The danger in drug testing.
Imagine for a moment that you were given a drug test as a condition for employment at a company. You knew there was no reason to worry about it, as the last time you'd done any drugs at all was a joint you smoked 15 years prior. Imagine that drug test came back positive for cocaine and you were fired on the spot, with no option to challenge the test. What would you do? Would it change your views about the policies regarding drug testing?
My boyfriend, I'll call him D, encountered the above situation. Now, before you even think it...I am 100% sure this man doesn't do drugs, especially cocaine. He's lived with me a year and a half, and had zero money since he wasn't working until just recently. Aside from the fact that I grew up around enough druggies to recognize the signs of usage, and I know him well enough to know his stand on drugs, he simply didn't have the ability to purchase cocaine. But you believing in him isn't necessary for this hypothetical situation.
You've been drug tested via hair analysis and deemed a cocaine user. Company policy is you're fired on the spot, despite your work record, despite the fact that not one member of management believes you to be on drugs, despite the fact that you vehemently insist the test was wrong. The company provides no method of dispute, even though there is a definite measurable, and reported, "false positive" rate in all methods of drug testing. You're told simply that you can pay to have another hair analysis done and they "might" reconsider your firing.
Would you pay $70 you don't really have to spend, to "maybe" save a $7.50 an hour job? Should a company hiring someone for stocking shelves in the freezer of a bulk item grocery store even be testing for past drug use, instead of current drug use via a urine test? Shouldn't there be a law that permits you to challenge the results of a drug test and be retested at the company's expense...billed back to you if you test positive a second time? Should there be a law saying they have to take two samples, like in cycling, and have both come back positive in order to issue a "positive" result? Why is there no protection for an employee falsely accused of taking drugs?
My boyfriend, I'll call him D, encountered the above situation. Now, before you even think it...I am 100% sure this man doesn't do drugs, especially cocaine. He's lived with me a year and a half, and had zero money since he wasn't working until just recently. Aside from the fact that I grew up around enough druggies to recognize the signs of usage, and I know him well enough to know his stand on drugs, he simply didn't have the ability to purchase cocaine. But you believing in him isn't necessary for this hypothetical situation.
You've been drug tested via hair analysis and deemed a cocaine user. Company policy is you're fired on the spot, despite your work record, despite the fact that not one member of management believes you to be on drugs, despite the fact that you vehemently insist the test was wrong. The company provides no method of dispute, even though there is a definite measurable, and reported, "false positive" rate in all methods of drug testing. You're told simply that you can pay to have another hair analysis done and they "might" reconsider your firing.
Would you pay $70 you don't really have to spend, to "maybe" save a $7.50 an hour job? Should a company hiring someone for stocking shelves in the freezer of a bulk item grocery store even be testing for past drug use, instead of current drug use via a urine test? Shouldn't there be a law that permits you to challenge the results of a drug test and be retested at the company's expense...billed back to you if you test positive a second time? Should there be a law saying they have to take two samples, like in cycling, and have both come back positive in order to issue a "positive" result? Why is there no protection for an employee falsely accused of taking drugs?
posted by Ayanla at 6:01 AM
2 Comments:
Companies do not like losing employees to drug testing, however, they greatly do not like having drug using employees.
Drug using employees, can create a very unsafe work environment. They can create accidents which may injure non-drug using employees which in turn cost the company money in loss of work and medical expenses. Iam looking at the bigger picture here of course. Those losses in turn are reflected back on the consumer in some way.
Imagine if you will that your b/f is in his freezer, and another employee high on whatever is not paying attention and does something stupid because his motorskills are not at the appropriate levels, and your b/f gets hurt as a result. You may whistle a different tune.
I would imagine that the measurable rate of false-positives are so low that it is just assumed that a positive is a positive. I would think that at some point there were less rules reguarding potential false-positives. And at that time, many who were probably guilty of drug use, used those lack of rules to their advantage, to hold on to a job, possible more tests, at company expense.
The abuse of such leanincey results in higher loss for the company. If a company takes the stance that any positive is immediate termination, the point is concise. I think it is fair for you to pay for a second test. I mean after all if you really are not a drug user, the odds that you will have a false-positive are extremely slim, and there is nothing to fear. If it does result thusly, then paying the 70 dollars to prove otherwise is worth keeping the job period. You look at it in terms of 7.50 an hour, when perhaps you should be looking at it in terms of 300 a week, or even 15600 a year vs 0 an hour etc etc.
Now look at it in terms of much larger income say 55k a year. 70 is pretty cheap in the end.
I suppose it is all in how you look at it.
While I agree a drug using employee can create an unsafe working environment, I do not agree that a positive drug test should be automatic grounds for termination.
If the employee has no signs of drug use, and has performed their job without incident or worry in the past, there is no reason why they would need to be terminated until a full review is done. Suspended, perhaps, but not fired outright with no recourse.
As for the "measurable rate of false-positives are so low" statement, read http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/BadTestResults.html to see how a 1% failure rate results in 33% or 1/3 of people identified as drug users being incorrect.
Nothing in science is 100% and provisions have to be made for those that get caught in the "failure" rate.
Simple things like doing a test on two different samples instead of one test on one sample, or extending the offer of a retest if an initial test is disputed, with the provision that the employee will have to pay for the retest if it comes up "dirty"
Post a Comment
<< Home