|
|
| Accused Workers Challenge Drug Test Results |
|
Posted by FoM on July 15, 2001 at 22:34:40 PT By Stephanie Armour, USA Today Source: USA Today 
In February of last year, flight attendant Julia Jones had just landed in Denver when she was met at the gate by three grim-faced supervisors. They'd come to tell her she was being fired, she says. The reason? Jones had earlier taken a random drug test, and she says she was told results showed she'd tried to cheat by substituting her sample with something else. Jones, 42, of Littleton, Colo., says she was dumbstruck. She says she doesn't use drugs and never cheated. Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #7 posted by mikeal on July 17, 2001 at 20:49:22 PT:
|
| It's so horrible that companies are allowed to randomly test for drugs. I believe that there is no ammendmant that says we have a right to privacy but there really should be one in the US constitution. Get this, I can smoke a tiny joint of very lowgrade marijuana and some grocery store won't let me work as a bagboy or something because i failed a drug test a week after smoking. However, I could easily drink five bottles of Robitussin, take muscle relaxants until i'm blue in the face, then walk into the lab/hospital whatever and pass the drug test. What's with that? does this seem fair? NO. So much for fairness in America [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by The Eel on July 16, 2001 at 19:17:45 PT |
| >"It's so necessary. You can't be too safe in this industry >when you have metal in the sky," says Elise Eberwein, a >spokeswoman at Frontier Airlines. I have family and friends in the airline industry, and it's no secret that a large percentage of pilots and flight attendants are raging alcoholics. I've heard many a story about flight crews who drink to the point of unconsciousness and make it to their next flight within an hour of waking up. I'd feel much safer knowing my pilot was doing bongrips the night before than I would knowing he killed 15 beers. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by Rooster on July 16, 2001 at 17:51:13 PT |
| Being an employee of a company that drug tests both pre-employment and randomly is a real pain in the ass! One should be judged by his/her ability and skills not weather they take drugs. I for one am very misfortunate due to the fact that I have to submit randomly at my job. I shouldn't have to submit to these pricks but in order to make the money I do and to support my family and pay the mortgage and bills what is one to do? If your screwing up all the time then yes I can see suspicion but for the workers who bust there ass each day to be productive and professional I feel is a violation of privacy.I'd rather smoke a fat joint then drink and get sloppy drunk in order to unwind after a stressful week of work. There's no break here, in my trade if you work for a company that doesn't drug test you get shitted on from smaller independent companies that are owned by B.S. artists.But to be in aunion and get the pay and benifits you deserve you must sacrafice your recreation time.Iwish this shit would change and those who can smoke have one for me cause one day I know I'll be able to spark that baby up, but not now. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by Imprint on July 16, 2001 at 09:37:09 PT |
| I think some place like Home Depot should be required to test everyone right up to the board of directors. Also, alcohol should be tested for; since the chance for job related accidents would be relevant to alcohol drinkers. All employees should be tested randomly and weekly. That’s right every employee (right up to the board of directors) should be required to call a phone number each day to see if their number has been picked and drop everything and go get tested. This would be so inconvenient for the employees, costly for the company and the fear of a false positive would be so great that the company would avoid it unless it was absolutely necessary. I know this isn’t all that realistic but some times I feel like we should fight fire with fire. While there at it, why don’t they test the customers as they walk through the door; since a customer on drugs is more likely to injure them selves while using Home Depot products. I better stop, I’m feeling a little vindictive today. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #3 posted by krutch on July 16, 2001 at 07:18:17 PT:
|
| Layne Thome of Home Depot says: "On the job, people feel safer. Once we began testing after accidents, we saw an immediate decrease in workers' compensation claims." Layne seem to ignore the obvious here by assuming a decrease in drug use caused a decrease in accidents. I suspect that the policy simply caused employees to stop reporting accidents. This does not increase workplace safety, it decreases it, because nobody learns anything from an unreported accident. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #2 posted by lookinside on July 16, 2001 at 04:43:58 PT:
|
| should not result in firing unless the testing is the result of an accident...and i think testing should only be required after an accident or if a supervisor believes a person is impaired while on the job...(drunk truck driver for instance)... treatment is the answer in most cases... suing the employer and winning is the best tactic to fight [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by J.R. Bob Dobbs on July 16, 2001 at 04:43:07 PT |
| >>At Home Depot, signs in many of its stores alert prospective job candidates that they can expect to be tested for drugs if they apply.<< As Richard Cowen has pointed out, Home Depot also lets you know 48 hours in advance of any test you have to take, giving you plenty of time to get any traces of heroin or cocaine out of your system. So really all Home Depot is doing is weeding out people who smoke marijuana, not the truly dangerous drugs. I've also seen too many work-places turn into groups of alcoholics after the drug-testing begins. That's making an improvement, isn't it? [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |