drug and alcohol tests in the workplace? Where I work management gets upset when people call in sick. With all the flu going around sicks calls are on the rise.
Management dosen't like it because it causes them to think on their feet getting that person or persons route filled in the morning. They cut back to the bone when things were really bad and now they barely have enough staff to get everything covered. So one sick call really throws a wrench into things. Multiple sick calls are total chaos.

Lately there has been a trend developing that when an employee returns to work after a sick day(s) they are scheduled for a "random" drug test including a alcohol breathalyzer screen.
I have had randoms at work before but they have never included a breathalyzer in the past.
When management is asked they just shrug their shoulders and say "your name came up".
Also people have said someone from management will call their house sometime during the day to "see how you are feeling"
Sounds like intimidation.

Lots of cough syrups have alcohol, so wouldn't that screw up their tests?

Absenteeism isn't bad until you are forced to hire more people because you know that, on average, you will have 20-35% of your workforce absent. They go to one of the clinics and tell the doc that they need a work slip and five minutes later they are back in the car.

That's what we deal with, on a daily basis.

I have to chuckle about the "random" tests. At my wife's job they had a "random" test. 5 people were "chosen" 4 had exemplary work records, one was a church pastor, another belonged to a faith that abstsains from about everything and so on. The fifth person had numerous complaints and a poor work record and was "Under Observation".

"Under Observation" became "Terminated as a result of a random drug test".

In all fairness to the employers, sometimes it is the only way to get rid of them.

I get "randomly" selected every time I travel to Mexico. Makes it easy for management, no paperwork & no chance for anybody to get canned (I'm a safe choice for the either way and they know it)

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:

When management is asked they just shrug their shoulders and say "your name came up".
Also people have said someone from management will call their house sometime during the day to "see how you are feeling"
Sounds like intimidation.

Absences ARE a major pain to employers and do cost money. Maybe it is intimidation to try to reduce absences. That is probably not illegal, even if it is a bit distasteful.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:

When management is asked they just shrug their shoulders and say "your name came up".
Also people have said someone from management will call their house sometime during the day to "see how you are feeling"
Sounds like intimidation.

Absences ARE a major pain to employers and do cost money. Maybe it is intimidation to try to reduce absences. That is probably not illegal, even if it is a bit distasteful.

I don't see that as very intimidating unless the employees are playing hooky to get high. Sure, there's the possibility of false positives, but usually there's an allowance for multiple tests.

I had a comment for this thread, but I'm calling in sick. My doctor, Jack Daniels, will sign a release for me.

H&K-Guy

The flip side is those who insist on gutting it out and coming in with oozing pustules of Ebola virus. There's a balance between people who abuse sick time and people who don't use it when they should - they wind up either prolonging their own illness, while being less effective and safe on the street, while infecting everybody else with Prolapsing Anus Syndrome.

As for drug tests, ours are pretty random - someone calls you from HR an hour before your shift starts and is waiting at the door with the cup when you come in. We are also supposed to notify admin of any medications we are on, RX or not, as soon as practicable. Telling The Man that you have raging 'roids and a Preparation H dependency and asking him if he wants to see proof pretty much guarantees that the policy will be reviewed at the next contract talks.

quote:

Originally posted by runofthemill:
Lots of cough syrups have alcohol, so wouldn't that screw up their tests?

Only if you drank the cough syrup within 15 minutes of the test.

quote:

The flip side is those who insist on gutting it out and coming in with oozing pustules of Ebola virus. There's a balance between people who abuse sick time and people who don't use it when they should - they wind up either prolonging their own illness, while being less effective and safe on the street, while infecting everybody else with Prolapsing Anus Syndrome.

That's usually how i am. I try to work when sick as i hate calling in. I only do so if i am REALLY sick to the point that i will affect my job.

That said, if i am risking the possibility of infecting others, i'll let the boss know. "Hey, i'm sick and i think i'm contagious. I'm willing to work but don't want to affect my co workers. Do you want me to stay or go home sick."

That way, it's their call if i stay and others get sick and call in. A smart boss will usually send me home.

Kevin

The biggest problem we had were people coming in sick when they should have stayed at home and personnel that came in late because of bad traffic and left early because of the incoming snow storm.

And I doubt if they ever made up the time. It's called politics. We had one department head that made the rounds in the morning and in the evening to see who was there. But some of these same people always got promoted in spite of their work performance.

And yes, the Government says that minorities should make up 10 percent of the work force. The worst situation was the three minorities that never came in until 9:30 and took an hour and half for lunch and usually sneaked out by 6:00. It is also doubtful that they did any productive work during that time. The department head told them several times about the working hours but after several weeks they were back to their normal schedule. Finally the department head had enough and he found a job in another department. Problem solved.

But finally their luck ran out. Somebody was reviewing a Navy proposal from an outside company and here was the three amigos names listed on the proposal. Since they did not have company permission to work on the job, they were called into the VP's office and confronted about the situation. Upon admitting their guilt, security escorted them out of the building while other security people went through their office with a fine tooth comb. Other evidence was found of stolen property and security violations. They were never seen again.

41

The larger point to me is if you are selecting people for drug screens reactively based on some action by the employee (ie. calling in sick) then don't try to give the impression of this being a random action.

I am aware that should you have a accident driving a company vehicle you will be subjected to a alcohol/drug screen asap. No problem. If the employers policy now is if you call in sick you will be subjected to the same then make it known.
They don't, because this would certainly be challenged in court and they would lose their ass on it.
As far as it being intimidation I guess it is only if you are intimidated by it. Calling someone at home during the day after they have followed the proper procedure of calling in sick is more of a harassment issue if you ask me.
I am not one of the abusers of the system by any means and I hesitate to label someone else one because you just don't know.

What bothers me is the company hiding behind some vague policy that there is no way for the employee to verify the procedure.
It just leads to "what else am I being hoodwinked on" attitude.

Your employer can test you randomly, for cause, or for any reason he wants to, any time he wants to. No one is "losing their ass in court" for that unless you are a contract employee and the testing violates the employment contract.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Your employer can test you randomly, for cause, or for any reason he wants to, any time he wants to. No one is "losing their ass in court" for that unless you are a contract employee and the testing violates the employment contract.

If a company has a specific "random" testing policy that is spelled out in specific terms and conditions, they cannot just pick and choose who they test.

Discrimination and harassment charges would fly.


The only time that my company can test is randomly or immediately following an accident.

quote:

Originally posted by American Pit Bull:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Your employer can test you randomly, for cause, or for any reason he wants to, any time he wants to. No one is "losing their ass in court" for that unless you are a contract employee and the testing violates the employment contract.

If a company has a specific "random" testing policy that is spelled out in specific terms and conditions, they cannot just pick and choose who they test.

Discrimination and harassment charges would fly.


The only time that my company can test is randomly or immediately following an accident.

In an "at will" state the employer can pretty much do as they like unless there is a union contract.

Lastmanstanding, I understand your frustration with the hypocrisy of calling it a random. Who are they trying to bullshit? It leads to a general lack of respect for management.

You know what we are all adults here, treat me as an adult I can handle the truth. If you think I'm gaming the system say so. Change the system. The whole gotcha game between labor and management pisses me off. I thought this shit would be over after jr. high.

I

Random drug testing in a manufacturing envoirnment isn't. I think the random generated "lists" of whom gets tested is bunk. Amazingly, the same 8-10 people get called over and over again. Looks really good when the same 20 somethings test negitive for the insurance providers.

quote:

Originally posted by American Pit Bull:
If a company has a specific "random" testing policy that is spelled out in specific terms and conditions, they cannot just pick and choose who they test.

Discrimination and harassment charges would fly.

The problem there is, if they say it's random, how would you go about proving otherwise in the absence of a paper trail?

I've always been opposed to company drug tests on principal, unless you're in a public safety job or a position that directly affects the lives of others (train driver, airline pilot, police officer, circus acrobat, member of Congress). What if your employer said, "Give me your keys, we're going to search your house in case you have something illegal there"? How many people would agree to that? But, as the workplace becomes more and more intrusive drug tests are becoming the norm.