[johnkeegan]

Do any of you have a random drug testing program for your employees and have you noticed a significant increase in the quality of employees and potential hirees? Or have most decided it would turn away potential employees that may be decent workers "9-5" but have less than stellar habits when they are off the clock?

I admit that this is a hard issue to grasp. On one hand there is no doubt that any one that uses any mind altering substance (including alcohol..sorry) after hours will, IN GENERAL, be more likely to have attitudinal problems at work. Yet, I'm sure most of our fathers "occasionally" had a few beers after work and they never had to worry about what they consumed on their own time. Is that much different than the young single guy that might smoke a little something "occasionally" after work as well? The drug testing would seem to unfairly single out the smoker over the drinker because the substance stays in the system for weeks.

I would certainly prefer to not have any substance abusers/users at work at all. Hard to argue that it's not just a sign of mental weakness, if nothing else. But is there a certain hypocrisy involved here that singles out the habits of one blue collar worker and turns a blind eye to the equally destructive (ask any one that lives with an alcoholic) habits of another.
P.S.- Remember we're talking about after hours imbibing only.

...but even beyond that issue, I really am more concerned with whether those that have tried drug testing have ended up with a better workforce or did the applications just dry up?

[Dale Wiley]

We test pre employment all applicants.

Everyone subject to random testing at any time- mandatory testing after any on the job accident or motor vehicle accident.

2 of us are in the drug consortium drug testing pool for our CDL licenses and subject to test any time.

Plus, I tell everyone that I offer our shop / yard/ vehicles / personal effects as training for the county sheriff drug dogs.

About every other month, my neighbor calls me and says the K-9 is in the area and he comes over and the dog does his thing around our shop and vehicles. This is a great tool.

We do not allow tobacco use at all.

I have a great group of employees. Now I know all the personal freedoms things, but this is my company, I pay the bills and I make the rules with a lot of help form my insurance companies. All our above mentioned activities keep us in a preffered pool of risk and lowers our rates.

Being an almost 50 yo, I lived in the drug culture days. I know the lingo, I know the way people act when stoned / under the influence or a haibitual user. Did it a few times myself back in the day, and partied pretty hard. But there comes a time in life when you got to face life as it is with out being fed up all the time.


You can bet your ass, if there was any kind of accident, some scum bag lawyer is going to dredge up ANYTHING he can to convince a jury in a civil trial, which of course comes with a lot less burden of proof than a criminal trial. I want no part of that.

It has benefited our company a lot, and since we do public projects, we have to have such a program in a lot of cases.

[johnkeegan]

...so do you believe that the drug testing is what led to an improved workforce or are you just more selective, in general, than previously. And, I forget, was your workforce native- or foreign born? I'm wondering if this is even more of a determinent in creating a good workforce.

[Dale Wiley]

I beleive that drug testing leads to a better work foce. Drug users will seek out companys that do not drug test for that reason.

Our pay scales are higher and we get a much better work force. 75% Hispanic.

[PSUscaper]

I'm not so sure I would want to drug test everyone. Lets face it, its not easy to find good kids to do the dirty end of this job. If I'm going to be drug testing all the 20-25 year range laborers, I'm not sure I'm going to have any workers.

Secondly, do you really need a drug test to know someone is doing drugs. Hey, maybe one of the younger guys goes to a college party and parties a little too hard. Ok. I don't think that is what I'm concerned about.

What is a concern is that 30+ year old guy who comes in everyday, with the smell of alcohol sweating out of his pores by 9 am in the morning.

I don't think you need a drug test to know someone is doing drugs or drinking. What I think you need is the guts to tell the guy to stop doing it or he's fired. It seems like drug testing is more or less another one of these 'politically' correct things we have to do these days in order to fire someone.

I don't think drug testing is going to improve the labor pool. I think it is going to shrink it down, and how much more of a smaller labor pool do we need in this industry?

[Dale Wiley]

I will disagree with hyou all day long on this one. I forgot to say that our policy also covers alcohol as well.

If you want to keep being held hostage to a group of people who cannot get their lives under control then you are walking a fine line.

If your employee is under the influence or has been using drugs it the last 45 days, he wrecks a vehicle, I damn sure as the party on the other side I am going to look for substance abuse, vehicle defects any thing I possibly can to protect my company , employee and our position over all. I would have no mercy.

I have a great pool of workers. You want to work for me, you pass a drug test, you come to work every day, your going to get paid up to $ 17.00 per hour, medical and dental benifits, paid vacation, 401 K, and work 40 hours a week, and participate in the bonus program that can add another $ 2.00 per hour or more to your wage.

Your guy that goes to a college parties a little too hard, drives your vehicle hits my vehicle, or my family I am coming after your ass big time. You are so far out there for liability, after your insurance paid off, I am going to get more.

We work on a lot of public jobs anmd have to show proof of drug testing, and our workers are often subject a random testing by our general / prime contractor on his job site as well. I have no problem with it at all.

I have a much better work force since we started drug testing, and since we improved our human resources program. The tweakers can go steal metal and get tossed in jail. Drug affected workers have no place working in an industry where you operate equipment at others peoples property, and subject them to your driving, and could possibly injure others. Just not going to happen.

If you did have an accident, those lawyers would een subpoena your post as evidence that you did not due all you could to prevent a drug affected person from operatinkig your vehicle and equipment.

I went through a weight station last week with my semi, trailer and $ 80,00 of sports field equipment. We are a preffered carrier and seldom are red lighted for anything.

At the same stations, they ripped 7 truckers for being high on freaking meth. Impounded the trucks, hauled their miserable asses to jail.

Drug testing has imporved the workforce, take it from someone who has worked construction for over 27 years, it is a lot safer now thatn it was in 1979.

[johnkeegan]

I'm not so sure I would want to drug test everyone.

... I was told by my HR rep. that if you have a drug testing program, you must test everybody. You can't cherry pick.

If you want to keep being held hostage to a group of people who cannot get their lives under control then you are walking a fine line.

...Boy does that hit the nail on the head.
Over the years I've had employees that may work hard and are quite concerned about the quality of their work but were consistently a pain in the butt to deal with because they "had issues." They could not handle the stress of simple decision making and problem solving and acting like a leader/foreman when I was not around was simply too much stress. They could be glorified laborers but that's it. The mental/emotional maturity was lacking. And guess what?...They all "needed"(their words) to smoke up after hours...Notice any connection?
Sure, they were not stoned when they showed up the next day but what's the emotional maturity level of anyone that still needs to smoke up at 25? Not too mention 35. And the joke is these guys are all single, no mortgage or car payments etc....and life stresses them too much.
And every year that passes, I have less patience with any of these chemically dependant people. I have friends and family dealing with REAL problems like children with juvenile cancer or being the caretaker of parents with Alzheimers, and they bravely deall with these problems head-on. They don't "need" to get drunk or smoke-up to escape life.
I think it will be a challenge to get a drug free workplace, though, without switching to, say, a predominently Hispanic workforce (which is why I asked the question to Dale). They take their job seriously because they work to better the life of their family at home. This takes precedent over their own selfish desires.

[agla]

I think that the most alarming thing is not the dope smokers, coke heads, meth freaks, or drinkers. It is the amount of people who are prescribed drugs by their doctors. I'm not sure you are going to get that info back when you do employee drug tests since they are prescribed and the "patient's rights" rules might kick in.

So, I think you are basically only going to find out if someone is using unprescribed street drugs. I'm not sure about that. Does anyone know what the story is with finding test results on employees who are described anti-depressants? I would hope that you could find out, but I doubt it.

If those folks get through the cracks, then you not only have druggies, but depressed druggies after you spent the money to weed them out. Then again, the thought of having to take the test is probably going to scare them away, anyway.

[Dale Wiley]

3. For Cause drug/alcohol testing. In the event of an incident resulting in the injury to the employee(s) or others: of incidents resulting in damage to equipment or property belonging to the employer or clients of the employer; including auto accidents, or if the employee(s), in the judgment of the employer or his appointed foreperson, appears to be under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol prior to or during the work day, or appears to be suffering the after-effects of drug and/or alcohol use, said employee(s) shall be required to submit immediately to a drug/alcohol test at the employers expense.



31. Failure of an employee to advise the General Manager at the beginning of their shift (if not earlier) that they are taking a prescription drug or over the counter drug which by its nature may impair the employee’s ability to perform.

1st offense - Suspension –
2nd offenseReview for Dismissal
3rd offense - Dismissal

[Malrex]

I would want to work for Dale!! well, except the tobacco deal.

I quit my last landscaping job because I was being driven to the worksite while the driver and passengers were lighting up their weed pipe. I watched the foreman talk to the customers while under the influence. I was there while they worked cutting saws on pavers and/or running skid loaders. I was surrounded by it! I was offered 30k a year with benefits to stay and become the landscape foreman. I declined and decided to take the plunge and run my own business, sink or swim. It wasn't worth the risk to me working with these fellahs and about 85% of the company smoked weed ON THE JOB...nothing was being done about it and ears were closed.

It doesn't bother me too much if a worker is a good one and smokes out during their own time, but honestly, in the long run, this person, no matter how good, is not worth having. Having a few beers after work? That doesn't bother me too much as long as it doesn't affect them the next day--but damn, you never know these days who is responsible enough to stop and think about the affects tomorrow. I enjoy drinking although I have cut down considerably since I started my own business. I only drink now if the next day I'm not working. If I ever hire anyone, I would definatly have random drug tests. I think Dale might be a little hardcore about it with the dogs and letting them practice, but more power to him. I know I would feel comfortable working at a place like that...well except the tobacco thing

[Dale Wiley]

If you work for me and I pay for your health insurance, and my company would increase the rates because you smoke or dip, then you lose.

Since it is my company, and I pay the bills I get to make the rules



I dipped many years ago, but there is this thing and it is called perception. Perception is reality.

If my clients percieve that you are wasting time taking smoke breaks, then you are. If they perceive that your a slob ass with half a can of Copenhagen in your lip, then you are.

If these client opinions affect the opinion of my company then they do.

Work for some ahole commercial construction supertintendent, and he goes up your a** for taking a minute to get a fresh dip and you will soon see why things are that way.

I commend you for bailing on a bunch of grown up teenagers smoking out all day long. I hit the pipe a few times back in the day, and probably in situations where I should not have. But company culture and rules, and lawyers and lawsuits had not hit the scene yet, in fact the lawyers, cops and politicians were all hitting it too.. so that tells yo how long ago that was...

[mrusk]

I am planning on implementing random drug test. Just not now. I currently only have 1 guy so random test wouldn't be fair!

I have no interest in hiring anyone who smokes or dips. I have no interest in hiring anyone who is boarder line alcholic.

Basicly i have no interest in hiring 100% of Americans that would be interested in working for a landscape company.

No saggy pants either!

[Malrex]

*shrugs*

I can understand people who don't like smokers and dippers...more power to ya. I personally don't have a problem with people smoking on their designated break and depositing their butt in their lunch box, ashtray or appopriate area. I DO have a problem with people smoking whenever and throwing their butt in with the mulch or what have you or when talking to a customer (which was a situation I left).

I'm a dipper. I enjoy chewing while I work, plain and simple. I don't chew when working in a public place, and if I see the customer, I take it out discreetly. I fully understand that most people don't like seeing or talking to someone who has a big chew in. I also understand that some workers may not care as much as I on what the customer thinks about it. I feel its rude doing a nasty habit like chewing or smoking in front of a customer. However, personally, I don't think its a big deal as long as its done "responsibly" and discreetly. "Responsibly" meaning putting out your smoke or chew before talking to a customer, or only doing these sorts of activies when the customer or the public can't see you.

I can't argue with the health insurance part of it though..you got me there. But everyone makes choices in their life, some good, some bad. Even though I'm solo and plan to be solo for awhile till I get the hang of things, I would definately take a "responsible" smoker or chewer over a pot smoker or alcoholic anyday...and sure, would take a worker who didn't do any of it first (as long as they were a good worker). Would be great if workers didn't do any of the bad stuff (including myself), but my perception, at least in my area, is ALOT of people smoke or chew and I if I was looking for workers, I would be VERY hard pressed to find any...I remember Oregon, I went to college there at Willamette U. in Salem, I met alot of people who were nicotine free..but over here in Amish/Redneck country, there just seems to be a hell of alot of nicotine freaks out here. If the workers weren't doing it in my previous employment, the customers were.

And Mrusk, I wouldn't do a random drug test with only one worker either. Most likely you are working alongside the guy and can tell him to ship up right on the spot. And I wouldn't tolerate saggy pants either!