Drug testing

[LadyFish]

Re: Drug testing

We drug test here at work randomly. Upon hire, prospective employee undergo a TB test, a drug and alcohol screen, a Federal background check and fingerprinting.

Once hired, like someone else said if there is an accident or a slip 'n fall or any other type of incident, the employee MUST undergo another drug test.

 

[mscher]

Re: Drug testing

As tabacco is a legal substance, I think that one would be a tough one to justify in a court of law, I understand not allowing smoking in your place of business, but not hiring based on the use of a legal substance that is not a mind altering substance per say, I think you could make a pretty good case, that seems to be about the same as an insurance company refusing you based on a pre-existing condition, which is what they are trying to prevent with the health care bill..

I acknowledge that yes, tabacco cause health problems, heck I am a smoker, but in that case you charge the individual more in their premium.

There is nothing to justify in court. Unless the employee is being discriminated against (under current laws, which being a smoker is not part of). Thankfully companies can do at they choose, otherwise.

Maybe the owner does not smoke (or is allergic to smoke) and does not want to smell smoky workers. It should be his right, as he signs the paychecks.

Hooters is not required to hire ugly women.

 

[64osby]

Re: Drug testing

As tabacco is a legal substance, I think that one would be a tough one to justify in a court of law, ......

Tested and passed the mustard in Michigan courts, it's ok to not hire smokers.

 

[bruceb58]

Re: Drug testing

Tested and passed the mustard in Michigan courts, it's ok to not hire smokers.

I wonder when its going to be ok to not hire fat people. Fat people have higher medical costs than people of normal body weight.

 

[PiratePast40]

Re: Drug testing

We drug test here at work randomly. Upon hire, prospective employee undergo a TB test, a drug and alcohol screen, a Federal background check and fingerprinting.

Once hired, like someone else said if there is an accident or a slip 'n fall or any other type of incident, the employee MUST undergo another drug test.

That sounds like a federally mandated fitness for duty program. I believe Bob_VT was referreing to that type of progrem when he mentioned that there must also be employer provided remediation program IF it's asked for by the employee prior to an arrest of being caught at work.

The energy and transportation sectors are subject to that kind of program. I'm sure there are others but don't know what industries. As far as an employer mandated program, I believe some states allow you to set drug and alcohol polices that are a condition of employment. As far as the smoking thing, I know employers in Ohio were not only able make it a condition of employment but also made existing employees quit. Obviously, it takes a company with deep pockets and a fulltime legal staff to make it happen but I know for a fact that First Energy did it 15 years ago.

 

[LadyFish]

Re: Drug testing

Pirate, you are right federally mandated for some of the procedures, internal policies as far as slip and falls.

Also, don't fret you smokers out there. I did a little research and 30 states opted out of NOT hiring smokers.

To be honest smokers make up less of the population that overweight people do and their is health risks to both.

 

[mscher]

Re: Drug testing

Witch hunt? I would love to see some real stats on how many people are under the influence. Many here say its mandatory in their work anytime there is an accident. My guess is that the vast majority of those come back saying the person was not under the influence. My point is, if you took 100 people having an accident and tested them, some percentage will have consumed coffee, cigs., etc. I don't know that statistically it proves drugs were the cause or even a contributing factor of the accident. Would you beleive this very question came up and the US government put it to a test and was shocked to learn that a person smoking pot was a safer driver?

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm


Just sayin....



As to company vehicles getting beat up, that happens everywhere unless management is on top of it. For the majority of the world, "it's a company truck and when it dies I get a new one and I don't have to pay for it".

Why would it be a witch hunt?

The employee is drug tested after an accident and probably tested for alchohol influence. Most employee agreements prohibit the "use" of illegal drugs, so if any are detected during testing, they have violated their employment agreement.

In the Companies mind, having a trace of any illegal drug, is considered "under the influence".

Really, how much ecstasy is "enough" and how much is "too much", even if it was consumed yesterday?

The bottom line is that if an employee agrees not to "use" illegal drugs, the he should not be crying, if he gets a drug test for any reason.

 

[mscher]

Re: Drug testing

I wonder when its going to be ok to not hire fat people. Fat people have higher medical costs than people of normal body weight.

It probably happens all the time now, especially in states where "at will" employment law is in effect.

A Company can "not" hire you for ANY reason, as long as the reason does not fall under established discrimination laws.

Being fat is iffy on falling under ADA laws, but who knows in the future.

 

[MTboatguy]

Re: Drug testing

Tested and passed the mustard in Michigan courts, it's ok to not hire smokers.

Glad I don't live in Michigan, cause it would be pushed a lot farther than Michigan borders...

By the way, can you cite any case law concerning this, I would be interested in reading the findings...

 

[DaNinja]

Re: Drug testing

Glad I don't live in Michigan, cause it would be pushed a lot farther than Michigan borders...

By the way, can you cite any case law concerning this, I would be interested in reading the findings...

I was looking at jobs with a neighboring city government, when I looked into it, "smokers need not apply".
I could understand if they wouldn't provide health insurance and I can understand a smoke-free
environment, but what I do at home or on break shouldn't be their business, as long as it is legal
and doesn't impair.

 

[kei9th]

Re: Drug testing

what about prescribed sleeping meds. i have to take from time to time a sleeping pill when ive had a unusually stressed day. in the morning even if i got my prescribed 8 hours of sleep i am not right until noon sometimes. if i partake in a couple puffs off a joint, i relax fall asleep wake up on time fully clear headed and go about my work in a complete sober state. no lingering effects from a couple puffs from the night before. those sleeping meds probably contribute to more work related incidents than pot. i am lucky that i work for a small company and my boss knows what i do in my spare time. i dont care if he knows or what he says. from 9 to 5 monday through friday im property of my job. from 5 to 9 my life is mine. saturday and sunday is my time for rest and relaxation. i dont sit and pull six foot bongs rips all day everyday, but i like to partake in a smoke session from time to time and to fire me over a slip and fall while im stone sober is just plain dumb.

 

[mscher]

Re: Drug testing

I was looking at jobs with a neighboring city government, when I looked into it, "smokers need not apply".
I could understand if they wouldn't provide health insurance and I can understand a smoke-free
environment, but what I do at home or on break shouldn't be their business, as long as it is legal
and doesn't impair.

Certainly not true in all cases, but since smokers have to go outside, or other areas, to smoke, some employers are getting tired of paying employees, to spend an hour or more per day in the smoking areas. Some workers practilly live in the smoking areas.

Non smoking employees are complaining also, because they don't get a 10-15 minute break, every hour.

No matter anyway. Smokers are not protected and "at will" employers, can do about anything they want.

 

[mscher]

Re: Drug testing

what about prescribed sleeping meds. i have to take from time to time a sleeping pill when ive had a unusually stressed day. in the morning even if i got my prescribed 8 hours of sleep i am not right until noon sometimes. if i partake in a couple puffs off a joint, i relax fall asleep wake up on time fully clear headed and go about my work in a complete sober state. no lingering effects from a couple puffs from the night before. those sleeping meds probably contribute to more work related incidents than pot. i am lucky that i work for a small company and my boss knows what i do in my spare time. i dont care if he knows or what he says. from 9 to 5 monday through friday im property of my job. from 5 to 9 my life is mine. saturday and sunday is my time for rest and relaxation. i dont sit and pull six foot bongs rips all day everyday, but i like to partake in a smoke session from time to time and to fire me over a slip and fall while im stone sober is just plain dumb.

This is what it is all about.

If you employer is fine with things, then that's his choice and that's the way it should be.

If another Company's regulations prohibit illegal drug use, which is their right, then employees who violate the rules, do so at their own peril.

Sometimes it's insurance companies, that put the squeeze for Companies to drug test etc. They have a stake in it also.

 

[PiratePast40]

Re: Drug testing

For companies under a federally mandated fitness for duty program, the employer has no choice or discretion. Yes, the insurance companies will perform an audit but that audit is to ensure compliance with the mandates of the federal program. The program involves a large degree of personal responsibility as well as awareness of co-workers. "Personal responsibility" being the key component.

I really don't want the person performing the final assembly of a passenger jet engine, or operating a nuclear reactor to be impared in any way. But these programs aren't called "drug programs", they are "fitness for duty programs".

 

[64osby]

Re: Drug testing

Glad I don't live in Michigan, cause it would be pushed a lot farther than Michigan borders...

By the way, can you cite any case law concerning this, I would be interested in reading the findings...

I can't find any caselaw but found this --
Okemos, MI?Weyco Inc., a medical benefits administrator, instituted a policy in January 2005 that banned employees from using tobacco, even during non-work hours. In fact, the company required employees to submit to random mandatory smoking breath tests. As a result, four of the two-hundred employees at the company quit rather than submit to the testing. The controversial move outraged some civil liberties groups; nevertheless, Michigan is one of twenty states that have no laws preventing employers from firing employees who smoke?both on and off the job. In an interview, Weyco founder and chief executive, Howard Weyers, argued that it was difficult for him to enact the policy but that he was forced to do so because of his rising healthcare costs. Before the policy in 2005, Weyco Inc. also quit hiring tobacco users in early 2003 and forbade the staff from smoking on the premises. In 2004, the company also added a fine of $50 a month per worker who smoked and refused to attend cessation classes.


Michigan happens to be an ?at-will? state, or a state where it is legal for an employer to fire an employee at any time for any reason, except where anti-discrimination laws apply. However, collective bargaining agreements, express employment contracts, and implied employed contracts, also prevent employers from firing ?at-will?. While quitting smoking is particularly important to reduce the risk of cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illness, civil liberties groups are especially concerned over how far company policies may go in threatening individual privacy.


I do remember the ACLU looked at this when it was current and backed away.

Also found this on Weyco ------
........ the president of Okemos, Michigan-based Weyco, Inc. announced his plan to implement a $1,000 charge for employees who report that their spouses smoke. Weyco reached national fame earlier this year when it implemented a policy by which any employees who smoke were given one year to quit, or be fired. Three employees who failed to quit smoking were indeed fired earlier this year.

According to the interview, employees are not only asked whether they smoke, but Breathalyzer-type tests are administered to confirm that they do not smoke.

It appears that the reporter was jokingly asking if Weyco would begin requiring spouses of employees not to smoke, and he was quite surprised when the Weyco president responded: "Yes." He explained that such employees would not be fired, but that they would be assessed a $1,000 penalty for their spouse smoking.

 

[puddle jumper]

Re: Drug testing

I think the attitude problem is with the management in this company. If they would fire a few of these guys for wrecking the trucks maybe the others would take the hint. You can bet the guys wrecking stuff are in the bars later laughing about it. In Canada you can't fire people for failing a drug or alcohol test. They must be coddled.

Your right in some degree. The attitude does have to do with the stress that gets aimed at the management. The drinking and drug use is getting way to out of hand to the point there going out in the evenings in the camps to go get high and drink. Then the trucks get crashed.

In Canada If some one is busted on the job intoxicated. The company must first set them up with counseling and if that does not work ,firing comes shortly after that. 90% of the time it never goes that far as the employee gets up in the management face and firing is then immanent.

 

[MTboatguy]

Re: Drug testing

Well all I can say, I am glad I don't live in a "At-Will" state, I have never lived in an "at will" state. Of course being retired, I guess I don't have much to worry about..

 

[NoKlu]

Re: Drug testing

I work on a Rig. One of the idiots was smoking a joint beside the consultants shack when he came out and smelled pot and caught the guy red handed so to speak. He was run off the site but was contacted by the drilling company and told he was not fired but he would have to take drug treatment. He quit. They had a drug test van on the site the next morning. A free round of tests for all the guys resulted in 3 others being suspended until they could provide a clean sample. 2 of the best workers on the rig told them to stuff it,what they did on their own time was none of the company's business and they had no intention of quitting. The other guy had never smoked pot in his life, and two weeks later was back after a clean test. He had just started this job on the rigs. They believed his story as the levels in his system were minute. The largest impact was the loss of the money and jobs of the other workers caught up in the sweep.

If these guys are in a camp when this is happening it could easily be dealt with. Every camp I have ever been in was a dry camp. If you are caught with any contraband you are gone. Drug tests will probably not do anything for this company but saddle them with a bunch of added expense in dealing with these guys. The attitude of the Company is what needs changing.

 

[I Fish]

Re: Drug testing

I have some problems with the drug testing, but some background first. I grew up close to Meigs County, Ohio. That place has been known as one of the best producers of high quality marijuana in the nation. On my Dad's side of the family, nobody uses it. On my Mom's side (excluding my Mom), most of them use it. Of the two sides of the family, one is not any less productive than the other. All of my cousins, aunts and uncles are productive, law abiding (except for the weed) members of society. I've been around weed most of my life. I have used it, but I don't now. A town near me has one of the highest nationally rank party schools, so there obviously is a lot of drug use there, as well. I've seen first hand what drugs will do to people. From addiction, crime, car wrecks, and murder. Virtually everybody I know has been affected by drug use in one way or another. It will probably be the real undoing of this country. I've seen perfectly normal peoples lives end in suicide due to prescription drugs that they had been prescibed.

The place I work does random drug screening. Nearly ever job I've ever had has drug testing of some form. I don't know what happens if you get caught by my current employer, as nobody has ever failed that I know of. Now my problem: people can be on prescription drugs ie: percocet, vicodan, xanex, etc., they can come to work so hung over from alcohol as to be nearly worthless, they can use cocaine on Friday night, because it will be out of their system come Monday morning, they can also take acid or phylocibin mushrooms (for which the only test is a spinal tap), and these guys can still pass a drug test. However, if a guy smokes a joint (IMO, by far the most harmless of the above) he could fail a drug test for up to 45 days afterward. I've been around people on just about every drug known to man, some you've probably never even heard of, and I will take a pot smoker over all of the above any day. These guys I work with now drink so much, it's unbelievable. Several of them are on prescription pain killers as well. Some do both, but, they never fail a drug test because they have a prescription. To me, drug testing in it's current form, causes the users to take more dangerous drugs, and unfairly persecutes a pot smoker.

 

[ezmobee]

Re: Drug testing

Raising health care costs for smokers is no different than raising car insurance rates for speeders. If companies can save money on their health care by prohibiting smoking and not hiring smokers they will certainly do that. And yes, overweight people are next. Heck, it's already happening and I'm affected. We have to take a Health Risk Assessment where I work every year. My first year here I didn't know to lie on the test so I put my actual height/weight. Well I ended up labeled as "at risk" and had to have a number of phone consultations with a "health coach". It really worked too as I miraculously lost like 50 pounds in time for the next year's assessment . As of right now I do not believe there is any monetary penalty for being "at-risk" however, if you do not agree to take the assessment, you pay an additional percent of your salary towards health care. So yeah, it's only going to get worse.

More on the subject of the thread, I agree with I Fish above that it is total BS that you can be whacked on some more serious things than pot and still pass a drug test.