# Drug Testing



## Nickrosis (May 19, 2004)

What's your policy at your company? Strikes? Zero-tolerance? Suspension?

I don't mean on the job use, because I would assume every company forbids that, but what about blood tests where use is determined going back weeks and months or more? What about urine tests? Randomly once a year? Daily? With a digital rectal exam as well?

I'm looking to put it into our company manual, and I'd be open to any quotes from other company manuals. Thanks!!


----------



## Husky372 (May 20, 2004)

i say what a man does on his own time is his busness as long as he does his job and is'nt using on your dime why do you care. just my .02


----------



## Reed (May 20, 2004)

Drug testing, why?

Every single commercial on networks news last night - NBC-was for drugs that make flowers bloom, dogs's tails wag and children waving to you as you run along a beautiful path thru a wonderful park. Just ask your doctor about it. Every single commercial, even my wife noticed it. 

Screw marketing profit-at-all costs American ways to squeeze more bucks before the big crash. I'll hire any good pot-smoking and beer drinking good-hearted person that knows how to work and how to dismiss himself off hours from the new realities of a drug-induced culture. Hypocracy at it's ultimate finest.

They should test for incompetence. Same with driving a vehicle. A National Stupidity test. 

(Gee, I'm starting to sound like Bwalker!!)


----------



## rumination (May 20, 2004)

the previous two posts pretty much say it all


----------



## The Best GM (May 20, 2004)

Drug testing is the silliest thing ive heard in a while!!!!!


----------



## Crofter (May 20, 2004)

How about some of the hard drugs that are so expensive you just about gotta be stealing to support a habit and you are a policeman. Or it is a drug than can have side affects even after 12 hours that could affect a pilot or Nuclear operator. I say if we are going to have testing lets have it for all elected office holders right up to the president. How much chance of that law passing?

Frank


----------



## Base (May 20, 2004)

drug testing.....a nice easy way to start alienating some hard working people....


----------



## NickfromWI (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Nickrosis _
> *...I don't mean on the job use, because I would assume every company forbids that...*



I wouldn't be too sure about that!

I would definately support drug testing at any company I worked at. I don't care if the user is doing it on "their own time." What you do the night before work affects how you behave during the next day. Drunk, high, or hung-over.....I don't want to deal with any of these. Our jobs are dangerous enough as it is...why would you support making it MORE dangerous!

love
nick


----------



## jkrueger (May 20, 2004)

There is a native plant in this area that when you take it it will clear the system of what shows up in durg test. Dah, it is now about to be put on the endangered spieces list. To many knew about it.

Ya, I had the oportunity to work with a great climber who had on and off drug problems. We don't even talk any more, it is sad. And safer for me!

Jack


----------



## Lumberjack (May 20, 2004)

Since I am friends with my groundies, and we hang out, I know what they do.


I will not hire/employ anyone that uses any drugs. If one of my groundies comes smellin like alcohol, then he is gone. There is plenty of hard workers without having to deal with the added crap of using illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol.

I aint got time for it.


----------



## Nickrosis (May 20, 2004)

Well, I'm surprised by the responses because I hear so often about people taking a drug test before starting at a new job, etc. And of all places to work....

If anyone actually has a policy _against_ drugs, I'd be grateful for the information. I know what you mean about losing good people, but I also think that a drug-free workplace is worth striving for.


----------



## coydog (May 20, 2004)

we are subjected to a urine test if we get hurt on the job requiring a doctor's visit, cause $2000 or more property damage, or get into a traffic accident, regardless of fault.
if we test positive we are asked to sign a "last-chance agreement" and attend some sort of counseling, or be terminated.


----------



## Lumberjack (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Nickrosis _
> *...If anyone actually has a policy against drugs...*



I do, it is a verbal policy, if any of my guys use any drug other than OTC and from the doctor, they are fired on the spot. If you come to work even smelling like alcohol, you are fired. If I hear about you doin something on your own time, you are fired. 


*NO DRUGS AT ALL AT ANY TIME*


----------



## Nickrosis (May 20, 2004)

But it's important to have a written set of policies to point to when things go wrong. Plus, it gives a new hire a sense of what is expected and required.


----------



## Husky372 (May 20, 2004)

i'm sorry but what a *man* does on his own time is his busness as long as it is'nt effecting his performance what do you care. now if he is comming to work smelling of alchohol or on drugs then obviously that is'nt his own time.


----------



## Lumberjack (May 20, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Nickrosis _
> *But it's important to have a written set of policies to point to when things go wrong. Plus, it gives a new hire a sense of what is expected and required. *



True, I have thought of that. 

If i was a multi crewed buisness, I bet that i would write it down.

The only thing i would point at is the road with my middle digit


----------



## Guy Meilleur (May 20, 2004)

Let's see, the standard drug tests show pot use up to 30 days before, but cocaine gets out of your system in 3 or so. 

The tests are useless at detecting what matters. I don't heat the chalice, but if someone inhaled (even 2nd hand) 3 weeks ago, how is that going to make them a lesser or more dangerous employee?

That last chipper death we heard about involved drinking, right? Would a drug test have kept that guy off the job? No. 
The worst drug-related problems I've had with coworkers were with alcohol. And we all have a test kit for that--our noses.


----------



## MasterBlaster (May 20, 2004)

Thank you.


----------



## Joe (May 20, 2004)

.


----------



## okietreedude1 (May 21, 2004)

Theres a company policy at our place and its pretty much a testing before hiring. There is also a 'drug free workplace' idea but noone has been tested w/o due cause.

Like has been said, if there's a major accident that should have been prevented, a test may come to order. Most of the guys weve had that were doing drugs when confronted, addmitted it and were let go. they understood why.

As for the routine testing, Im okay w/ it. In my opinion, the guy who refuses to take a UA is hiding something and there fore guilty until he proves himself innocent. Id take one in a second just to show everyone im not above them. 

I like what nick said, this job is dangerous enough w/o the drug influenced on site. Not just for my safety, but his as well.


----------



## rumination (May 21, 2004)

I'm a little lost on some of the logic here. If an employee enjoys drinking in the evenings even to the point of getting a little drunk on occasion, but always shows up to work sober and alert, then there is no problem. Perfectly legal, you can't complain.

BUT, if an employee smokes a little dope in the evenings, and always shows up to work sober and alert, then he can get nailed by a random drug test. Sure one guy is braking the law, and the other guy isn't, but it's not the employer's place to be the police. 

Now, if an employee's job performance is affected by drugs, alcohol, or even habitually staying up all night and screwing his girlfriend, then THAT is a problem. 

I've known employers to be shocked, surprised, and dismayed when they lost their best employee to a random drug test. That kind of thing just sets everybody back.


----------



## TreeJunkie (May 21, 2004)

Just last year our company had to really deal w/ our drug issue. W/ in a one month period, one individual who'd been w/ the company 5 years, decided he would take a company vehicle out for the night . He did this with out asking, and after becoming intoxicated at a near bar. After being found out the next morning. Caught in the act trying to sneak the truck back in. Well that day was his last; turned out this hadn't been the first incident. He also was serving a suspended liscense for d.u.i.

In this same month we had to fire an individual for smoking weed on the job. Not that this was the first time it had been discovered by others. However it had not yet gotten up to the higher officials within.. After finding this person stealing gear from my bag. And then denying the fact it was mine. The individual became combative w/ me. The situation never really culminated to anything. But it ended when the boss man later found out about a drug issue which had been going on. Funny way things come out when relationships go sour. Up until this point no one had the courage or will power to tell the boss. He'd been fired from Asplundh a few years earlier for similar problems.

At our company, we have a drug free policy and discretion to test if we feel we need. However a U.A. is not a prereck to employment. 

I personally wish we did, I can't deal w/ the drug addicts, personally or professionally. I know what it's like dealing w/ them in a work situation. It was a total nightmare. They just don't fit the profile for the image our company is trying to present.


----------



## Nickrosis (May 21, 2004)

Drug legalization aside.....please....

My question again: What is the policy?

When you do a UA for Commercial Drivers, you test for the common drugs, alcohol being one of them, because it's important to not have people on the road under the influence of any of them. I don't want to lose a great employee because they blew weed three years ago, but I would want to work under a policy that shielded everyone from people who were showingup under the influence of something - drug, alcohol or otherwise.

You can fire someone who is showing up at work exhausted from repetitive sexual acts or from surfing at ArboristSite.com too late in the evening or whatever. You can fire for any kind of gross misconduct. I just want to find something that is (1) legal and (2) fair. I think that's possible to achieve, but I don't know what the words would be.


----------



## NeTree (May 21, 2004)

My CDL guys have to be tested regularly. New hires get tested once. If theyr'e stupid enough to be positive for a test they know about at least a week in advance, then I don't want them anyways. Weed out alot of morons that way.

Overall, what they do on their own time is their business. I don't ask, they don't tell.

I do expect them straight/sober in the morning, and not smelling of anything. Whether I care or nor is irrelevant; it's the kind of thing a customer WILL pick up on though, and I don't want the bad word-of-mouth for my company or to have to explain to a customer why my groundie smells like a brewery.

If I find they're doing it on MY time, they're history. No excuses, no second-chances.


----------



## geofore (May 21, 2004)

*Under the influence*

" I would want to work under a policy that shielded everyone from people who were showing up under the influence of something - drug, alcohol or otherwise" Nick, that doesn't work. It sounds like you intetionally discriminate against the disabled. I'd be the first guy to sue you for letting me go because I take drugs every day for years to control epilepsey. You'd lose in court bigtime. The idea that if everyone that took drugs should be let go doesn't wash. What you're saying is you wouldn't hire anyone with a disability that needed drugs to stay alive? Get it clear in your head now that Zero tolorance is not a possibility by reading the Disability Act, I have and you should. You are saying under the influence and you're not thinking that there are other posibilities out there. Engage your mind before you engage your mouth. Think First! Engage mouth later! I flunk all urine tests I take because of the meds, fire me and I will win in court and demand back pay and win that also.


----------



## NeTree (May 21, 2004)

geofore, surely you realize that the first thing they ask you when you go for drug testing is "Are you on any medications"?

In your case, a positive result from legally prescribed medication would be treated as a negative.

Sounds like you're on Tegretol. I've heard Dilantin can also make you test positive for barbs {Nick- most anticonvulsants are barbituate based}, but Neurontin supposedly won't. Go figure.


----------



## TreeJunkie (May 21, 2004)

Nick, First of all, your not gonna catch anyone drinking w/ a UA. It's out of your system too fast, and it's not illegal to have had drinks on your own time. Secondly i'm not sure what it's like where you live but around here people don't blow weed, i 'm pretty sure they smoke it. Lol i' can just see you stuffing the green up your nose. I know as a business owner you can do testing for specific drugs. If weed is not something that bothers you. Then don't test for it. Personally, i could care less if an employee smokes weed on there own time, as long as it's not on mine. Crack and some of the more illicit drugs however, i don't need that crap around....I've never heard of an addict selling his mother's car so he could get a bag of weed. Now a rock that's a different story. I prefer not to have that type around...It brings bad things, not to mention missing equipment and teeth.


----------



## Nickrosis (May 21, 2004)

*Re: Under the influence*



> _Originally posted by geofore _
> *It sounds like you intetionally discriminate against the disabled. I'd be the first guy to sue you for letting me go because I take drugs every day for years to control epilepsey. You'd lose in court bigtime.*


Why would I fire you because you took an epilepsey medication???? Settle down! I think I'm coming across as a rational human being who doesn't want people coming in to work doped up on illegal drugs or dancing around with still-illegal blood alcohol levels from the night before.


----------



## Ken Jones (May 21, 2004)

Check with your general liability insurance carrier. They probably have a written policy lying around for their clients. That's also who is going to stop underwriting insurance policies for employers who "don't care what their guys do on their own time." All it takes is one screw-up, and the insurance companies get involved, find out that, "yeah, I knew he smoked a little weed, but...." That's tacit approval, if you knew about it and did nothing to stop your employee from performing under the influence. Nick, a written policy is strictly CYA, but if you plan on running legal with all the insurance, you NEED to have it. Otherwise, if something bad happens, plan on flying-by-night, because no insurance company will cover you, unless you plan on paying more for the insurance than you can gross in a year.

Ken:jester:


----------



## The Best GM (May 21, 2004)

"drug testing.....a nice easy way to start alienating some hard working people"

Truly and completly the most intelligent and in my opinion thread ending statement that defines itself so clear that i'm left think that it should end right there. My aplause to you Base


----------



## gab (May 21, 2004)

Myself and my staff with CDL's have pre-hire and random urine and breath tests. If caught over the limit you have one more chance, regular anti drug meetings and your name put on a second random name list. Second positive and you are gone, period. This has been our policy for around 9-10 years. We have always had the suspicion policy. There is our policy, now my thoughts on it.
In the last 9-10 years I have noticed no significant drop in injuries/accidents, in some years it seems there are even more. I have witnessed several dedicated and accident free workers let go or leave because of the policy, and moral takes a hit due to the perception of invasion of privacy. When moral goes down, productivity and dedication go with it. In short, I do not feel any safer, and the money spent on all the testing does not ever go into good employees pockets as a raise. I am a supervisor, and it is our job to make sure our emplyees work safely no matter what clouds or impairs thier performance, whether it be drugs, alcohol, late night movies or depression. What happened to the days where good people were rewarded and problems were dealt with as needed. Why should people be lumped into groups and labeled as uneeded or problematic? In my opinion suspicion is all that is needed, if you have an employee impaired at work, deal with it. If you have an employee doing great, don't worry about his/her private life. It is America, we are supposed to have freedom and privacy, right?


----------



## NeTree (May 21, 2004)

Hmmm...

Last year I had to spend $2300 to repair a chipper and a truck due to a groundie's use of drugs impairing his judgement. He was responsible for properly hooking the chipper up, and failed to hook safety chains or lock pintle.

Needless to say, the first hard stop the truck had to make, the chipper went slamming into the back of the truck, breaking the tailgate, lights, bending the dump body, mangled the chute on the chipper. 

Can the same thing happen to someone NOT under the influence? Maybe... but I've never had a "straight" person do it.

Post-accident drug test revealed cocaine. 

So...

Which would have been cheaper?

$35 drug test or $2300 in repairs?

Sorry, that incident changed my whole outlook on a drug policy. Too frigging bad.

Oh, and the testing wasn't MY idea... it was talked about among the guys, and they agreed to it amongst themselves and came to me asking for it.


----------



## Nathan Wreyford (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by netree _
> *Hmmm...
> 
> due to a groundie's use of drugs impairing his judgement.
> ...



I don't see how a groundie could afford a cocaine habit on groundie pay.

You must pay well.


----------



## The Best GM (May 21, 2004)

The testing should be on the spot eye or coordination type test!!!!! NOT A BLOOD TEST


----------



## jamie (May 21, 2004)

*dope*

flatmate at college.

he would wake up have a joint, get out of bed, phone me while rolling next joint to say that he slept in again and to ask if i would pick up some course work for him. eventually turn up to college at break time, have another joint, go to a class and come lunch time have another joint, afternoon in classes have joint while waiting on bus, go home smoke a lot more and talk a lot of $hit.

would i work with him.....no

he had a few driving lessons, would i et in a car with him.....no

why? apart from the fact that he talked a load of cack i felt that the amount he was smoking was too much, if he was having a pint before getting out of bed (a beer tap in the bedroom....great idea) and drinking that much over the day i wouldn't work with him either.

i have many other friends that smoke (not as much as he did) who i would be happier working with

jamie


----------



## gab (May 21, 2004)

Yes, those type of accidents happen to us as well, even by workers not on drugs. I would have had him tested as well for screwing up the chipper, however, even if he was on random testing people get creative and find ways to beat the system. I see this happen all the time. So now you have the expence of random testing and still have not necessarily cleaned up the problem. It amazes me how much energy people will put into not getting caught, instead of just following the rules. Our government is a good example.
I suppose the cost issue for random testing changes on how many employees one has, 5 or 10 it may be worth it, several hundred to thousands like in my situation and your talking some bucks. There must be a better way.


----------



## NeTree (May 21, 2004)

That was before I started doing it.


----------



## geofore (May 21, 2004)

*UA*

I know where your coming from Nick, our ins. co. wanted four random tests a year on the guys that had CDL's. About the third time I had to explain why I was testing positive I about took the insurance guys head off. They didn't ask if you were on meds they just read the test results from their lab. Forget that they might not read the second page with the med report, that would be like having to work to turn a page. 
I helped a friend of mine get reinstated at the US Post Office with 3 years back pay, he had epilepsy too. You touched a sore spot. I'm feeling better now.


----------



## ROLLACOSTA (May 21, 2004)

i dont mind anyone having a joint and a beer after work but before the start of work or during a working day no way im not having that....drug testing good idea i do not want a crack or heroin addict working for me .and just waiting to steal all my gear

a smoke and a beer after work  great im up for that hey i'll even roll and buy the beer ..but no hard s**t no way


----------



## Reed (May 21, 2004)

It's all relative - meaning I've known men who turn to complete jerks after a few beers, some laid-back mellow dudes hyper-out and get mean after a couple joints.

Perhaps the loosening of the conscious facades?

I was in cancer treatment with Carl Sagan. Well, we met in the waiting room a few times at a blood clinic and later in the bone marrow ward. A few coffee's and later over the phone, he revealed he had smoked pot every day since his junior year in high school. In fact, thought it so important relative to his understanding of things universal, his wife became the director of NORML, lobbying for reform of laws for decriminalization, especially for medical reasons. 

He reaked alright, we even went and blew one in the parking garage but I became stupider, he went cosmic. I'm that way. He was his way.

Flying, sewing sutures, climbing, or bidding can't be done on a buzz but I've known men who excel on it, again, others who don't. 

Coke's another story. It eats the mind.


----------



## ROLLACOSTA (May 21, 2004)

Coke's another story. It eats the mind. [/B][/QUOTE]

please tell me the story ..is it the acid involved in the making???


----------



## MasterBlaster (May 21, 2004)

It's the addictive, repetitive use.

Once in a blue ain't no big deal if yur heart can take it.


----------



## MasterBlaster (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by oakwilt _
> *... some laid-back mellow dudes hyper-out and get mean after a couple joints. *



 I've never seen that before.


DAYUM! YOU BURNED A FATTY WITH THE CARLMEISTER?


----------



## The Best GM (May 21, 2004)

I agree, with master blaster, it DOES NOT HAPPEN!!


----------



## Nathan Wreyford (May 21, 2004)

I don't think Reed meant a generalization that weed makes people mean or grouchy.

It can cause mild paranoia, hunger, and sleepyness - combine those 2 and a brother may get grouchy, even mean. Chill - puff puff pass, don't mess up the rythm.


----------



## MasterBlaster (May 21, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Nathan Wreyford _
> *I don't think Reed meant a generalization that weed makes people mean or grouchy. *




I know he wasn't talking about a generalization. I just mean, in 35 years I've NEVER meet someone that reacted that way. I've meet a couple that felt a 'lil paranoid or nervous, but that's about it.

A ganja overdose usually results in an attack on the 'fridge, and then some z's. I'm pretty sure terrorists aren't big on burning leaf.


----------



## The Best GM (May 21, 2004)

I think nathan, is the only person that took it like that. C'mon Nathan, you know what i ment.


----------



## Froggy (May 21, 2004)

*Reply*

I think if what a person does on their own time is their deal. If it affects thier work then it's a problem. BB


----------



## Dadatwins (May 21, 2004)

Lots of interesting responses here to question. Seems to me like the guys who own the company and equipment have zero tolerance and the guys that work for companies have a less strict policy. When I was younger did not matter and did some crazy things that probably would not attempt straight. Now that I pay the bills there is a different outlook. Personal belief is drug and alcohol use may start as minor but will get worse as time goes by and tolerance builds. No place for either on worksite. I would not want to risk my life in a tree to someone on ground that was not 100%. I am refering to illegal drugs not medically necessary. Although some over the counter cold medicine can make you fuzzy too. City of Richmond has drug test to start then random for CDL drivers only. NY had similiar policy. Suspected users could be taken at any time CDL or not. Finding supervisor to step up and make accusation is another problem.


----------



## Reed (May 21, 2004)

Yeah, I didn't mean it makes you mean, but with a nasty disposition to start with I've seen some real losers get meaner. 

Same with beer. Same with the evening news.

Yeah Master, he was a very impressive fellow.


----------



## The Best GM (May 21, 2004)

Drug testing and being high on the job are 2 different topics.


----------



## Greg (May 21, 2004)

But why are they using drugs, were they neglected or abused as children?? Shouldn't we dig a little deeper and help solve the worlds problems? He!! no! 


Sorry Nick, no written policy. I deal with actions that affect my work, not what someone was doing on the weekend or in their car on their way home. Come to work acting stupid, forgetting things, wandering around, showing up late, getting tired too quickly, takeing excessive breaks, etc... those are real problems that can be solved, and addressed, and if those real actions that bug me are not corrected then you are out on your butt. I really don't care what caused them to act that way, it is the actions that need to be adressed, root causes such as drug abuse are way too far above my head and I'd never fire someone for that. I would fire someone based on their actions, and if they want to blame those actions on a drug or poor parenting I could care less I deal with results, not excuses. 

--One day I may get to be a bigger company that may require testing due to BBB and insurance commitments, but until those silly requirements are forced on me I'll continue to manage by the numbers.
Greg


----------



## Nathan Wreyford (May 22, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MasterBlaster _
> *I'm pretty sure terrorists aren't big on burning leaf. *



But some of the best leaf comes from Afgahnistan. Sprechen Sie Sativa amigo?

Turkish hash is not bad either (so I was told )

Remember what our President said, if you smoke that stuff, YOU support terrorism. LMAO - That was rich.

I think the important thing is that employees can pass a drug test when the know well in advance. Then it is more of a stupidity test.

If you can't pass a UA when you know in advance, then you have deeper issues than substance abuse.

I had an employer in Texas ask me to UA before starting as a foreman. I laughed and he asked why. I said I spent 4 days last week in Amsterdam(2nd hand  ). He respected that and just said, so UA next month then? No problemo.

BTW, to get insurance as a climber here, you must have a medical exam every 2 years. Part of that exam is a UA.


----------



## tophopper (May 22, 2004)

Eric, was the groundie who hooked up the chipper also the driver?
not to defend him at all, but if he wasn't the driver of the rig he can hardly be accountable for what happens to it on the road with someone else behind the wheel. 
What I mean is; the driver is responsible for checking and securing his own load, the driver should have checked to see that it was hooked up properly and not relied on anybody else and assume it was done proprely. 
If he was the driver, maybe it's good that thats all that happened, a chipper coming loose could have done much worse


----------



## NeTree (May 22, 2004)

Top, in most cases I'd agree.

But when the groundie is sent out of the truck specifically to guide the truck back and hook up the chipper, it's pretty much a no-brainer, doncha think?


----------



## Crofter (May 22, 2004)

There must be a perceived benefit in testing. What is it. I know a lot of people who can drink or toke responsibly and be good to go in the morning, but there must be a target group that cannot. I have the feeling that there would not be too much responsible objection to testing if you left weed out. What say?

Frank


----------



## MasterBlaster (May 22, 2004)

Legalize, and be done with it. You would still have to UA, but the social/legal stigma would be eliminated. The cut-off level would be raised so off-duty tokers wouldn't show up. But on-duty ones would show up, then.


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (May 22, 2004)

Buying a body flush or whatever down here is known as studying for your test.

One guy once, proudly proclaimed he wouldn't get any answers wrong and started rattling off the chemical equation for cocaine and left...


----------



## tophopper (May 23, 2004)

Yes eric, Id agree, a no brainer if he was directed to back a driver in and hook it up. I only mentioned it because being my own driver, Ive made habit of physically checking trailer connections before going on the road with my own eyes. No matter who hooked me up and no matter how easy it is, i get out walk back and look everytime. It only takes 3 seconds of my time, and Im 100% confident that all is as it should be. I would feel like a moron if I were in a wreck because someone told me I was good to go and I neglected to check. As far as "studying" for the tests; most testing facilities now test for the masking agents contained those flushing drinks and etc. If you pull a positive for those agents it is the same as pissing a dirty UA- you fail. I know one fellow who did just that, when he got a copy of UA with all the results(after he had been fired), their were no illegal substances which showed up, however there were high levels of masking/flushing chemicals which cost him his job. The only way to pass a UA is to actually pee clean. if you think you can cover it or hide by drinking some magic batch potion you are sorely mistaken.


----------



## MasterBlaster (May 23, 2004)

Actually, 8 to 10 thousand mg of vitamin c taken 4 to 6 hours, and repeated again 2 hours before testing will mask any thc in the urine. It will also increase the appearance of any chemicals in the body. Speed, Cocaine, that sorta thing.

Don't tell anyone I told you.


----------



## Crofter (May 23, 2004)

Then there's ways of borrowing someone elses urine!

Frank


----------



## Nickrosis (May 23, 2004)

Usually private companies don't post their job listings on the Internet, but I found quite a few municipal jobs with a quick Google search. Nearly everyone of them required a pre-test and some mentioned a random drug test as part of the city's program.

Here are some samples: 
www.udel.edu/ExecVP/polprod/7-44.html
www.prm.nau.edu/prm426/job_vacancy_announcement_sample.htm
phoenix.gov/JOBSPECS/40250.html
www.ci.mankato.mn.us/cityh/hres/jobdescdetails.php3?jdid=107
www.ci.houston.tx.us/jobs/97315.pdf
www.burlington.dst.ia.us/employment/Seasonal Forestry Laborer.pdf
www.cityofseattle.net/light/Apprentice/FAQ/default.htm#drugtest
www.pnwisa.org/jobs.html
www.townofchapelhill.org/hr/eol.htm
www.dupageforest.com/EMPLOYMENT/employment.html
www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/hr/JOBS/JD434.html
www.forestryusa.com/j-dupagecounty.htm
www.nyc.gov/html/dcas/pdf/climberpruner.pdf

I also ran into an interesting article and a newsletter from the UK:
www.chuckdaniels.com/index/urine.html
www.isa-uki.org/PDF_Files/March 2002 Chaptermail.pdf


----------



## Nickrosis (May 23, 2004)

*The Bottom Line*

It comes down to the law. Here in Wisconsin, there are no laws mandating drug testing or a drug free workplace. There are two related state laws:



> WISCONSIN Workers' Compensation State law may reduce compensation benefits by 15% if an employee's injury results from intoxication or the use of a controlled substance. The total reduction may not exceed $15,000. Wisc. Stat. Ann § 102.58 (1997).





> WISCONSIN Unemployment Compensation Benefits may be denied for misconduct. Misconduct may include an employee's use, possession, or impairment due to the use of a controlled substance, or violation of a work rule relating to controlled substances. Wis. Stat. Ann. §108.04 (1997). According to rules of the Unemployment Compensation Division of the State Department of Labor, a positive drug test may be sufficient to show misconduct under specific circumstances.



If you are doing Federal contract work, though, their is a requirement for a drug free workplace that would have to be demonstrated through drug tests.



> The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 requires some Federal contractors and all Federal grantees to agree that they will provide drug-free workplaces as a precondition of receiving a contract or grant from a Federal agency.



For more information about the Federal regulations, check out the Department of Labor's website: http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/drugs/workingpartners/regs/dfwp1988.asp


----------



## Guy Meilleur (May 23, 2004)

Nick,
First thanks for the jobs postings; I'm referring a guy to the job on Chapel Hill. $12-15/hour, but really good bennies.

Next, Wi's "misconduct" statute reads like a guy could get w/c denied if a trace of THC was in his pee. I'd be all for vitamin C supplementation per mb, for health reasons.

Finally, I've done 4 fed contracts but never had to fill a bottle.


----------



## Dadatwins (May 23, 2004)

As I said before I have worked for two different city agencies in N.Y. and in VA. and both had random drug test. Most cities policy are related to CDL license though I think. People that work for the City of Richmond are tested before hiring and then only randomly tested if they have CDL. Policy states that anyone can be tested at any time as long as supervisor signs off on report stating that the person is suspect. Good luck finding civil service supervisor step up and make that call!
Have only seen one person taken for suspect test and that was because he drove $125K brush truck 60 mph into a ditch at the landfill and the passenger threatened a lawsuit if nothing was done about it. The driver refused test which is considered a positive and was dismissed.

My private company was family owed so policy was a lot stricter at one time drug use meant find a place live also.


----------

