I work in a zero tolerance workplace. I am the drug testing administrator. Pre-employment? Fine. Post-accident/injury? Great. Reasonable suspicion? Sure.
Random/general? They are both a witch hunt. But I still schedule them, run them, and discharge accordingly. Terribly expensive with less than a 1 percent failure (success???) rate. So far I've generalled half our employees (400 plus) with not one positive that could not be verified with a script.
I don't think squishpig is being selective in following policies, nor do I believe that her personal opinion is affecting her judgement on this issue. The original post said that they could do drug testing if their was a suspicion of use. There's no use, they didn't know for sure who left the pot on the floor and no one came forward to claim the bag, then or since. Responses to now drug test everyone on the shift is simply over the top and unnecessary. I don't mean to upset people on this forum, but I think we need to agree to disagree on this issue.
>I don't think squishpig is being selective in following policies, nor >do I believe that her personal opinion is affecting her judgement on >this issue. The original post said that they could do drug testing if >their was a suspicion of use. There's no use, they didn't know for >sure who left the pot on the floor and no one came forward to claim >the bag, then or since. Responses to now drug test everyone on the >shift is simply over the top and unnecessary. I don't mean to upset >people on this forum, but I think we need to agree to disagree on this >issue.
We don't let mistatements, even mind, go unchallenged on The Forum. At the expense of incensing MWild further, you have made several inaccurate or misleading statements. You say above "The original post said they could do drug testing if there was a suspicion of use." However, the original post says, "...policy allows us to test if there is suspicion...", no mention of use. Further, you seem to conclude that since they did not have difinitive knowledge of who was using or who owned the bag of dope (we called it that way back when), they should move on with other business. And you conclude that to act on what she knew, would be 'over the top'. There we go again with our relative personal thoughts on testing and it's benefits. What about us dealing with the policy of the place where she works - what a concept. Again, her original post asked us all 'Is there anything else I should be doing?" Most of us don't interpret that to mean, "Will you give me your opinion on testing and what do you think of recreational use?" I do think she already had her answer, and as was said by HR Banker (I think) she was wanting validation, since, in later posts she revealed the following scientific conclusions: (1) You'd be surprised at the number who do pot in the restaurant industry, and (2) The reason I do not want to do randoms is because I don't want to replace half my workforce for recreational use. So, she concludes that lots of people in her industry do drugs recreationally, and to take a hard line on company policy will only penalize "some young employee who made a stupid decision", will require her to do more recruiting and restaurant employees are only recreational users. I must have missed the part of the postings that led to those conclusions. So, I agree with her that she should scrap her policy since it is being 'weakly' enforced, if at all, after the point of hire. If I decide, in my upcoming third childhood that I want to smoke pot again (no inhaling), I want to come to work for one of you two. x:-)
This entire discussion of drug testing has been interesting. My company does both prescreen and random testing, and I have to administrate the policy. In the past 5 years we have terminated about 12 people for testing positive - a very low number based on our size.
I tell new employees we do drug testing for two reasons. First, as a contract manufacturer with military contracts we have a legal obligation to provide a drug-free workplace. I know that doesn't require drug screening, but I have yet to see a viable alternative. Second, we believe it is the right thing to do, primarily from the safety standpoint and to ensure someone spaced out is not building inferior product. Do you want someone installing new brakes on your car to have a buzz and be feeling "no pain"? We can talk recreational use during time off all we want, but using drugs is not like turning on a light switch. It is not an off/on situation. How can you be sure the recreational user is not under the influence at work?
Can it be demeaning? Sure. If I had a choice I would rather not get involved in drug testing, but unfortunately it is company policy and we do have legal obligations. I also think it would be great if mind altering drugs did not exist - that is the Pollyanna in me coming out. But, since drug use is still a problem, and I do define it as a problem, then I am forced to provide safeguards for my employer and customers.
[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-23-03 AT 01:11PM (CST)[/font][p]You have incensed me Don D. and I think you have turned this post into a personal soap box. I did reread the original post, and you are correct, I misread it and wrote the word 'use' instead of suspicion. However, it doesn't change my mind in the slightest with how the situation was handled.
I disagree with you totally and I dislike the way you characterize my comments - but as this forum is a free place for people to present differing viewpoints, I will listen with interest to yours while still presenting mine. Just because you have thousands of posts on this forum, it does not mean that it's your way or the highway - I have a different opinion and I would have handled the same exact situation entirely in the same manner. This does not mean that I am in anyway less qualified or less professional than others (maybe if I had thousands of posts, this question wouldn't even come up) and it also does not mean that I skirt policies and I resent the implication that I do simply because I wholeheartedly disagree with yours and others statements. A bag of pot was found in a common area (on the floor - not in a locker or falling out of an employee's car or shared with other employees) but simply found on a floor in a restaurant. To now drug test every single person on the shift, especially if you don't know if it belonged to them, is draconian.
> >You have incensed me Don D. and I think you have turned this post into >a personal soap box. To now drug test every single person on the shift, especially if you don't know if it belonged to them, is draconian. >
If my count is correct, prior to this one, I had seven responses on this thread and you had 6. Both of us probably have way too many x:-), but sounds like a fairly close run for turning it into a soapbox. My remarks are laden with policy contentions and facts about my specific experiences with drug testing mechanisms and policy enforcement; yours with personal 'feely' things and politically correct opinion and characterizations of the actions others might take (Draconian?, Over The Top?). Others will have to judge who reaches the 'soapbox standard'. I've never been incensed by the Forum and hope you deal with that in your own way. You might benefit from a day off. And, I am sorry that you resent the number of Forum posts I have. As I have been saying since long before you joined us, I love the Forum and I am trigger happy and respond way too much. But I doubt your admonitions will change that fact.
I'm tired of arguing with you on these points and responding to all of your attacks on what I have to say. I too enjoy the forum, I don't need a break or a day off from it - only from you. So, I am going to agree to disagree with you and I'm moving on to other topics. I look forward to seeing what else you and others have to write.
Comments
Random/general? They are both a witch hunt. But I still schedule them, run them, and discharge accordingly. Terribly expensive with less than a 1 percent failure (success???) rate. So far I've generalled half our employees (400 plus) with not one positive that could not be verified with a script.
>do I believe that her personal opinion is affecting her judgement on
>this issue. The original post said that they could do drug testing if
>their was a suspicion of use. There's no use, they didn't know for
>sure who left the pot on the floor and no one came forward to claim
>the bag, then or since. Responses to now drug test everyone on the
>shift is simply over the top and unnecessary. I don't mean to upset
>people on this forum, but I think we need to agree to disagree on this
>issue.
We don't let mistatements, even mind, go unchallenged on The Forum. At the expense of incensing MWild further, you have made several inaccurate or misleading statements. You say above "The original post said they could do drug testing if there was a suspicion of use." However, the original post says, "...policy allows us to test if there is suspicion...", no mention of use. Further, you seem to conclude that since they did not have difinitive knowledge of who was using or who owned the bag of dope (we called it that way back when), they should move on with other business. And you conclude that to act on what she knew, would be 'over the top'. There we go again with our relative personal thoughts on testing and it's benefits. What about us dealing with the policy of the place where she works - what a concept. Again, her original post asked us all 'Is there anything else I should be doing?" Most of us don't interpret that to mean, "Will you give me your opinion on testing and what do you think of recreational use?" I do think she already had her answer, and as was said by HR Banker (I think) she was wanting validation, since, in later posts she revealed the following scientific conclusions: (1) You'd be surprised at the number who do pot in the restaurant industry, and (2) The reason I do not want to do randoms is because I don't want to replace half my workforce for recreational use. So, she concludes that lots of people in her industry do drugs recreationally, and to take a hard line on company policy will only penalize "some young employee who made a stupid decision", will require her to do more recruiting and restaurant employees are only recreational users. I must have missed the part of the postings that led to those conclusions. So, I agree with her that she should scrap her policy since it is being 'weakly' enforced, if at all, after the point of hire. If I decide, in my upcoming third childhood that I want to smoke pot again (no inhaling), I want to come to work for one of you two. x:-)
I tell new employees we do drug testing for two reasons. First, as a contract manufacturer with military contracts we have a legal obligation to provide a drug-free workplace. I know that doesn't require drug screening, but I have yet to see a viable alternative. Second, we believe it is the right thing to do, primarily from the safety standpoint and to ensure someone spaced out is not building inferior product. Do you want someone installing new brakes on your car to have a buzz and be feeling "no pain"? We can talk recreational use during time off all we want, but using drugs is not like turning on a light switch. It is not an off/on situation. How can you be sure the recreational user is not under the influence at work?
Can it be demeaning? Sure. If I had a choice I would rather not get involved in drug testing, but unfortunately it is company policy and we do have legal obligations. I also think it would be great if mind altering drugs did not exist - that is the Pollyanna in me coming out. But, since drug use is still a problem, and I do define it as a problem, then I am forced to provide safeguards for my employer and customers.
I disagree with you totally and I dislike the way you characterize my comments - but as this forum is a free place for people to present differing viewpoints, I will listen with interest to yours while still presenting mine. Just because you have thousands of posts on this forum, it does not mean that it's your way or the highway - I have a different opinion and I would have handled the same exact situation entirely in the same manner. This does not mean that I am in anyway less qualified or less professional than others (maybe if I had thousands of posts, this question wouldn't even come up) and it also does not mean that I skirt policies and I resent the implication that I do simply because I wholeheartedly disagree with yours and others statements. A bag of pot was found in a common area (on the floor - not in a locker or falling out of an employee's car or shared with other employees) but simply found on a floor in a restaurant. To now drug test every single person on the shift, especially if you don't know if it belonged to them, is draconian.
>You have incensed me Don D. and I think you have turned this post into
>a personal soap box. To now drug test every single person on the shift, especially if you don't know if it belonged to them, is draconian.
>
If my count is correct, prior to this one, I had seven responses on this thread and you had 6. Both of us probably have way too many x:-), but sounds like a fairly close run for turning it into a soapbox. My remarks are laden with policy contentions and facts about my specific experiences with drug testing mechanisms and policy enforcement; yours with personal 'feely' things and politically correct opinion and characterizations of the actions others might take (Draconian?, Over The Top?). Others will have to judge who reaches the 'soapbox standard'. I've never been incensed by the Forum and hope you deal with that in your own way. You might benefit from a day off. And, I am sorry that you resent the number of Forum posts I have. As I have been saying since long before you joined us, I love the Forum and I am trigger happy and respond way too much. But I doubt your admonitions will change that fact.
I think we can all agree..................this dead horse has been beat enough!!!!!!!!! :-)
It is interesting to watch when there is a topic like this, that hits a personal nerve with individuals.
I call for the official closing of this thread, this being the last post, and let us watch it fall from the top of the forum.
All those in favor DO NOT ADD ANY MORE COMMENTS! :-)
My $0.02 worth.
DJ THe Balloonman
PS Everyone have a great day I am getting ready to go play some golf this afternoon.