Police union rejects plan for drug tests

[Jamie6.5]

I am a manager of union employees but I have been a union member in the past. I remember once when I was injured on the job once and my union steward stopped a drug test because it was "not in the contract" I didnt know him, he didnt know me and I had nothing to worry about but that bit of standing up for my rights has always resounded with me.

Your "rights" to what? Come to work impaired?
When a person is injured on the job, or causes an accident that causes the employer to incur a loss that person should ALWAYS be drug/alcohol tested.

What I don't get is why the union would fight this. Roid rage is real, slowed reactions from impairment are real, as is a person's judgment when impaired.

Why do you think they call it "impaired"?
Whether it's a legal substance or not, if it has the potential to affect the officer's job performance, it should not be in their system. I would think the union would want to prove their members are upstanding citizens that live by the laws they enforce.
To do otherwise just puts the spotlight on their hypocrisy.

 

[Sawdust]

I doubt that the union is really against this idea but rather they are going to use this as a big bargaining chip to get some other stuff that they want. JMHO.

 

[Riot]

Oh quit it guys....it's a contract thing. They denied the contract because they're not getting the pay-raise they wanted. The drug testing is just apart of the contract.

Where I'm working, the union is also trying to work up a contract. Both sides play these dirty little scare tactic games.

The union tells the employees that if they don't vote out the contract, people will lose their jobs...the employeer tells the employees that if they don't vote in the contract, they will never see a payraise.

*edit*

I doubt that the union is really against this idea but rather they are going to use this as a big bargaining chip to get some other stuff that they want. JMHO.

Looks like some other cooler heads have prevailed...good for you for thinking for yourself.

 

[pchewn]

That argument is based on the assumption that someone who smokes pot is AUTOMATICALLY a bad employee. Its discrimination. Yeah, I know, its illegal.

Yes, but employers are allowed to discriminate (based on drug use). [Legally allowed]

They are also allowed to discriminate based on performance, appearance, initiative, and any other factor that is not illegal. [Legally allowed]

They are NOT allowed to discriminate based on gender, religion, national origin, race, and age (within some limits). [And other things I may have forgotten are illegal].

SO:
There is illegal discrimination (age, gender, religion, etc)
There is allowed discrimination (performance, drug-use, etc)

My personal opinion is that if there is a REASON to suspect drug use (accident, lower performance, absenteeism, etc), then the employer should offer the employee a drug test IF THE EMPLOYEE WANTS TO KEEP HIS JOB, AS WELL AS TAKING OTHER ACTIONS TO IMPROVE THE "SUSPECT" BEHAVIOR.

No drug testing for initial employment, no drug testing if performance, attendance and other job-related actions are OK.

 

[wired]

Your "rights" to what? Come to work impaired?
When a person is injured on the job, or causes an accident that causes the employer to incur a loss that person should ALWAYS be drug/alcohol tested.

What I don't get is why the union would fight this. Roid rage is real, slowed reactions from impairment are real, as is a person's judgment when impaired.

Why do you think they call it "impaired"?
Whether it's a legal substance or not, if it has the potential to affect the officer's job performance, it should not be in their system. I would think the union would want to prove their members are upstanding citizens that live by the laws they enforce.
To do otherwise just puts the spotlight on their hypocrisy.

The problem with drug testing is that it doesnt tell anything about when drugs were used. If I am on my own time at home and decide to smoke a joint that has absolutely no effect on my performance at work 3 days or 3 weeks later . I don't use drugs but if I did recreationally I wouldnt want something I do on my own time while not at work to have any bearing on whether I can keep my job or not because of an unrelated problem.

Most unions I have been involved with didnt give an inch. If its in the contract its in the contract. If not. Hands off. Unions and union contracts are like little league. Everyone plays by the rules and everyone has a good time. Company included.

 

[Trlsmn]

The problem with drug testing is that it doesnt tell anything about when drugs were used. If I am on my own time at home and decide to smoke a joint that has absolutely no effect on my performance at work 3 days or 3 weeks later . I don't use drugs but if I did recreationally I wouldnt want something I do on my own time while not at work to have any bearing on whether I can keep my job or not because of an unrelated problem.

Most unions I have been involved with didnt give an inch. If its in the contract its in the contract. If not. Hands off. Unions and union contracts are like little league. Everyone plays by the rules and everyone has a good time. Company included.

And if I, as the employer choose to hire people that use no drugs at all and state that up front as a condition of employment, what then? Don't I have that right, just as you have the right to not accept my terms of employment.

 

[wawaverider]

Many good points made on this topic.

1)Yes, Police Officers should be drug tested. They are enforcing alot of stupid drug laws adding to the bankruptcy of this nation, so they should held to the standard enforced (along with the persons making these laws).

2)Unions have benefited our country, but for the most part have become corrupted and a big business unto themselves (not all unions need to go).

3)Random drug testing laws are an invasion of privacy. Every year I hear about a new sector of the population being randomly drug tested (on top of kits for your parents), where does it stop? Seriously? Any drug test can be justified so why not everyone? If the main reason for these are in the interest of saving money and public safety why not? Sounds 1984'ish or gestapo/big brother watching you, but I'm sure many so called conservatives would randomly drug test the bulk of the population if they could.

I was in the military and had not problem being randomly drug tested. Currently, my current position I have to take a pre-employment and could be randomly drug tested oh well.

 

[wired]

And if I, as the employer choose to hire people that use no drugs at all and state that up front as a condition of employment, what then? Don't I have that right, just as you have the right to not accept my terms of employment.

You can have whatever you want as long as it is negotiated in the contract with the Union. Maybe you'll get some of the stuff you want. Maybe not.

 

[Jamie6.5]

The problem with drug testing is that it doesnt tell anything about when drugs were used. If I am on my own time at home and decide to smoke a joint that has absolutely no effect on my performance at work 3 days or 3 weeks later .

Oh the persecution of the poor pot smoker!! Pot isn't the only drug tested for, and in the case of cops would be one of the least one I would worry about. Unless of course the user is practicing at work, or comes to work impaired.
From what I hear, the use of drugs that enhance physical performance to help pass the physical testing are pretty common. Drugs that help one stay awake on long overnight shifts may be in use too.
Those types of drugs have a history of making people more aggressive and/or combative. Not a good thing for someone that needs to keep a cool head under pressure.

I seriously doubt this is about drugs used on a recreational basis, during off hours.
Drug test them. All of them. As a condition of employment, and randomly.

 

[wired]

Oh the persecution of the poor pot smoker!! Pot isn't the only drug tested for, and in the case of cops would be one of the least one I would worry about. Unless of course the user is practicing at work, or comes to work impaired.
From what I hear, the use of drugs that enhance physical performance to help pass the physical testing are pretty common. Drugs that help one stay awake on long overnight shifts may be in use too.
Those types of drugs have a history of making people more aggressive and/or combative. Not a good thing for someone that needs to keep a cool head under pressure.

I seriously doubt this is about drugs used on a recreational basis, during off hours.
Drug test them. All of them. As a condition of employment, and randomly.

Thats great but they don't test for that stuff. The overwhelming vast majority of employment drug testing is 5 panel for "narcotics" only. Staroids testing is not done for employment anywhere I know of.

The company I work for does random testing but a state medical card will act as a defense against firing for a THC positive. Lots of state cards out there.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Who says they don't? Who says they shouldn't? I know steroid tests are available, since they are widely used in various sports regulation. And testing for stimulants is easy and may be as available as a pot test.

 

[wired]

Who says they don't? Who says they shouldn't? I know steroid tests are available, since they are widely used in various sports regulation. And testing for stimulants is easy and may be as available as a pot test.

They run a standard 5 panel test because they are easy to do and cheap.

THC
Amphetamines
PCP
Cocaine
Opiates

 

[Jamie6.5]

The company you work for, or the police departments? And if it's the PDs,...
You know this how?

 

[wired]

The company you work for, or the police departments? And if it's the PDs,...
You know this how?

Army Drug and Alcohol control NCO and currently company D&A testing manager. Been to the seminars and had the training. 5 panel is where its at for UA. We currently do saliva which also picks up benzos. Last company I worked for did GC hair testing. Lot more expensive but wider ranging. What this really comes down to is expense.The more you test for the more it costs and theres no direct cost to benefit

 

[riverrat373]

Thats great but they don't test for that stuff. The overwhelming vast majority of employment drug testing is 5 panel for "narcotics" only. Staroids testing is not done for employment anywhere I know of.

The company I work for does random testing but a state medical card will act as a defense against firing for a THC positive. Lots of state cards out there.

Where did you get that idea? Two people at the place I retired from got nailed for testing positive for marijuana. And how do you know who tests for steroids?:huh:

 

[wired]

Where did you get that idea? Two people at the place I retired from got nailed for testing positive for marijuana. And how do you know who tests for steroids?:huh:

first off the test is not for marijuana. it is for THC and if it is your company policy to fire for a THC positive then of course they got fired. Testing for THC is part of the 5 panel test used in 95% OF UA drug screenings. Steroid testing is rarely done outside of amateur athletics and is a separate and much more costly test. by law the subject of the screening has the right to know what they are being screened for. in the vast majority of cases its the five substances on the 5 panel regimen.

 

[Kimber Custom]

but a state medical card will act as a defense against firing for a THC positive. Lots of state cards out there.

Not in Oregon

Oregon Supreme Court rules workers who use medical marijuana can be fired for drug use | OregonLive.com

 

[wired]

Not in Oregon

Oregon Supreme Court rules workers who use medical marijuana can be fired for drug use | OregonLive.com

Can be. Doesnt mean they have to be. Its up to the company. Mine won't fire if the pissee has a card.

 

[riverrat373]

first off the test is not for marijuana. it is for THC and if it is your company policy to fire for a THC positive then of course they got fired. Testing for THC is part of the 5 panel test used in 95% OF UA drug screenings. Steroid testing is rarely done outside of amateur athletics and is a separate and much more costly test. by law the subject of the screening has the right to know what they are being screened for. in the vast majority of cases its the five substances on the 5 panel regimen.

They did not get fired, lucky for them! The company had a drug rehabilitation program and if the people who tested positive agreed to enter the program, they could come back after they completed it. If they tested positive again they would be fired.

 

[Karma]

And if I, as the employer choose to hire people that use no drugs at all and state that up front as a condition of employment, what then? Don't I have that right, just as you have the right to not accept my terms of employment.

I am not sure what to think about that. I own a small business and understand your point. On the other hand, the company doesn't purchase the person. They rent their time. Coming from that line of thinking, anything the person does outside of work that doesn't impact the company should be none of the companies business. If the person is coming to work stoned or drunk, that is a definite problem. If the person cuts loose on a Friday night and drinks or get's stoned and comes to work Monday without it in their system, I am not so sure. I am at a loss on this one.