yes, you can do that job whilst high.

 

[DrCavin]

Agreed! I don't understand why companies feel the need to drug test grocery store cashiers and the people who fold clothes at Wal-Mart. I honestly do not care if those workers are high, as long as they're doing their job. And yes, you can do that job whilst high.

You can probably do it when drunk as well, so your fine with being drunk on the job??

 

[Darsa]

Seriously? Number one, I'm pretty sure I'd have an issue with someone who does drugs teaching my child. I imagine it'll probably happen, people do stupid things in all walks of life, but why not try to weed out (ooo, pun unintended) the ones we can, when we can?

Number two, if you're clean, what's the big deal? I never could understand that one myself. On the other hand, noone would ever find anything in my system so I guess it makes sense that I wouldn't understand.

 

[MushyMushy]

You can probably do it when drunk as well, so your fine with being drunk on the job??

I don't agree with being high or drunk on the job personally, but what a person does with their time off is their business. Let the chips fall where they may for on-the-job performance.

 

[turkeymama]

I don't agree with random drug testing in general for jobs where the workers aren't handling heavy machinery or driving. Where do you draw the line into the intrusion of people's personal lives?

Well, when someone is responsible for my children and their education, I think that's a pretty good place to start when drawing the line. I would hate to think that 'Mrs. Smith' was high when she was taking my kid's class on a field trip.

 

[luvmy3]

I have no problem with drug testing, especially of public school teachers.

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

I agree with it. I like this area, but I've never seen as much marijuana use among the general public as I have in Manatee County. Oh, and I don't have a problem with people who use marijuana but I don't want a teacher doing it.

 

[MushyMushy]

Well, when someone is responsible for my children and their education, I think that's a pretty good place to start when drawing the line. I would hate to think that 'Mrs. Smith' was high when she was taking my kid's class on a field trip.

See my previous response to that. Just because Mrs. Smith was high on Saturday doesn't mean she's still high on that Monday field trip.

My doctor is in charge of our very lives, but I don't think he should have random drug testing either.

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

I think the big problem I have with teachers doing drugs is that maybe athletes, Hollywood stars, etc. aren't supposed to be role models but teachers are and I don't see smoking pot (or using harder drugs) as something a role model should do.

 

[maelstrom]

My biggest issue with drug testing is that if someone is on a medication (for a legitimate reason) that is abused by drug users, now they know that you're on that medication, and it's not hard to figure out what for. For instance, I take Xanax, which is used for panic and anxiety disorder; it is also abused by some people and could be part of a drug test. I also have ADD and therefore take Adderall (amphetamine), which could also be on a drug test. The same thing goes for someone taking an opiate painkiller (oxycontin, percocet, morphine) for a legitimate reason.

 

[npmommie]

I don't agree with random drug testing in general for jobs where the workers aren't handling heavy machinery or driving. Where do you draw the line into the intrusion of people's personal lives?

what about surgeons, nurses, etc...........

See my previous response to that. Just because Mrs. Smith was high on Saturday doesn't mean she's still high on that Monday field trip.

My doctor is in charge of our very lives, but I don't think he should have random drug testing either.

tell that to the patients who died because of a surgeon who botched surgeries while under the influence of alcohol.


and I have to add, I agree about the intrusion into our lives, and the personal nature of giving a bodily fluid sample.
but..........when a worker is entrusted with the care of another human being, really they should be drug free. I can't imagine being high and doing the work I do.

 

[barkley]

I don't agree with being high or drunk on the job personally, but what a person does with their time off is their business. Let the chips fall where they may for on-the-job performance.

i'm posting this because recently you posted about looking at some social services jobs.

with dss (and allot of school districts) there's language in the employment contract that specificaly says that it's an immediate basis for termination if an employee engages in any illegal drug use on OR off the job. so when a person hires in they know that a condition of their employment is to not engage in illegal drug use at any time.

that said-i always thought it was incredibly stupid that neither my nor dh's dss government agencies did pre-employment drug screening. they could have bundled it into the other pre-employment screening (fbi fingerprints and background checks) they only did with people they had offered jobs to. it would have saved ALLOT of money vs. hiring in people whose illegal drug use off the job not only impaired their ability their job performance, but put at risk the kids and families they worked with (and it can be nearly impossible to fire someone in a teaching or dss job based on 'job performance' when you suspect it's outside illegal drug use without concrete evidence so sadly someone's kids can be getting sub-par teaching or service delivery for months or years on end).

 

[DrCavin]

See my previous response to that. Just because Mrs. Smith was high on Saturday doesn't mean she's still high on that Monday field trip.

My doctor is in charge of our very lives, but I don't think he should have random drug testing either.

But if they are driving, then you want them tested

 

[barkley]

My biggest issue with drug testing is that if someone is on a medication (for a legitimate reason) that is abused by drug users, now they know that you're on that medication, and it's not hard to figure out what for. For instance, I take Xanax, which is used for panic and anxiety disorder; it is also abused by some people and could be part of a drug test. I also have ADD and therefore take Adderall (amphetamine), which could also be on a drug test. The same thing goes for someone taking an opiate painkiller (oxycontin, percocet, morphine) for a legitimate reason.

one of my former co-workers had a similar concern re. her adult son who was applying for a job that had a drug screening requirement. she advised him to ask h/r about it. at least at the company he was applying to and the company they contracted with for drug screens-the policy was that when they took the drug screen the applicant filled out paperwork where they were told to list all perscription and non perscription meds they routinely (or within so many months of taking the test had) used. the testing company did'nt disclose this info. to the hiring company (because of hippa laws) but if they got a positive test they flagged the results for the employer to indicate that there had been a disclosure by the applicant such that rather than just eliminating the person for consideration they might want to initiate a validation process (which meant the applicant could be offered the opportunity to get a doctor's note verifying that the meds they were on could have created a positive screen result).

his meds caused a positive drug screen but because he had disclosed it on the screen form he got the opportunity to clarify the issue and got the job.