Urine analysis

Tom Dunlap

Tom Dunlap

Here from the beginning
Administrator
Location
Retired in Minneapolis
I'd like to find out how many other companies use UA tests.

Are there any others with a declared drug free workplace?

We have well-defined protocols for what happens if a UA comes up positive. A second test in the office then they go to our worker's comp doctor's office for another test. They're driven to the clinic if needed. Then there are consequences. Sometimes it's termination, other times probation and treatment. We want people to be succesful in their lives and we'll support them in any way possible.

We have some pretty well-defined triggers for a UA. The biggest is anytime there's a vehicle accident. "Accident" is a pretty far-reaching term. As an example, I pulled into a parking spot. I knew it was going to be tight. As I pulled in I was looking left and right to make sure I didn't hit either car. As I looked left my right mirror kissed the next car. Both mirrors folded but no scratches or damage. I had to fill out an accident report and take the test.

We're having a discussion amongst the supervisors to come up with some guidelines for when to make a UA manditory when it comes to property damage. What should the trigger be? We have property damage very well defined, that's not the issue. An example...the crew needed to clear a large, old clay planter pot off of the patio before they started pruning. As the started to slide the pot it cracked apart. Just plain old age. The client understood and wasn't angry. They said that we didn't have to worry about it but we comped her some value to buy a new pot. The crew did have to write up an accident report. It didn't effect their safety award program though. Should they have taken a UA?

Another time the crew had put up plywood along the house to protect it from damage. The climber had cut off the end of a limb like he was supposed to. Nice snap cut and toss to the side. When he cut the stub end it took one of those wild jumps and slit the screen porch screen. Again, the client was cool and we comped them $20 since they're going to replace the old screens in the spring anyway. Should that have been a mandatory UA? He did get gigged for his safety award. The climber understood that but was frustrated with himself.

It's not that we're concerned about having anyone fail a UA. Part of the consideration is the time and energy that's required for every UA. The kit costs about $20. Then a super has to take time to administer and find another super to witness the results. A little bit of paperwork and a walk out to the dumpster to trash the test kit. All totaled, it could take about 20-30 minutes. If we start to do that over every broken fence picket and lawn scuff then UAs are going to become part of the profit/loss statement every month. Not a great way to see money and time being spent.

Does anyone have a trigger that they use or something that you'd feel comfortable being applied to your work?

Oh, by the way, I passed the UA test :)
 
Tom,

Although I have yet to be introduced to any testing, I would think that a chosen dollar value for property damage/compensation might be appropriate. Also, The best judgement of a supervisor about whether the accident was an "honest" mistake or if it appeared to be preventable.

Just a couple thoughts,
 
Jarod,

Both dollar amount and super's assessment have been considered. The catch is that either could be viewed as suspect. There is the possibility of "protecting" friends and "punishing" enemies. It's always easier to have knife-edged criteria. Thanks for the input. We do have some discression about how we classify an accident so that it doesn't effect 30 day or yearly safety awards. Both of these programs are taken seriously as a matter of pride. Seeing the crews get the yearly is a great event. Seeing the beeming eyes and puffed chests is a thing of beauty!
 
We have pre-employment screens as well random via the state for all of our CDL drivers. As far as non- drivers we just look for the usual signs. Late for work , attitude. etc.. If any test is positive we have automatic 3 weeks off plus treatment then a retest. If they pass then its random. We have only had 2 positives. Both employees failed the test after 3 weeks. Terminated. One was a foreman. One of his co-workers told me he was not comfortable working with him. I said why? He said he's always blowin fatties on the way to the jobs. Nuts.
 
Funny you should mention that. While I was packing my goods to move to Denver I was having supper. The salad dressing I was eating was a creamy poppyseed. Since I knew that I'd be taking a UA when I got to Denver I stopped eating that dressing just in case :)
 
Do you guys really think that being a user causes accidents? Maybe if they smoked while on the job. Don't get me wrong, I am totally against drug use but I don't see that waiting for someone to break a fence is the best way to catch them. Why not just random pick people out of a hat 2 or three times a year (random dates too). This way the supervisors can assembly line people through and save time by only having to set up once.

Dave
 
The airlines rule is easy. Test positive, out the door. The DOT requires random drug testing for all flight safety personnel. (Doesn't include executives.)This was mandated back in the early 1990s because a subway driver out east crashed and tested positive for marijuana.
The people to be tested are randomly picked by computer, then are given notice 20 minutes before the test to report. This of course always happens 2 minutes after you just watered the roses. The tester is from an outside testing company and makes pretty good ching. If you are unable to provide a sample, you must consume up to 40 oz of water and must provide a sample within ~4 hours. If you are still unable to provide a sample you report to the company clinic. If they find nothing to prevent you from doing your duty, you are terminated for refusal to provide a sample.
Alcohol testing is also done.
I heard that poppy seeds can show positive for PCP, not opiates like you'd think.

My advise would be to random test. Have an outside company do it. That way you avoid looking like you are playing favorites and it solves your problem of when is an accident bad enough. I would think in your field the coworkers would rat out the druggies just for their own safety.
 
By testing people who are late or who have attitude problems you are discriminating against them. If they have problems at work why not just write them up on those problems?

Is your company worried about all users?.....or just users that don't perform well at work? Random testing is the only fair way. Testing after an accident is just a little late and is usually used by the company to excape liability. Sometimes it works the other way. A worker that is injured on the job and is found out to be a user may be due less benefits from WC, etc. For instance, if a worker is killed on the job and test positive the family has very little chance of winning a wrongfull death suit.

The sad fact is that most companies just use UA as a way to get rid of employees they are having problems with while there are other users in the company going untested.

Because relatively safe marijuana stays in a persons system for so long employees that are drug users gravitate towards drugs that are more dangerous but don't stay in their systems for as long. The coker and meth user goes undetected while the pot smoker gets busted.

Tom, I would have eaten my salad.

Dan
 
The important thing is that alcohol is perfectly legal, and getting drunk every night is allowed by law. Ruining your life/family/job with booze is allowed by law, but light up one 'lil skinny and it's the bighouse for ya, bubba! /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
 
Down'ere; if they can't 'study' for a test; then try to have a stand in, or carry in; called urine aliases!!

Tests are tilted to less tolerance of nanograms ppm from 'skinnies' than other substances generally.
 
Being there is a stigma against the weed (I'm NORML member for legislation allowing medical use) and considering the potential for one's life to forever change from a positive, there is not only the necessity for a double positive but the second battery of tests must include a chromatograph verification.

In testing the testers (prompted by a criminal charge against a pilot who never tried weed), a full 60% of the kits combined with a 30% variance in the administrators of the tests, the Federal courts decided in 1998 that many holes existed in the process. Too high a series of numbers to catagorically condemn or file charges against the subjects of these tests.

It's a catch 22 any way it's dissected. Similar to the 'three strikes' dictates, it's not so black and white.

Did you know that Carl Sagan never had a "straight" hour in the last 22 years of his life? Or that a climber I depended on in coastal Georgia was an exceptionally talented co-worker until he puffed before ascent and sent a 1,600 pounder down 40 feet in thru a roof at a new house? It goes both ways, as much as some teenage boys get violent after a puff and some retreat to blissful peace, individuals vary. There's zero room on a tree job for weed but a two-week vacation to Jamaica with a Rasta cousin and a puff while there should not criminalize and dictate the rules for the remainder of that person's life. If so, the last three Presidents had no business running a nation so do we annul the entirety of the legislation passed in that interim?

Suspect are the tests and the industry behind them - all cost reduced and provided by the low bidder. If we are going to establish absolute rules, then we have a responsibility to exact and dependable standards. I guess that's what I'm saying.
 
I feel very strongly that anybody who works in a job that can cause death and destruction.Should not work while under the influence of any mind altering stimulas.
I feel that drug testing when used to prove that a person has taken drugs is an infringement of a persons rights.If it is used to prove they are under the influence while working this is a different matter.Some of the best guys I have ever worked with I would class as drug addicts.Functioning Alcoholics who could not go one night without drinking but would never be drunk or drink during the day.I have in past found the worker who has just got divorced more of a danger to people than the man thats been on the Bob.I feel there are many ways in which our state of mind can be altered without the use of drugs that cause us to be dangerous to others.I feel these causes should be of much more importance than the guy that smoked a reefer 8 weeks ago but still comes up positve on the drug tests.Fatigue,stress and hast causes more deaths than drug abuse ever will.
I don't see any employers out there testing there employees for fatigue and telling them not to work so fast or get so stressed out.

"What about the guy taking your drugs test"
Maybe has a flashback from the 50 microns he took in 60's and beats you to death with your urine sample.

I don't need a drugs test to see if someone is a way with the fairies at work.
What they do in there own time is up to them so long as they don't bring it to work

Didj
 
Tipsy-turvy world anyway. The Navy authorizes combat missions for pilots doped-up on meth hydrochloride then pushes downers on them when they return. Pentagon data shows that 50% of the Afghan casualty rate was due to friendly fire, and the Canadian force's legal redress for a patrol wiped-out by an American straffing run proved the pilot (as well as a flight control officer) were high on speed.

Network television can not function without the advertising bucks from the pharmaceutical industry and if you think those drugs are different, ask your doctor about "anxiety" next time you have a physical. After the fact revelations on deadly reactions for this pushed dope prove that there's no more regulation and oversight on the "cultural and social" drugs than the street corner crack pusher.

What didjon mentions in reference to a turmoiled man after a domestic upset, watch out for the digruntled postal clerk or meat processing butcher or the Middle school kid who is tired of being teased by his peers.

When I had a 80-yr old legally blind driver pull-out in front of my 70-mph trip to town, it was my blood tested before emergency room doctors could work on my shattered body before they even considered the old man on the table next to me..who never did have to have blood drawn and tested.

Until some fairness and unless America recognizes some serious double-standards in it's policies, things are going to get worse. An oncologist who's practice license in pulled by state authorities for prescibing THC to a terminal patient is far more consideration of a review than the religious pharmacist in Kansas city who cheated on drug concentrations in order to give his church more money becauyse his belief in his God is more important than the lives of others. Kind of like war and killing.

Respect for life and limb - in others as well as personal should be the standard by which people live, work and play. Anything short is deadly whether it has to do with drugs (legal or not), religion, or interpersonal relationships. I believe the "war on drugs" is about as productive as the "war on terror". It just makes it much more so.
 
For what it's worth, my husband had shoulder surgery on Dec 8th. Although he doensn't usually even take aspirin, for about 5 days (?) he lived on Percocet. Last week (6 weeks later) he brought home a 'urine test' from work....just to check. Yup, there was still a positive result that long after.

He's got the prescription and this is not a problem for HIM, but it's something to keep in mind. He has to make the call at work, and agrees it's a PITA....but sometimes necessary.
 

Attachments

  • 18454-drug_test2.webp
    18454-drug_test2.webp
    17 KB · Views: 85
thanks to everyone for taking the time to post a reply. There are a number of things that will need to be mulled over. Our goal is to have a program that serves our needs and is equitable and workable. This is one of those issues that has to have a "knife-edge" We can't have wiggle room in the testing or it could be discriminatory and would effect the morale. We're not intereseted in setting up a Draconian system.

Please keep the thread going if there is anything more to say.
 
Tom....sorry, I just remembered. This was a 'saliva test' that Mike took. It probably doesn't have the same sensitivites as a 'urine test' but I don't know exactly how they would differ. Che /forum/images/graemlins/spinrhead.gif
 
Dhe,

At a meeting of some safety directors from companies in the area a person said that the saliva tests are accurate, cheap and much easier to administer. they can be monitored too without any of the personal space issues.

Dave,

That seems a bit extreme at some level. But...the company is in the health care field. If the program were rolled out over time, which it seems to be, that might soften the blow. I wonder if they had any kind of probationary period.

What I'd rather see is a more realistic reduction in health care premiums for non-smokers. In order to get the lower premiums the company would have the right to test when they wanted. That might be hard to monitor if I happen to go to a place where smokers congregate. How would a test be able to tell what is really second-hand smoke?

We have discretion when it comes to disciplining a failed test. What we're trying to do is establish the knife-edge for taking the test not the consequences of failing the test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom