Urine analysis

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tom, I remember a story from a while back. A friend of mine was manager of a store. He found one of his staff was stealing from the cash till. It turns out she had a few problems. (this is not, necessarily, drug or alcohol related). Anyway she was a very good worker. Even though most companies would instantly dismiss her for this, my friend talked to his bosses and they paid all her debts, promoted her, with a pay freeze for a couple of years, and moved her to a new store away from her problems. She is now manager(ess) of the new store and the asset to the company that they new she would be.

I think that the moral of this is, that to be able to help people achieve there potential is a greater thing than to judge them on their failings.
 
Rupe,

What a wonderful success story. Intervening and making a change benefited the woman, her family and the company. That's what I mean about having discretion to deal with the results. This isn't an easy issue to resolve.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I've worked out the quote thing!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well congratulations! /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It's good innit!!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
(snip)
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.
(snip)
Dan

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what concerns me, too. I don't see why Company X should care if a climber has a drink or a doobie after work, as long as they are straight the next morning. But the drinker passes the test easily while the smoker may still fail a month later.

If someone is doing a poor job, discipline him. If you can't tell somone is on drugs by visual/olfactory exam, then why worry? UA seems like a way for spineless managers to get out of just saying, "Bill, you aren't doing a good job. You're fired." If you can't find a legitimate reason to discipline an employee without a UA, you don't have a legitimate reason to perform a UA. (IMO, of course)

k
 
Wright Tree Service has the randoms going on. I hate em, any place that that does randoms might as well live in the same house with me, it aint their buiss. what I do when I am not at work.
 
I concur with the sentiments already expressed that testing should in all cases be limited to "was the person under the influence at the time of the incident".

Anything more amounts to a total invasion of privacy and is none of anybody's effing business.

One major employer (factory) here does not use urinalysis. They pluck a hair, which contains a discrete record as far back as the hair is long. I've been told that if you shave your head, they'll find a hair somewhere else. I suppose the only way to completely hide your tracks would be to bathe in Nair, hahaha!
 
i had a guy i used to train with get fired from Swingel, the comanp that tom works for, for testing hot on a drug screen, he was canned, and therest of his entire crew was tested
 
well che the only difference is the part of the body, every thing else is the same, and yes no matter when you smoke it can still affect you on the job at any time, especially if u go thru withdrawls
 
[ QUOTE ]
Withdrawls? /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

hahaha, yes withdraws. But you gotta stop for two days in a row so it's something you may have never experienced.

I quit for two weeks once but later I found out it was drug induced time distortion and it had really only been six hours.

Never mind. I just remembered that was not even me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom