Drugs found in the workplace

Squishypig · July 2003

I have word that a bag of pot was found in one of our locations on the floor after closing for the night. It was dropped after we were closed so we are pretty sure it belonged to one of our employees, but we just don't know who. We do not wish to go on a witch hunt to weed out employees who do drugs, we just don't want the stuff on our premises or our employees under the influence while at work. We do have a drug policy in place that allows us to test if there is suspicion or in the case of an on the job injury.

Since we do not know whose pot it is and chaces are that no one will claim it (although one of my general managers has suggested making a sign saying, "Found, one bag of pot" lol), the only thing I can think of is to get the employees who were on duty that night and tell them that we found the bag of pot and to make sure that understand that any employee found in possession of drugs on the company's premises will be termianted. Also, I would have our managers reiterate the drug and alcohol policy in meetings with all employees. Is there anything else we should be doing?

Johnette
[link:www.hrhero.com/cgi-bin/employersforum/employersforum.cgi?az=email_user&userid=Squishypig|Spread your HR wisdom, e-mail me!]

Leslie · July 2003

You're doing all you can. You don't want to go on a witch hunt - which would be reasonable suspicion on the entire shift. And as long as you haven't had performance issues before that may point to a specific individual, you don't have much to go on.

What did you do with the pot? Flush it? Because if you turn it over to the local authorities, they may have something to say about your response.

System · July 2003

We also do random testing, and every employee knows this when they are hired. Do you folks do this? You may want to consider it. We do the pre-, post-, and reasonable cause testing as well, but I really think that the random tests, performed each month, are a good deterrent.

valentine · July 2003

Your suggestion of random drug testing is good. We started doing it in Massachusetts and was told by our attorney its not a good practice because MA does not have a law on doing random drug testing and it could be a problem. Does anyone do random in MA?

Valentine

rad · July 2003

I think thats probably all you do without a "suspect"...but I'm curious, where's the pot now? Did you flush it? You may also want to see if your company is liable in any way if its not reported to the police as well as find out what on earth you should do with it!

Squishypig · July 2003

The manager on duty flushed the pot. On one hand, I might have turned it in (we have off duty deputies who moonlight with us every night) but then on the other hand, it was probably one of our young employees who made a stupid decision to bring it into the workplace. I wonder what we should have done?

Johnette
[link:www.hrhero.com/cgi-bin/employersforum/employersforum.cgi?az=email_user&userid=Squishypig|Spread your HR wisdom, e-mail me!]

LindaS · July 2003

I agree that you can't go on a witch hunt at this point, I would recommend revising your drug and alcohol policy to address the issue of being in possession of drugs and/or alcohol on company property. Many employees are of the false belief that if it is in their lunchpail, toolbox, locker or vehicle it is okay and the employer cannot search these premises since they are seen as private property and they should be told, in no uncertain terms, that this is not correct.

If you would like I will email you a copy of our drug and alcohol policy which addresses this very issue.

E Wart · July 2003

E Wart
Linda, if you would email me your policy. I am "gathering them". Our current policy is very outdated and vauge and I am covering 8 states so trying to re write a generic one, but one that is complete as well.
Thanks, Ellen [email]ewarthen@newcombspring.com[/email]

Don D · July 2003

The manager on duty flushed the pot. RIGHT! Sure he did. If you have randoms in your policy, be sure to do them. If you don't, you might start. Randoms, by any other definition are nothing more than witch hunts if you analyze exactly what you're doing. I advocate the witch hunt. and, after all, when a decision is made to conduct a full blown, lock-down test of a facility with blue water, professional pee-staff, and locked gates and guards, it's nothing more than a witch-hunt. When something like this happens or money is stolen or sabotage takes place, what we do next is 'hunt for the witch'. I don't know the size of your facility or what your business is ; but, if it is a small 5-50 person facility, with a significant consequence of error or physical harm to others or safety violation potential, I would certainly go for the full-blown, lock-down witch hunt, within the week, totally unannounced. And run the supervisor through first. If your facility is larger than that, depending on your type of business and a gauge of the cost of the testing, I might not run everybody through the blue-water-room for the discovered pot (that was flushed x:-)).

hrbanker · July 2003

I agree with Don. You cannot ignore the situation. You might contact your local authorities and see if they have a drug-sniffing dog that they could bring into your facility. Either you have a drug-free workplace or you tolerate drugs. There is no middle ground.

mwild31 · July 2003

Unless you know who did it - don't go on a witch hunt. It's not worth it to morale and you probably have better things to do with your time. Make sure that everyone knows on the shift that you found the pot and then tell everyone about the drug policy. As to the manager that flushed the pot - how dumb. In the future turn it in to your local police department.

Don D · July 2003

I'm compelled to weigh back in in opposition to MWild's comment. I can vouch from experience in two situations in different facilities, one in Atlanta and one in Dallas. In both instances, the behaviors of truck terminal staff in the shop as well as the office was suspect to the point that a decision was made to go with an unannounced lock-down mandatory test. In both cases two employees were terminated either for positive testing or refusal. The morale in both situations had reached a low level where employees for the most part felt that the company did not care to enforce its drug policies. Obviously most people do not do drugs. The morale of those people is what I would consider foremost. A majority of employees are glad to see enforcement and don't mind the test and indeed applaud the company's decision. Compliant employees are not going into morale-tailspins when companies enforce their policies and when clear messages like this are sent. Quite the contrary. And NO, you do not have better things to spend your time doing than enforcing a strong drug/alcohol policy in the workplace. It interfaces with your safety program which impacts your bottom line as much as any other controllable factor.

awilliams · July 2003

I tend to agree with DonD.

You have a drug policy, and your policy states that you will do drug testing with reasonable suspicion. If a bag of marijuana found on the floor of the work location is not reasonable suspicion, I don't know what is.

If you do not drug test the employees (and supervisors, especially the one who allegedly flushed the bag) this sends a clear message to your employees that you are not in the business of enforcing your policies. I would think twice about sending that message. Next thing you know, you'll wind up with electrical wires running through water leaks and employees refusing to wear hats (see post entitled "Fire 'em all!"). If you don't want a slacker workforce, you need to enforce your policies.

Anne Williams
Attorney Editor
M. Lee Smith Publishers, LLC

djacobs475 · July 2003

I agree with Don D.

You need to enforce your Anti-Drug Policy and do a full lock down random testing.

Your message needs to be loud and clear to all. ZERO tolerance.

mwild31 · July 2003

I'm going to weigh back in too Don D. Although your experience sounds pretty heavy duty, the post doesn't. A bag of pot was found. From the post, they don't know if it was an employee or if it was Santa Claus. The post doesn't mention any other previous problems or issues with drugs in the work place and so it appears that this is an isolated instance. Unless, there's more to add from the original posting, I stand by my response.

Don D · July 2003

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-22-03 AT 01:37PM (CST)[/font][p]I don't know your level of experience enforcing drug free workplace policies, but, finding a bag of drugs on the premises is not an invitation to consider that Santa Claus may have visited the facility. Something as dramatic as drugs being found after locking the facility, and she said it was assumed to be an employee, is just exactly the type of thing that calls for swift action. The post said they 'were pretty sure it belonged to one of their employees'. I don't see Santa Claus in the scenario at all. Employer decisions to have mandatory testing does not require anything other than a firm desire to enforce plus something that causes the management to think there has been non-compliance. Someone coming down the chimney isn't required.

mwild31 · July 2003

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-22-03 AT 03:03PM (CST)[/font][p]I actually have quite a bit of experience in this area - and I stand by all of my responses. At least we presented two sides or courses of action to take and squishypig will have to decide which position to take.

ps - I only used the Santa Claus reference as an example of how it could belong to anyone (the post wasn't completely sure it belonged to an employee). FOR THE RECORD, in no way do I believe that Santa Claus is a pot smoker. I'm pretty sure he's drug-free, unless you classify the sugar in cookies as a drug....

ray a · July 2003

My experience weighs in with Don. Employees "know" who is doing drugs. Probably, and this is speculation, it is already well known among the ee's who owned that bag. I've even had ee's come to me and suggest who should be chosen for the next random test. The majority of the law-abiding people who try to do their best want us to enforce our rules and the laws. When we don't, we lose their respect.

Squishypig · July 2003

Original poster here with some more info.

First off, the drugs were found in one of our restaurants. While the manager is pretty confident that it might have belonged to an employee, he is not 100% sure although our general managers have an idea who it might be.

Second, you would be surprised at the number of people who smoke pot in the restaurant industry, especially in a college town. I am not condoning it nor rationalizing it but it is a fact. The reason why I do not want to do random drug testing is because I don't want to have to replace half of my workforce for off duty recreational drug use which would show up in the testing. Most are good workers and know not to come to work under the influence or bring it to work. We have terminated a couple of employees for being in possession of pot on our premises.

We are going to stick with our original plan, which is to isolate the employees who were on duty that night, let them know we found the bag and that we will be watching them closely. Then we are going to reiterate our drug and alcohol policy with ALL other employees. The only other thing I can think of is to bring some of the deputies that moonlight security with us to scare the bejezus out of the employees with the consequences of being in possession of pot.

And just an FYI, when the manager on duty told me he flushed it, I believed him 100%. He is a pretty straight edged kid who freaked out that he had even handled the stuff. He thought at first it was oregano in a bag and brought it to the kitchen. lol

Johnette
[link:www.hrhero.com/cgi-bin/employersforum/employersforum.cgi?az=email_user&userid=Squishypig|Spread your HR wisdom, e-mail me!]

moneyman · July 2003

"The reason why I do not want to do random drug testing is because I don't want to have to replace half of my workforce for off duty recreational drug use which would show up in the testing."

With all that has already been said on this matter, the one point that really stands out and concerns me is the quote above. If you have a drug policy, then it must be enforced, equally and across the board, and if you lose half your workforce, then that is what has to be done. It seems like the restaurant industry would have many guidelines (safety and health) that they must adhere to and having an enforced drug policy would seem inline with this industry. I would not go back and try to pinpoint any one person, but to begin random testing, maybe stated as a result of this incident, would be a good idea. I think random testing should have been going on already. I think that the main drive behind drug testing is not to limit a persons freedoms on their personal time, but to enforce safety, health and other policies that may be affected by impairment. When out city's utility company went to random testing, I was glad to hear it. Think of these guys up high, on power poles, handling electricity, I would hate to think of one of these guys working impaired.

On another note, my husband worked at a retail lumber company who put a Drug-Free Workplace into effect in order to save on WC premiums. Well, they instituted a random testing policy, and what do you know, the only positives that came up were the Corporate VPs and the company did not want to get rid of them. They figured that since they were not "out on the floor" of a store (maybe working saws etc. ) then it was okay to ignore their test results. This information was of course spread throughout the company and morale dropped. The company decided to get rid of the Drug-Free Workplace instead of the VPs. I am glad mmy husband is no longer with that company.

System · July 2003

I've always loathed the idea of drug tests. I'll begrudgingly admit they may be justified for safety-sensitive positions, but for most jobs I think it's just a demeaning invasion of privacy.

I'm no wild-eyed pothead. I don't use drugs or tobacco and don't drink much. But I value my privacy and personal freedoms very highly. When I was in law school and drug testing was a new fad, I spent six months researching and writing an article for the Vanderbilt Law Review ("Government Drug Testing: A Question of Reasonableness," 43 Vand. L. Rev. 1343 (1990)).

I concluded that drug tests, especially random ones, were unreasonably overinclusive and underinclusive at the same time. They're underinclusive because they don't test for conditions that are just as dangerous as being high at work, such as the misuse or side effects of legal drugs or sleep deprivation, which is a serious safety problem.

And drug tests are overinclusive because they reveal information that's nobody's business, like pregnancy, other medical conditions, and the use of prescription drugs. Tests also reveal if you used illegal drugs at home over the weekend, even if you're unimpaired at work. If employees' off-duty conduct is really that important to you, then I think you should also conduct random searches of their homes for drugs, stolen goods, and other evidence of illegal activity.

Now that I have that off my chest, let's look at Squishypig's situation. The evidence is that SOMEONE possessed marijuana. Probably an employee, but we're not sure. There's no evidence that anyone smoked pot at work or was under the influence at work. Yes, you should discipline or fire someone who brings drugs to work, but do these facts justify a "witch hunt"?

If Squishypig's employees are in safety-sensitive positions, like operating heavy machinery, big rigs, or nuclear power plants, then I'd say that safety justifies testing everyone who was on duty at the time, including all members of management.

But if we're talking about an office or retail establishment, I don't think the facts justify forcing dozens of innocent people to pee into a cup. If I were an employee in this situation, I honestly don't know whether I'd take the test. Maybe I'd bet the boss a thousand bucks that I'd pass the test. Or maybe I'd take the test and watch my morale go down the toilet.

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com

Don D · July 2003

Now that we've turned this into a political-stance forum I see where we are. Incidentally, safety sensitive need not be restricted to 'big rigs, nuclear power stations and heavy machinery'. Safety can also be a valuable consideration with kitchen workers weilding knives, people bussing tables and toting mop buckets and parking lot attendants, all in the restaurant industry.

It seems not to boil down to a political position on the intrusiveness of drug screens or one's personal opinion on recreational use, but rather what your policy is and, as an employee in a responsible capacity, the degree to which you are expected by your employer to enforce it. If we're allowed the personal political flexibility to define and dismiss 'recreational use', go for it. If not, you'd be well advised to find out from your top officials just how much attention you should pay to the policy, if there is one. Otherwise, bring in a renta-cop and prop him up in the corner and send a message that there's a blind eye to certain forms of drug use. Selective enforcement of policies may be what we're talking about here, so, while we're doing that, let's consider not 'really' enforcing our sexual harassment policy with some of the guys who are 'recreational abusers' and are 'harmless' and not enforcing our discrimination policy in some of the 'meaningless situations'.

The original question was, "Is there anything else we should be doing?" Maybe the question should have been, "What's your opinion on marijuana use in the restaurant industry where to enforce a policy might mean losing our employees?"

And, no James, pregnancy and other unrelated things that tests could show are not ascertained and if they are, they are not reported to the employer.

hrbanker · July 2003

Squishypig must have been looking for validation in overlooking the very probable drug use of one of the restaurant employees. The forum is a rough place to find people who tolerate skirting the law or non-enforcement of policies.

mwild31 · July 2003

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-22-03 AT 06:19PM (CST)[/font][p]I think the forum is a great place to even blow issues up and beyond what they are called for as well. The idea of the forum is to present differing viewpoints, or on rare occassions, concurring views & anyone that says different shouldn't post, because their feelings might get hurt or they may become defensive. It's a big world out there, with different views.

So, stating my opinion, jumping to the conclusion that it was definitely an employee when NO ONE KNEW FOR SURE - what kind of gestapo tactic is that? Don't lecture on skirting policies and the like, from the nature of the post & the consequent new postings from squishypig, I think the situation was handled just fine. Geez, it could have been a customer - it could have been kicked from under a table...

Leslie · July 2003

I have to say I stick by my original post. Our policy states reasonable suspicion for two reasons:

1. appears to be under the influence, intoxicated, or otherwise too mentally or emotionally impaired to be fit for duty; or
2. when reasonable belief exists that an employee is in violation of this substance abuse policy.

I would not test an entire shift for pot found in a restaurant based on that oblique second statement.

Pinpoint the shift, re-educate the whole damn place, and explain to your young supervisor that oregano goes in sauce...pot doesn't.

System · July 2003

Don,

I expected to ruffle some feathers with my Libertarian/contrarian viewpoints. But really I'm just giving my opinion about the way employers should treat employees. All of us have railed against bosses who were unfair or abusive to their employees. I think it's unfair to force me to pee in a cup because one of my co-workers may or may not have violated a rule. And I wouldn't want to be strip-searched because a hundred bucks is missing from the cash register.

I never said Squishypig should ignore the pot. In fact, I wrote "Yes, you should discipline or fire someone who brings drugs to work." I simply object to a drug test as a means to investigate a murky situation. There are many ways to investigate misconduct without using a medical lab. What if they found a gun instead of drugs? We'd figure out a way to investigate that.

You dismissed the possibility that an employer would have employees' urine tested for things other than drug use. I thought you were more cynical than that, Don. x;-) There was indeed a lawsuit against a police department that required employees to give urine samples for a drug test and secretly had female employees' samples tested for pregnancy.

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com

Don D · July 2003

I've stated my opinion on the original post. Now, James, let's move to your rare example of some employer who 'secretely had urine tested for pregnancy'. That could shut down a collection site or the holding company of one. And it could also shut down a lab. I've been involved in five (5) separate employer drug testing programs and each had as a pivot point, the form used by the collection site for the particular employer. The forms were always preprinted and indicated either DOT or NON-DOT with other pre-printed information and there is always a specific checkoff for the number of drugs they test for. Nowhere have I ever heard of someone unscrupulous enough to pinch the lab tech, wink and get them to send it off for pregnancy testing. Not only would it breech ethics at both facilities, it would add additional cost to each test and would easily be detected by an astute payables clerk. Although this could have happened, and I trust that it did, so what? That certainly cannot be reason enough for us all to call our practices and policies into question. And it matters not one twit what I or the engineer we're having problems with 'THINKS IS FAIR' or 'FEELS' about the validity of our policies. You have indeed let your libertarian political stance (exhale) get in the way of reason, but I understand - you can't help it x:-)just kidding. When and if we reach a point where our personal or political philosophies differ dramatically from that of our employer, and they get in the way of enforcing it's policies, and unless we own the business, it may be time to consider our options. I've reached that point twice in my career and moved on. It was an option I took, twice. Remember that old question they insert in all the honesty tests?..."Have you ever taken pencils or office supplies home from your job?"; Maybe we need to add, "Have you ever, in a supervisory capacity, selectively enforced the policies of your employer?"

System · July 2003

Don,

On this topic, I think we should agree to disagree. If I were the boss of a company (which, for some strange reason, I'm not), I would use drug testing rarely or not at all, but I would enforce our drug policies by other means. You would do things differently, and I respect your opinion.

Sorry to create such a ruckus, but drug testing is one of my pet peeves, right alongside spam and people who back into parking spaces. #-o

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com

moneyman · July 2003

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-23-03 AT 10:27AM (CST)[/font][p]I love backing into parking spaces! If there are no cars around when I am parking and I can take the time to back in, I will (I don't hold people up just so I can back in). Then it is a lot easier upon leaving, when for some reason, I encounter a lot more cars. x;-)

What I hate is the people who drive willy-nilly through the parking lots and you never know when one is going pop out at you from the side or head on!

Don D · July 2003

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 07-23-03 AT 10:29AM (CST)[/font][p] >Don,
>
>Sorry to create such a ruckus, but drug testing is one of my pet
>peeves, right alongside spam and people who back into parking spaces.
>#-o
>
>James Sokolowski
>HRhero.com

Agreed. Switching horses, I love spam, fried, but cannot find on the label what it actually is. And I always try to back into parking spaces, or at least pull through to the other side of those double lined parking space, like those at Wally World, so I can get out without backing. But, I won't do it again. x:-)

And I wish God would give me special authority to write tickets to all the people who park in handicapped parking spaces who are not. That and my kids coming by weekly are my only two wishes.

ritaanz · July 2003

Well said (written). Reminds me of an incident a dear friend related to me. She was interviewing for a HR position. The owner of the company took a great deal of time describing the company and its culture (his word). He kept emphasizing that the primary responsibility of HR was to maintain the skill level and culture as it existed. Come to find out, what he really was saying was hire only white non-gentile people and offer only a select few benefits. As much as she needed that job, she could not continue working for that company. This situation is the reverse of what Don described. The point being, one has to be wise enough to know when to fight the battle and when to fold up your tent. One's views on company policies, procedures, rules and regulations need not be in sync 100% but the responsibility of HR is to support the organization unwavingly.

Whether one thinks that drug testing is demeaning and an invasion of privacy, its a personal opinion. When you let that opinion cloud your judgment to the point it affects the way you do your job, it is time to find another home.

I think that my tarantula tatoo is gorgeous, but my employer has a silly rule which states that it must be covered at all times. Guess what. I keep it covered. Go figure.

Drugs found in the workplace

Comments