# Drug testing



## joeyuk (Feb 27, 2008)

At local 164 we have always had to sign a card submitting to random drug testing by the contractor. A new policy was initiated last month. 100% of union electricians working in our territory were required to be tested and receive a "clean card" photo ID . After this inital test 25% of the local are retested randomly each year. 
While I do feel this makes us a better product. A safer enviroment is created by this as well. I also wonder if we are losing something along the way. Basically having done nothing wrong but being asked to prove yourself innocent. I might equate it to giving the police authority to line everyone up against the wall to search for weapons. The city would be safer but such a violation of rights would not be tolerated. 
I will submit to any requirement the local feels is necessary but was wondering others thoughts are on this issue.
Joe
You should thank me for waiting till after lunch to post image. 

I removedthe image as I did not want it out there for all eternity.


----------



## dawgs (Dec 1, 2007)

To me it is a small price to pay to insure everyones safety on the job. I dont really care what people do on their own time, but generally dopers, and tweakers use when they are on the job as well as their own time.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

To me it is BS................BULL SHI*, ROAD APPLES, GOD DURN HOG WASH.

Why not go house to house searching for drugs.

I neither smoke, drink or use illegal drugs....I just like me freedoms and my pee is mine, unless I want you to have it.

You think the work site is safer because a few apprentices were let go for smoking pot, while the professional drunks work away.


----------



## dawgs (Dec 1, 2007)

I feel the same way about the drunks. Yes I do feel safer that some pot head apprentices were let go. This is no different than a back ground check. I do believe workers have rights, The right to be safe on the job without having to work with people who may be under the influence and or hung over.


----------



## dawgs (Dec 1, 2007)

brian john said:


> To me it is BS................BULL SHI*, ROAD APPLES, GOD DURN HOG WASH.
> 
> Why not go house to house searching for drugs.
> 
> ...


 
brian john, I know you run your own business, don't some of your customers you deal with require your employees to be screened?


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

I have to disagree with Brian on this one. I don't mind being tested for pre-employment or randomly thereafter as long as it is a 100% policy. Nobody is exempted. I don't view it as an encroachment on my civil liberties, it is just a condition of employment with some employers. I had a contract with a large retailer to perform work in one of their large warehouses. It paid very very well but a condition was you had to submit to a polygraph before the job started and another one upon job completion. I was going to be working at night, completely unsupervised. I fully understood their position. The last place I worked was a factory that had a pre-employment drug testing policy but no random testing after that. A drug test was mandatory for any employee involved in an at-work accident which required medical attention or involved property damage. The pre-employment drug screen was mandated for the company to be a GAO vendor. The post-accident drug screen was required by their insurance carrier. If you don't want to be drug screened just don't apply to employers who require it. But for me, I want all my airline pilots, bus drivers etc randomly tested. As for the alcohol side of it, that should be treated the same on the job as any other controlled substance. If you've got alcohol in your bloodstream at work you have no business being there.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

Give up your freedoms one at a time, road side stops, well they protect everyone, job site pee protects everyone. OH, searching you house, protects everyone.


Seem far fetched, look into DC cops doing unwarranted house to house searches for guns to make our streets safer. Oh you have to agree to let them in. But what do you think the police do with that information they gain while searching and if you refuse a search do they watch you?

We have had one customer require testing and the guy that was tested, flunked, I was ready to let him go, couldn't just fire him (not that I wanted too) we had to allow him treatment first but he was not allowed to work during treatment FOR SMOKING POT OH MY GAWD. Two weeks later testing facility calls all upset and apologetic they need to retest him as they screwed the pee up. Must have been a pot head opening the packages. Anyway in the end he was cleared which he claimed all along.


----------



## joeyuk (Feb 27, 2008)

You could get me started easy with all that was given up under the patrion act. The police with nothing more then suspicion can sneak into your house, search it and never even let you know. 

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. *Benjamin Franklin*, _Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759_
_US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)_


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

I don't think you can reasonably equate pre-employment drug testing with house to house searches. Workplace safety has to be a two-way street. If I can sue my employer if I am hurt by the actions of a fellow employee who was under the influence because the employer failed to provide a safe work environment, the employer should be allowed to take reasonable steps to provide that safe environment. For that purpose drug testing is reasonable. In Indiana, you cannot be arrested or prosecuted for failing a pre-employment drug screen. As far as the Patriot Act is concerned, most people who complain about it have never actually read it. They base their opinion on what someone else told them it says. As for the house to house searches in DC, I find it hard to believe that practice has escaped any media attention when a State Dept. contractor looking at passport files causes a nation-wide outcry. The Patriot Act hasn't loosened up the cops rules around here. They still need color video footage and 3 signed confessions to shut down a meth lab in my neck of the woods. Indiana used to have road-side sobriety checks during holiday weekends. They stopped them all together a couple of years ago because people complained it violated their rights. First page of the Indiana Drivers Manual states that "driving in Indiana is not a right, it is a privilege which can be revoked without due process at any time." Been that way since 1947. Long before the Patriot Act. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying I disagree with you.


----------



## joeyuk (Feb 27, 2008)

http://www.slate.com/id/2087984/

Some reading on the subject. I am sure there are many that say the act is good. I can only comment on what I have heard.


----------



## nap (Dec 26, 2007)

brian john, you are making one HUGE mistake in your position. You are comparing a employer mandated drug test to a governmental action such as roadside stops.

A private employer has many more freedoms to require their employees to undertake or refrain from certain actions. Far beyond what the government can do.

The problem I had when our local agreed to drug tests was that we did not gain anything for submitting to them (we do get paid but I mean as in contractual benefits)

We gave and got nothing in return. That is not sound business practices as well as sets a bad precedent in future bargaining postitions.

Hell, there is an employer in Michigan that fired all employees that smoke, even when they were off the job and at home or elsewhere. An employer has wide latitude in regulating their employees.


and to Joeyuk, that really is your name? No photoshop on the name on the card?


----------



## joeyuk (Feb 27, 2008)

Yuk are the first 3 letters of my last name. The rest of the last name, card number and socil security number were photoshoped out.


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

People scream that their rights are being violated when cities ban smoking in public buildings and restaurants. People scream that it is a violation of their civil liberties when the gov't raises taxes on cigarettes. I agree that there should be higher taxes on tobacco products and alcohol as long as the taxes collected are earmarked for programs that combat the ill effects of their use. Unfortunately, that rarely happens to the money. Once again, just my view.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

And when people stop smoking because of the excessive cost, then state and federal revenues goes down, because the money was not used for the promised NO SMOKING EDUCATION, the state and federal governments will raise other taxes to compensate.

I am against smoking, I am not for all the bans but do appreciate a smoke free place of work and eating establishments.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

What ever happened to the republican theory of small government? We are way too top heavy in this country. 
In Nj the revenue from the state lottery was supposed to fund the schools, that plan got trashed somewhere along the line.


----------



## Bkessler (Feb 14, 2007)

Joeyuk you have your ssn on the front of a badge you have to where?


----------



## randomkiller (Sep 28, 2007)

Bkessler said:


> Joeyuk you have your ssn on the front of a badge you have to where?


 
No it's a wallet card he carries.


----------



## joeyuk (Feb 27, 2008)

Correct it is a wallet card.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

joeyuk said:


> Correct it is a wallet card.


Regardless, there is no reason or purpose for displaying your SS# to ANYONE other than the IRS and your employer. Do your paystubs also show your SSN? If so your company is behind the times.


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

LawnGuyLandSparky said:


> Regardless, there is no reason or purpose for displaying your SS# to ANYONE other than the IRS and your employer. Do your paystubs also show your SSN? If so your company is behind the times.


Ever seen a military dog tag?


----------



## joeyuk (Feb 27, 2008)

It was only about a year ago the changed our identification number from our ssn to another number on our insurance cards. I hated every time I went to a doctor they made a copy of it.


----------



## user5941 (Mar 16, 2009)

yep


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

rewire said:


> yep


 Ok??


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

amptech said:


> It paid very very well but a condition was you had to submit to a polygraph before the job started and another one upon job completion.


I thought all employment polygraphs were against federal law? I am asking?



nap said:


> The problem I had when our local agreed to drug tests was that we did not gain anything for submitting to them (we do get paid but I mean as in contractual benefits)
> 
> We gave and got nothing in return. That is not sound business practices as well as sets a bad precedent in future bargaining positions.


Sounds as if you lost twice. First you lost your integrity and second was your un-achieved benefit.





amptech said:


> I agree that there should be higher taxes on tobacco products and alcohol as long as the taxes collected are earmarked for programs that combat the ill effects of their use.


I think we should start making churches pay taxes instead of increasing these so-called sin taxes. This is a double edge sword, as the church pays no tax on it's income and the church members can take the deduction that they gave the church. Seems lopsided to me. Make churches pay and leave the deduction in place or visa versa. 



brian john said:


> I am against smoking, I am not for all the bans but do appreciate a smoke free place of work and eating establishments.


Brian, you know you cannot have the best of both worlds. Either it's allowed or it's not allowed. I quit smoking 4 months ago. So I like a smoke free environment. The only place I am guarantied this is at home.



MechanicalDVR said:


> What ever happened to the republican theory of small government?


It was a theory and has been dismissed.




MechanicalDVR said:


> Ever seen a military dog tag?


No.


----------



## forqnc (May 5, 2009)

rewire said:


> yep


WTF is your problem, raising old threads with no contribution to it but "yep"


----------



## PhatElvis (Jan 23, 2009)

Zombie thread................


----------



## nolabama (Oct 3, 2007)

I have seen this thread and I believe its the first time I am posting to this
what do you guys think of hair sample tests - this is something I have had to agree to for some of the jobs I have sumitted to - Most DOD jobs require them from what I can gather


----------



## PhatElvis (Jan 23, 2009)

nolabama said:


> I have seen this thread and I believe its the first time I am posting to this
> what do you guys think of hair sample tests - this is something I have had to agree to for some of the jobs I have sumitted to - Most DOD jobs require them from what I can gather


It it what it is, and my insurance company requires them for serious injuries too. Its too bad some folks think its a bargaining point, because it's not.

If you don't like it lay the blame where it belongs....LAWYERS and stupid politicians who treat the words "tort reform" as profanity.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

Reading this thread reminds me why I love Canada so much. :thumbup: I'm not a drug user but I believe what I do after work is my buisness.
Also around here drinking is a bigger problem on job sites than smoking pot.

Question, when you do a pee test and it shows that you drink quite a bit do you still pass?


----------



## Sparky480 (Aug 26, 2007)

I just took a test 3 weeks ago and I passed Granted I don't drink during the day but at 4:00 when I get home there's nothing better


----------



## ryanapplequist (Sep 19, 2009)

I kind of enjoyed reading this thread. Now let me weigh in. I am a former pot smoker of about 10 years. In that time i had some good paying jobs while still smoking. Now i never really was one to smoke on the job. But when i got off it was my time. Since i have quit smoking about 4 months ago i have thought back on some issues. The few times i did smoke while working i was in what i called "duh" mode. Yes i will admit i made mistakes on the job during that time because i didn't want to go ask anybody anything because i was stoned. To my knowledge i dont remember making any mistakes that endangered anybodys life during those times. Now that i am a little bit older and have a son that depends on me i will submit to a drug test at any time to prove that i am clean. Belive it or not more workplaces that i was not aware of are making applicants take drug tests. My fiancee just had to go take a drug test for a job with family dollar. Imo i think drug tests are a good thing. I dont want to be working with someone under the influence that might hinder me going home to my little boy. Now if only i could find a job so i had to take a drug test.


----------



## Stan B. (Jul 25, 2008)

eddy current said:


> Reading this thread reminds me why I love Canada so much. :thumbup: I'm not a drug user but I believe what I do after work is my buisness.
> Also around here drinking is a bigger problem on job sites than smoking pot.


Agreed. I hope we do not move in this direction.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

I'm all for drug testing. I think everyone should be tested weekly, not this random thing. I'm tired of working alongside a bunch o damn pinko commie dope smokin long hairs - there's no way of knowing what they forgot to hook up.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

wildleg said:


> I'm all for drug testing. I think everyone should be tested weekly, not this random thing. I'm tired of working alongside a bunch o damn pinko commie dope smokin long hairs - there's no way of knowing what they forgot to hook up.


What about a drunk? What's the difference? If you drink enough the night before you can still be over the limit in the morning, but that's OK on a job?


----------



## miller_elex (Jan 25, 2008)

wildleg said:


> I'm tired of working alongside a bunch o damn pinko commie dope smokin long hairs


I hated having to work FOR the dopers. Seems dope helps polish the people skills, which mean alot more in the long run.

"when you pack your wires with a hammer handle.... you know you're a dope smoker." (think Foxworthy)

If you do want to smoke the dope, keep a clean apprentice within reach at all times. The lab is onto the synthetic freeze-dried piss that doesn't smell bad, they hired a pee-smeller.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

I agree. I don't like working with drunks either.


----------



## brian john (Mar 11, 2007)

John Valdes said:


> I
> Brian, you know you cannot have the best of both worlds. Either it's allowed or it's not allowed. I quit smoking 4 months ago. So I like a smoke free environment. The only place I am guarantied this is at home.
> No.



Much as I am against it if you own the place you make the decision to
let them smoke or not.


----------



## amptech (Sep 21, 2007)

brian john said:


> Much as I am against it if you own the place you make the decision to
> let them smoke or not.


I agree. The smoke-free thing kind of took care of itself here. When you would go out to eat there would be dozens of people waiting for seating in the smoke-free area while 3/4 of the tables in the smoking section were empty. It didn't take long for all of them to go smoke-free on their own. Nothing motivates like money in those situations. We didn't need a law for restraunts here.


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

wildleg said:


> I'm all for drug testing. I think everyone should be tested weekly, not this random thing. I'm tired of working alongside a bunch o damn pinko commie dope smokin long hairs - there's no way of knowing what they forgot to hook up.



You are a .


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

John Valdes said:


> You are a .


I'll take that as a compliment.


----------



## John Valdes (May 17, 2007)

wildleg said:


> I'll take that as a compliment.


It was not intended as a comment. :no:


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

wildleg said:


> I'll take that as a compliment.





John Valdes said:


> It was not intended as a comment. :no:


lol. how about as a compliment ?  
Actually, I don't care how it was intended. I'll take it as a compliment anyway.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

wildleg said:


> I'm tired of working alongside a bunch o damn pinko commie dope smokin long hairs - there's no way of knowing what they forgot to hook up.


When was the last time you where on the job Sargent Friday? 1969?


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> When was the last time you where on the job Sargent Friday? 1969?


For the people who were not around for DRAGNET..


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> When was the last time you where on the job Sargent Friday? 1969?


lol. car 54, where are you ?


----------

