Positive drug test-in the wrong place at the wrong time

One of our top employees was injured and drug tested per our post injury/accident drug policy. He swears it is secondhand. He's never had so much as a blemish on his record. I am leaning toward having him tested regularly for a period of time as a condition of continued employment. We consider the circumstances surrounding every positive test. Thoughts?
«1

Comments

  • 36 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • Thoughts: The only 'circumstance' surrounding a positive test is the fact that it's positive. Top employee or not. Unblemished record or not. Injury or not. The man tested positive. Second hand my A**!
  • You mean you handle every instance of a positive test result differently? If that's the case, all I can say is wow and double wow. That is a lawsuit for disparate treatment just waiting to happen. You need a policy that tells you exactly what you do with a first positive for everyone...like now!

    I have managed drug testing programs for almost 10 years, and I can only echo Don's statement...second hand my a**. When I look at the number of people who have denied use (practically all out of a couple hundred) to the number of people who actually came out clean (three - two due to poppy seeds before the tests got more sophisticated and one due to a screw up in the chain of custody)it's hard not to be skeptical.
  • and to add if your policy is like ours termination is the result of a "refusal to provide a urine sample for testing or a positive result" is a terminating event. Good guy or not do not destroy the value of a well written and exercised company policy. If you let the individual slide or add new situations to your policy, your policy becomes "null and void". You can always re-hire this otherwise good employee, in our case only after he provides a drug and/or alcohol abuse rehab program. It is then that you might want to inform him/her up-front that you will be testing him once a month or whenever, you have a whim to do so. DO NOT WAIT ANOTHER MINUTE AND TERMINATE THIS HERO!

    PORK
  • Don, Les, show a litle compassion, please. 'I didn't mean to snort any of the stuff, but some idiot turned on the fan and this white stuff just filled the room, and I was coughin and hackin trying to get out into the fresh air...I swear!'
    Honest occifer, I din't know the gun was loaded!!
  • Thanks for the chuckle. I recall about 6 years ago, an applicant testing positive for mary-jew-onna; he swore to me that everybody on his softball team but him was smoking and when they got in the dugout and all lit up, because it was one of those underground dugouts, the smoke just wafted all over him and he tried to bat it away but it must have just got in him somehow. I never did ask him if they ever scored a run.
  • They were scorin Don, but not runs!
  • cwh,
    Welcome to the forum, your top employee is a lying, drug using piece of crap. My condolences.
    You have a couple of options based on your policy. If you policy calls for termination then terminate. If if gives you the option to let him get treatment and put on a last chance agreement then, and only then can you do that. Uhhhh jury, we have a strict drug policy.........unless you are our top employee....then we make exceptions. Think about what is going to happen when you fire the black guy who has been there 7 years when he tests positive.
    If you can and or do a last chance, make it 3 or 5 years, testing up to 7 times a year. That way he knows he can't smoke right after being tested and figure he has a month to clean up.
    But as long as he is saying it is secondhand smoke, he is lying, and I would not give him a second chance.
    My $0.02 worth.
    DJ The Balloonman
  • CAUTION - I've been advised by attorneys that once an employee goes through drug rehab they are then protected by the ADA as having a history of substance abuse. You then cannot treat them differently based on their "disability" i.e. requiring periodic drug testing in excess of what other employees are required to undergo.
  • That reminds me of an individual we had in the military who tested positive for cocaine. When we convened his discharge board hearing (sort of like a mini-courtmartial) he presented witnesses on his behalf who swore that he was tricked into ingesting the cocaine orally by some woman who was trying to pick him up in a club.

    The board of officers voted to retain the airman.


  • Most drug users deny their use/abuse ( and/or addiction) when confronted - it is part of the disease. I have seen people test positive that I "would have never guessed" were users. Your testing center could probably tell you how VERY unlikely it is to test positive due to "second hand". Don't treat this ee any different than anyone else who would've tested positive.
  • Doing something illegal is not automatically a disease. If I smoke pot or drive 90 miles an hour I am making a choice in my behaviors. While some people may be addicted, most are not.
    My $0.02 worth.
    DJ The Balloonman
  • True but irrelevant. What's relevant is an employer's policy. We aren't exactly at liberty to substitute our personal philosophy for a company policy. Most of us aren't anyway. x:-)
  • True Don, but it goes without saying......follow policy. But lets not all say awwww they have a disease. That is a liberal enabling attitude.
    My $0.02 worth.
    DJ THE Balloonman
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-05-04 AT 06:38PM (CST)[/font][br][br]Although I don't feel my comment reflects a "liberal enabling attitude", allow me to rephrase: "Most drug addicts deny their use/abuse (and/or addiction) when confronted - that is part of a substance use disorder".
  • The drugs in the employee's system have to exceed a certain level before the results are considered positive. This takes into account second hand smoke. It is my understanding from LabCorp that secondhand smoke cannot possibly cause a result strong enough to be considered positive.

    I once told a new hire that they didn't pass the drug test and referred them to the lab if he had questions. The employee said "oh, my brother smokes pot around me sometimes". His positive was for cocaine.

    I've never heard the "they turned on the fan and the coke blew into my nose" story... It doesn't surprise me though. x:D


  • One approach we have tried that really "weeds" out the users who are adamant about not using: our lab will take a hair sample. Almost all, if not all, illegal substances will show in that test for 6 months - far longer than urine or blood. It's amazing how many of the "non-users" stop protesting when we offer the set the appointment!
  • We too offer an alternative to termination, by allowing the adamant employee the opportunity to provide his/her own documentation within 24 hours, proof of a more sensitive test either hair or blood at the individuals expense. With the documentation we will place the person on suspension with pay until the results comeback and are conclusive that our urine test/screen was inaccurate. In 5 years we have terminated several and none have taken the opportunity to prove our urine test results wrong!

    PORK
  • "Weeds out," I love it.

    By the way - hi neighbor!
  • Cinderella: I must insist that you write down a littany of your favorite sayings and phrases. This makes about four of them you have exclaimed your appreciation of. Please list them for us.
  • I was loving the irony, not necessarily the saying x:D
  • Hair sample testing does not show current use. It is not a verification method following a positive urinalysis. It shows history only, not last night's toking episode.
  • Our forensic drug testing lab has advised us that in order for someone to test positive for second hand marijuana smoke they'd pretty much have to sit in a locked closet with someone blazing a doo-bee for hours on end.
    I second Don's notion...second hand smoke my ***.

  • HRratrace: I suggest you get a new lab; why are you talking directly to a lab? I would speak to my physician who is responsible for the review of the ee's testing. I really question your statements; my experience is that 2nd hand smoke can be achieved by sitting in a car, just wasting time with my buddies over an amount of time and one can definately come up positive, even with the urine test. A new test of saliva, will soon be put into the arena and will be less costly than blood or hair, but more sensitive than the urine test. The "hair sample"s recommended procedure is to take a sample of hair nearest the root and on the back of the head under several layers, with a pencil width in size. Even on men that can be done with out sever damage to one's looks. You know, when someone is in fact innocent then the cost and the concern for looks/appearance is of little concern to the individual. Cut me bald, if that is what the lab needs to support my claim for my "not guilty" situation. "Dandy Don'S" post which declares blood and hair samples will not show last nights involvement, how does one seperate night before last or night after last week's use from last nights use, which is positive? It is positive regardless of when the event of use or being around the controlled substance took place.

    PORK


  • >
    >We consider the circumstances surrounding every
    >positive test.
    I believe the question was asked earlier but how do you consider circumstances? Either the ee tests positive or they don't. If they test positive, there are consequences and your company policy should be followed. One part of the policy should be that if an ee tests positive, the ee will be subject to testing on a random basis. I would never allow an ee who has tested positive (particularly after an accident) to return to work unless they agree to that in writing.
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 03-08-04 AT 02:27PM (CST)[/font][br][br]One of our customers insisted that we have our install crew drug-tested before the install , which was last week. One employee failed, and then came to me and asked if second-hand smoke inhaled on his own time could cause a positive reading ! So to give him the benedit of the doubt, we had this employee drug tested again - he failed again, and did not go on the install last week. He is still working for us -- the owners won't fire him.

    Chari



  • CHARI: Does your drug testing policy state the individual will be terminated or dismissed or words to that effect? If it does then your policy and procedures across the board is suspect and "null and void". Company actions always "SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS". You might as well not have a policy! An immature first year lawyer, a greeny wienie would love to attack your company with this information, that you don't follow your own policy in this case so what makes this jury believe that you will follow policy and procedures in any other case!!!


    PORK
  • PORK:
    You are so right ! The Policy ( for what it is worth ) does state termination , but it is out of my hands. The owners generally do what they want regardless of what I say. The GM is supposed to arrange for the Harrassment Training mandated by the Worker's Comp carrier - the State Fund, but she has sat on it for months and nothing has been done. You are so right about the lawyers, a good one two years ago almost sank
    this company in a lawsuit that did not even make it to trial - the fees and costs were crazy.

    Chari
  • Good morning Chari:

    As a past President once said, "I feel your pain." My employer, like yours, want listen and does what they want. They have two favorite sayings, "Nobody is going to tell how to run my business." and "If we get into trouble we'll call your ass to get us out." Over the last 5 years we have gone through a number of DOL compliant audits and EEOC investigation, and so far we've been able to either work out of the compliant or negoiate the couple we lost down to small fines. It's a pain, but they pay me well, with added benefits. They like to say, "your on a special pay plan."

    I told you that, so you may better understand this, I've been in HR since 1968, and I have found, over the years and working many different governmental investigations and employee lawsuits, that a company's like mine, is better off without written policies, except for governmentally mandated standards, and defending only the actions of the company, rather than explaining why we willfully violated our own written policies, having our own violations used against us, as well as having to defend the company's actions related to a given situation. Except for governmental mandated standards, I did away with all written policies, and wrote a very carefully controlled employee origination, communication and management training program. Thank god, there are few companies like mine, but in them you can still establish a reasonable standard of equality through your personal & professional interaction.

    I agree that working for this type company is challenging, but it is a continuous learning experience and you always end up with a lot of interesting war stories. Hang in there.
  • MARCY: WELCOME on board the forum. Your perspective as a "non-company employee handbook" organization will be interesting and gives a strong representation to all of the young HRs on our net. Please, engage often, you'll be hard pressed to catch "Dandy Don's" postings, but try anyway.

    PORK
  • Unfortunately, drug abusers use every excuse in the book . . . if you deviate from your policy, you are setting yourself up for future grief. Other respondents have indicated that if you put this aside and treat this employee differently than your policy provides, you will set a precedent that will be impossible to defend. They are correct. This is not the last employee who ever will use drugs! What will you do the next time and the time after that . . .?

    The "second-hand" smoke reason has been expounded by many a prospective employee and we have not hired a one of them. The other excuse heard quite often is "I ate a poppyseed roll the day I had the drug test--that's what caused the positive screen." We haven't hired any of those people, either! As for current employees, there is no "wrong place at the wrong time" second chance "good employee" defense--our policy calls for termination, no matter what level job the employee holds.
Sign In or Register to comment.