I want to know your opinions concerning mandatory drug testing of electricians.
Do you as employers require your employees to be tested? if so, how often, and what do you do if any of your employees are found to be taking drugs?
As employed electricians, do your companies require you to take drug tests when you are hired and randomly afterwords?
Do you feel that employees are safer if they are made to take the drug tests?
I am a subcontractor for a Power company, and as part of my contract with them, I had to get a drug test, in fact, I had to arrange for one and pay for it myself. Anyone I hire that does any work for the power company also has to get tested. In fact, I and any employees of mine also have to have a background investigation done as well.
What are your opinions?

In many cases, these tests are requireed either by federal law, or by federal contracts the utility is party to.
Personally, I have adopted the policy of the U.S. Navy: Not in my crew, not on my ship, not in my fleet. While I cannot control the roofers, the sheetrockers, etc...I will insist everyone in my trade be clear-headed and sober.

There is simply too much at risk.

Do the tests make the job safer? As far as I am concerned, NO- not by themselves. I have been far too many places where the dope tests were considered just part of the game, and dopers were common. The electrical trade, I was pleasantly surprised to find, actually has a strong "no druggies" attitude on the shop floor.

One thing that really changes the picture is the drug you're referring to. While some may assert that drug laws create "victimless" crimes, that claim is pure fantasy when applied to cocaine and meth. Especially with meth, users can be some of the most personable, hardest working folks you'll ever meet- until they burn out! In the interim, they spread a lot of dissention in a crew, and an atmosphere of mistrust developes as tools vanish.
Even "harmless" pot seems to foster an attitude of "us vs. them"....with the users sure to apply their prejudice against non-users.

I don't need that sort of crap.

Interesting!
Several years ago, while still active, had a GC that decided to require tests of all subs. At that time false positives were not a rare exception. I, and my attorney, drafted an acceptance form for the GC to sign along with our people. In it the GC accepted full responsibility for the accuracy of the tests and any positive had to be verified by two additional labs. If the original was proven wrong, the GC was liable for $50,000 per false reading. The GC decided that subs would not be required to submit to tests.
BTW, my company had testing for all employees including office personnel.

Sam

Besides the obvious reason of having a crew that is alert on the job (well in theory anyway), IMHO, there is also another good reason I support it. I have seen a lot of evidence that just the fact of possibly having to get tested has resulted in some individuals from using drugs, that otherwise probably would have been abusers. I have known people in life who have confessed this fact back to me. It is a side benefit.

There are testing methods available that detect ACTUAL IMPAIRMENT on the job, while not:

Cross-reacting with prescription or OTC meds...

Requiring the degrading ritual of peeing in a cup...

Penalizing an employee for what they may choose to do in their off-work hours...

Treating every employee like a criminal suspect...

Preferentially catching employees who smoke marijuana (which lingers in the urine much longer), as opposed to users of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and other hard drugs which clear in a day or 2....

A quick Google on "Fitness for Duty testing" will turn up several devices that test reflexes and mental alertness before a work shift begins, which will not only catch anyone who reports for work high on illegal drugs, but people who are impaired due to lack of sleep, mental stress, or any other reason (which urine testing does absolutely NOTHING to catch).

If employers REALLY cared about workplace safety, as opposed to making the insurance companies and Big Brother at the DEA happy, such testing techniques would quickly replace the pointless "whiz quiz".

Judging employees on their WORK PERFORMANCE, rather than the chemical makeup of their urine always seemed like a good idea to me...

[This message has been edited by NJwirenut (edited 04-11-2006).]

My time is my time.

If I show up to work on your time impaired fire me.

A few thoughts on this contentious issue :

In every workplace where I have worked in the past 25 years, some of the brightest and best individuals in the place have been social pot smokers.

The THC from smoking a single joint is detectable up to 6 weeks after smoking it but any effect on workplace performance is not detectable after a few hours.

So blanket testing of all employees is probably counterproductive.

I reckon the time to bring out the drug test is when an employee has demonstrated the sort of incompetence that indicates that they are impaired in some way, be it through pot, speed, alchohol, whatever.

Note also that where testing is routine, the expertise at evading the testing flourishes. The word I hear is that even prison inmates find it fairly easy to pass drug tests despite using.

"...lack of sleep..."

That would qualify just about everyone with a child under the age of 4 and over the age of 16!

EXACTLY.

And if your lack of sleep is bad enough to effect your judgement or abilities on the job, then you are just as much a hazard to yourself and others as somebody who shows up for work high on drugs.

CERTAINLY you would be more of a hazard than the guy who smoked a joint a week earlier, but guess who would be nailed by a drug test?

Drug testing only addresses ONE cause of workplace impairment, and it isn't the most prevalent one by a long shot. But because nobody wants to be seen as "soft on drugs", employers line up like good little sheep and institute DRUG testing programs rather than IMPAIRMENT testing. Makes the lawyers and insurance folks happy, while helping to erode employee's rights and perpetuate the "Chemical McCarthyism" that has ruled the USA since Ronnie Raygun.

I won't even get into the 4th and 5th amendment violations inherent in drug testing because it would probably get the thread closed because of the dreaded "political content"....

Urine tests are a joke. First of all "hard core drugs" (cocaine,meth,ect.) are water soluble meaning that they only stay in the body of a couple of days. So inless the test is scheduled just right you will never catch persons who injest them. While marijuana is a fat soluble drug it takes much longer to leave the body, up to 30 days. So the way I view it drug test are primarely set up to catch marijuana users, right?
So a guy who drinks a 12 pack or more is more eligable for hire because he can pass a drug test? Just because alchol is more acceptible and legal means its ok?
I think drug tests are a violation of ones privacy. You should be juged on your work ethic and productivity.
Being a former pot-head, sober for 6 months now, I'd be ling to you if I said I wasn't a better worker. But I never would get high before or at work and that's my buisness.
Besides everyone knows how easy it is to beat a drug test!

Wait a minute, I hear a tune in the back of my memory banks---


... Don't bogart that joint, my friend, pass it around...

[This message has been edited by NJwirenut (edited 04-11-2006).]

I think everytime I have interviewed for a job. (I have heard this from other people too) I get asked in the interview if I would be opposed to taking a drug test, but they never get around to actually getting one done...

I think most employers just want to judge your reaction to the question.

My last answer was, "If your testing for Tobacco, Caffine and Scotch you can count me out."

Putting on my employer/supervisor mindset... (simular to iwire and NJwirenut) My time is my time. Whats done on your time is none of my buisiness. But at work, you had better have you head strapped on tight. Booze - drugs - sleep - too much on your mind I dont care. "Once you step foot on the Bodie Plantation - you best set you mind to workin'" (No - I'm not a slave driver...) This is from a guy who can drink a fair bit at night - not prone to hangovers, smokes a pack a day, and has 64oz coffee mug. If you count that, I'm chemically dependant. All I want is my 8 hours out of you going forward, not reverse. But on the other hand, if you on something at the job, and I know - you're sacked! (I'm not above calling in with the 'Irish flu', and its not habit either.)

FYI I had a heroine addict working under me for about two years, I had no idea until he told me he needed to check into a rehab. Said he never did it on the job, I dont doubt him about it. (He did fantastic work - really! 100% attent to detail. Never missed a day of work - always on the ball.) Had a problem on his own time, and was honest with me and himself about - not much more you can ask for. If he didn't tell me, I would have never known. And I still give him good refferances, and I would hire him again no questions asked.

Edit to add, I have sacked someone for being high on the job, handed him his pay and never seen again.

[This message has been edited by e57 (edited 04-11-2006).]

All together now.....

"we're two lost souls..... swimming in a fish bowl....year after year...


Ahhhh, the memories of Pink Floyd playing loud as hell across a set of Infinity studio monitors.....

What I'd pay to be young again...


Dnk...

Oh as for actual testing - about 10% of military personel - who get tested regularly are using someting in thier spare time. Tests have been beaten long ago.

Testing for drugs (and alcohol) at our company is mandatory for employment. If you don't like it, don't apply.

Any of the crew with DOT (commercial) licenses will take them randomly throughout their employment. Liability makes this a mute point.
If an employee fails a test, they have a certain amount of time to clean up and re-test (at their expense). If they pass the second test, they're good to go. Plenty fair in my book.

What you do on your own time IS your business until it endangers me or my crew. At that point, I don't give a good frog's fart for your rights or your excuses. I'd rather you went crying to your Civil Liberties Rep than I went to the burn ward.
IMHO

If you do drugs that effect you on the job, I don't give a crap if you did them on your time or mine! Do the job 100% sober or find a new job!

Don't come in with a bad hangover, don't come in while your coming down, and don't come in after spending the night doing meth. If you stayed at the bar till 2:00am and went home to drink anouther sixer, don't come in. If you did meth on friday night through sunday morning, don't come in on monday. If you are smoking pot till 2:00am, I don't want to see you in the morning!!!

I have done all the above drugs to a major extreem, and any one of you that says it does not effect your work the day after is in denial and needs to seek profesional care.

If you need help all you have to do is e-mail me and I will do my best to find someone in your area. If you need anything at all just drop me a line, but do everyone you work with a favor and stay off the job site. Remember------- WE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH OTHER ON THE JOB SITE!!!!


(steping off soap box)

Jon

I think when I was younger I had more of a "what you do on your time is your business" but as I get older, I have moved completely into Reno's camp, mainly because I don't like having to carry my own weight plus the weight of someone who showed up not prepared to work- makes my day twice as hard to pick up the slack for someone who didn't get a good nights sleep or is coming down off a night's partying. I'de just as soon send them home than work with "worthless" all day. Good workers don't party during the week and don't do anything that impairs their ability to perform work during the week. Drug tests don't bother me because it is just another filter to screen out the non-serious and worthless from the ranks. If you want to live that sort of life find another line of work like bartender or waiter.

I agree with Reno and Trollog. We have urine test upon employment and if you have an accident in a company vehicle, im in total support of them.

As to the 4th and 5th amendments, As far as I know the Constitution applies to the government only, not private individuals or businesses. Plus they are not forcing you to take a drug test, you are free not to and they are free to hire someone else.

I have been subject to drug testing most of my life but I never actually had to take one.
I do think it is a flawed concept as long as you can get a doctor to prescribe something stronger than street drugs.
Of course a guy can come to work every day with a hangover and he is immune from the laws.
These should be performance related issues. If you can't spot the guy who is at work loaded you are not managing your crew.
I do think being stoned at work is a "one strike and you are out" situation.

I agree with Reno and Trollog. We have urine test upon employment and if you have an accident in a company vehicle, im in total support of them.

As to the 4th and 5th amendments, As far as I know the Constitution applies to the government only, not private individuals or businesses. Plus they are not forcing you to take a drug test, you are free not to and they are free to hire someone else.

Usually these drug tests are required BY the government.

If your company has a strong anti-drug policy w/testing, your workmen's comp can go as low as a .62 multiplier and general liability and vehicle ins. cost will also be reduced.

Sam

Quote:

"I think everytime I have interviewed for a job. (I have heard this from other people too) I get asked in the interview if I would be opposed to taking a drug test, but they never get around to actually getting one done..."

I would be willing to take any drug test confidently--
What would you like to know?
I could probably answer any question pertaining to any drug available since 1975.

What? OHH! That kind of drug test?!

Never mind!

Government employees are not covered by fourth amendment rights, many times cases have been trumped by "National Security" claims, and the general answer now is that you have the right to quit if you don't like drug testing.
Personally, I don't have an issue with drug testing as long as a new hire is told the policy and accepts it prior to starting employment. In my case the gov. waited 24 years before they dusted off an executive order from Ronald Reagon and started testing.
Employers should be up front about it and employees should know the reasons.

If I had to do mandatory drug tests on my employees, they both would fail....guaranteed.

I know for a fact that one of my employees smokes pot on a daily basis after work. He's a hard worker and does the job right. He's been working for me for almost a year, and he's never missed a day of work, nor is he ever late. I have yet to receive a complaint from a customer about him.

A previous employee I had didn't smoke pot, yet he needed a cattle prod to keep him working, and would continually screw up the work. I would receive at least 2 customer complaints about him every month. Needless to say, he was let go.

Which one would you hire?

The bottom line is, what they do on their time is their business, provided it's not brought onto the job or affects their work in any way.

Last I checked, these tests addressed the issue of ILLEGAL drugs. That is, drugs whose use as a crime.

Just to stir the pot a bit, would you tolerate other illegal activity as long as it was "off the clock?"
Such as: unlicensed contracting

Such as: illegal street drag racing

Such as: Robbing convenience stores


Then ... after the inevetable happens .... would you hire a felon? Even if his olny crimes were drug-related?

The only difference between legal drugs and illegal drugs is the power of the drug company lobbiests.
If I was a meth fan and I wanted to be "legal" I could go to a doctor feel good who would diagnose me as ADD and I could get a scrip for Adderal which is nothing but the old , now illegal, Biphetamine capsules (AKA black beauties), Very "speedy" stuff.
If I was a downer freak there are dozens of barbituates and mood altering drugs that they will give you.
I agree with Sixer here. I think I would rather have a guy there who smoked some pot last weekend than a guy who has 2 Vicodin in his system now. Of course drinking has been legal since 1933, about the same time the other drugs became illegal. Coincidence? I don't think so. Legal vs illegal is just the current state of the bureaucracy.

BTW Reno, have you fired every guy who drove home from a bar with 3 beers in him? That's illegal too.

Have you also fired everyone who drives a bit over the posted speed limit on the highway? Everybody who jaywalks? Spits on the sidewalk? Flicks cigarette butts out their car window? Everyone who downloads bootleg music/videos from the internet?

All of these actions are illegal, as well, so you can either have a "crew of one", or you are going to have to hire people who occasionally engage in criminal activity in their off-hours.

And if said activity has no impact on their performance/reliability ON THE JOB, then it is none of the employer's business.

[This message has been edited by NJwirenut (edited 04-12-2006).]

While drug testing is a requirement of employment where I work, I still vehemently disagree with it. It seems like at the least it is an illegal search and at worst you are being required to testify against yourself without ever having been arrested or charged with a crime.

I simply believe it is against our Constitutional rights and the founding fathers would have agreed.

What if I smoke pot in Denmark or somewhere where it is legal and I come back to the states and it is found in my system. How can I be fired for doing something that was legal. This subject really ticks me off and I don't even do drugs.

Anyone who thinks that drug testing promotes a quality workforce should look no further than your local Orange Box store.

They have a big sign near the entrance proudly proclaiming their "zero tolerance" drug testing policy, and judging from some of the employees giving advice there, giving them a few bonghits could only IMPROVE things.

[This message has been edited by NJwirenut (edited 04-12-2006).]

Mandatory random drug testing. We have a Zero tolerance policy. Test positive and bye-bye.

NJ...LMAO.

Reno I have to say that is a pretty strong post and I don't dispute your right to run your business as you see fit.

That said where do you draw the line?

You must have some things you ignore or you are working alone.

This is odd thread for electrical forum I don't think their is a one size fits all answer.

The performance testing sounds like a more effective method to make a safer work environment. But that is not supported by the money savings drug testing is.

I can certainly understand why an employer wants to test.

I hope all the employers can see how insulting and intrusive it is to employees.

There are a lot of things employers would want from employees if it was a perfect world.

In an employers perfect world employees would;

Not have family commitments

Not get sick

Not have transportation issues

Work as many or as few hours as needed

Be ready to work at any moment

Not want raises.

Not get injured.

And of course not drink, smoke, drug etc.

But if you want to grow your shop you will be dealing with all of it.

Bob: (Iwire)
Don't have enough time to read this whole thread now, but....
The Twp that I'm AHJ in has a MANDATORY drug test policy. Before you get hired; on their dime. On the job, if you get into any accident, motor vehicle (wether you are driving, parked, etc) or even stung by a bee; it's off to the local hospital for a drug test. Twp is unionized, and it's policy.

John

I've never been asked to take a drug test in my 16 years in the trade. Never once. But I do like the idea of being asked just to see the persons reaction. I would say though, for the most part, employers in this trade are in need of people (especially younger people) who know the trade well enough and can work on their own so they might be willing to look the other way on this matter. If I was an employer, and I plan be one one day, I would only be concerned with production on the job and the professionalism of my employess. What they do on their time is their business, as long as it does not directly effect my business.

just my 2¢

Slightly off topic, but I was thinking of this thread today... I work with a hypersensitive vegan who shys away from all but a rare green tea. I swear I want to hit him sometimes... And jam a steak down his throat, and force him to wash it down with Jolt cola. Work his butt off all day and feed him a beer. He's admittedly slow due to lack of substanial protein, tempermental due to low blood-suger, easily confused due to lack of ammino's. If steak and coffee were 'drugs' I would force feed him them all day. Would it be against the law to require him to snort the contents of a protein shake every morning? (Probhably not) But if food and drugs are so alike, I think some should be required.

I have to love all the strongly professed opinions this thread has brought out!

I seem to recall varions "legalise it" referendums failing by enormous margins. This suggests that recreational drug use is far from mainstream!

On another forum, I asked about hiring convicts- my last helper is currently a guest of the state- and every response was "Are you nuts? Never hire prooven crooks!"

The use of drug testing was prooven effective in the late '70's, when it played a major part in restoring our military. Such testing continues today...and no one can doubt the effectiveness of our forces!

Debating drug testing seem comparable to debating building inspections.... laws are meaningless with a means of enforcement. Why should the law-abiding tolerate any situation that gives advantage to the law-breaker?

And then.... legalities aside.... there remains the issue of character. I've seen enough examples to be persuaded that some folks are -quite unfairly- handicapped in the performance of their jobs simply because other folks, for some reason or another, have started gossip campaigns. Folks seem quite willing to judge others by all sorts of things that are absent from the lawbooks.

I really must doubt some of the claims made here of pot smoking.... the replies aren't mellow at all! :-)

Wow!! What a thread!!

Here's my take on the situation:

First, I am firmly in the camp of what my employees do on thier time is indeed thier own business, and I don't care as long as it doesn't affect MY business. Any other stance smacks of invasion of privacy - do you care who your co-workers sleep with, for example?;

Drug testing IS an invasion of privacy, BUT: If it is disclosed during the hiring process then it is each person's right to either agree to testing or seek a job elsewhere with no recourse for punitive or discrimination claims; (I would not hesitate to work for a company who tells me that I would be subject to testing in advance of my hire-on.);

And yes, lack of sleep, emotional distress and fatigue are far bigger problems than off-duty drug use.

I know two individuals, one who smokes pot and can do his job well ONLY when he's had a hit or two (no, he's NOT an electrician) because he's hyperactive to the extreme otherwise. So far, in 20+ years, he's never had any complaints or issues because of his pot use. And he is highly regarded as one of the best in his field.

Another co-worker could knock back the beers with the best of them, but only after work. He was always on time, worked hard and never gave anyone problems.

Ironically (and probably not surprising) the movie production sets I've worked had rampant drug/alcohol use amongst the crew and some of the principal actors.

As for the other types of issues that Reno brought up, see my first statement.

Would I hire an ex-con? If, upon interviewing that person, I felt they had done thier time and served thier sentence, and I felt reasonably comfortable around them, sure. They must of course dress and speak in a manner in line with my line of work. Image is everything.

Most of us, when we talk to or meet someone, can get a "vibe" if you will, which tells whether or not to trust them. That instinct which we all posses to a certain degree is very accurate. If you don't trust someone based on your instincts, chances are you're right.

Very interesting thoughts being tossed about here....

Reno, I'm not trying to pick an arguement, but in some areas of the country drug use is just about mainstream. Not that its a red/blue state thing, but to me it seems to encircle the country in coastal and border states. Even then, only a small percentage of the population actually votes ever. Most of the politally complacent are just as complacent about legalizing pot, but would draw the line there.

As for the military, when I got out in '94 testing was a joke and use in Pendelton in particular was rampant. And I'm not saying that as a discount to service or sacrifice, but it is true. Testing is just a waste of tax payer dollars, plain and simple, and only serves as a deterant to open use. People who I know smoked pot regularly, did LSD, extasacy, and even meth never got caught. Outside every base gate you can go to any head shop and pick up some goldenseal , or whizzinator or any number of comparable products. For that matter simply invalidate the test with a single grain of salt in the cup. Or as easy and simple as drinking a whole gallon of water before the test, all they get is water. Trufully it is even more telling when you see a major portion a unit show up for any formation with a gallon water jug each... People smirking and and saying things like, "gotta stay hydrated... ha, ha, ha" Hair samples are the only thing that worries anyone, and only a few things are detectable on them. And they are so expensive that it is rare that anyone would be subjected to one. Blood tests will only get you if you're on it right then for most things.

Anyway, the funniest incident I can remember was when hundreds of people, including high ranking Officers got busted due to Poppy Seed muffins from the Chow Hall.

Oh and alchol abuse is out of control due to subsidized booze prices on base clubs, and the PX.

You living in a fantasy world, drug use is mainstream.

The referendums fail as the typical profile of voter does not match the typical profile of a user.

As many have pointed out the tests are easily beat and people from all walks of life indulge.

I know some of the members of this forum that are well respected that indulge.

Presidents of the USA have used from both parties.

Some with illegal drugs and some had a Dr Feelgood close by.

The military has experimented with all sorts of drugs on the troops to see if any make them more effective.


I saw a video of a British military exercise where they gave the troops LSD and gave them a mission to perform.

It was pretty funny.

The commending officer was trying his best to meet the objective of the mission but kept getting distracted by the smallest things. 'look at my hands'

Solders where walking around upright like they where on a nature walk when really they where supposed to be acting like they where behind enemy lines.

I don't do anything strong anymore but I don't regret tripping when I was younger, my friends and I had great times.

Kinda gives "War on Drugs" a whole new meaning, don't it? Might have it's advantages when the bullets leave "tracers" that only your side can see...

As far as legalization measures failing at the polls, perhaps the fact that the feds claim the right to override local laws and bust users/sellers on federal charges REGARDLESS of local law might lead many would-be voters not to bother showing up? Many states have legalized medical marijuana, but the feds are STILL busting cancer patients and grannies with glaucoma...

On the other hand, the city of Denver, CO recently voted to legalize adult posession of an ounce or less of pot, WITHOUT a medical use restriction! I'm sure the DEA is massing at the city borders to put down the "insurgency" as we speak...
http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4570.html

[This message has been edited by NJwirenut (edited 04-13-2006).]

Bob I have read opinions that the Germans stalled in the battle of the bulge because they ran out of amphetimines.
The military has never hesitated to drug it's troops if they thought it would enhance performance.

Maybe you should have all your employees tested for ADD. The treatment would certainly "speed" up the workplace.

Us limeys had a secret drug all right. It's called Tea!

"Serge, the Germans are circling round behind our position!"
"Quick, get that bloody kettle on!"

Alan

And they still don't:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2657675.stm

Ask the families of those Canadian troops how much speed "enhanced" the performance of the US pilots.

Ask the Italians as well, two fighters buzzing a ski resort and cut a gondola cable were later found that they too were prescribed uppers. (unknown it it had any effect on the accident, but.) Not unlike 1/2 the troops on the ground in Iraq right now, who really want a few cases of beer instead.

[This message has been edited by e57 (edited 04-13-2006).]

So what have we learned here?

It's OK to give amphetamines (which cause paranoia and poor impulse control) to people flying heavily armed high performance aircraft , but public safety requires us to screen out the potheads from working at the local hardware store.

I guess it all makes sense if you are smoking whatever the congresscritters have in their stash...



[This message has been edited by NJwirenut (edited 04-13-2006).]

What drug do you want me to test?
~Peter

Easter comes on Sunday this year.