Alcohol & Drug Policy

5560905

In August 2001, our company announced to its employees that it would be implementing an alcohol and drug policy, with pre-employment and random testing, among others. We made it clear at the outset that a positive test would result in immediate termination. We're small and don't have an EAP. Testing began in October 2001 with all employees, including our CEO being tested to show his commitment to the program. Once everyone was tested initially, we began conducting random testing. We lost one employee in the initial testing and about 6 additional employees since that time. Our most recent loss was a staff member who had been with the company for 25 years who tested positive for marijuana. His manager (one of our owners)now wants us to rethink our policy, with a suspension or warning for marijuana. He thinks it is unfair to terminate a tenured employee who smokes on his day's off because he still has the residue in his system when he returns to work. The other managers in our team are still committed to zero tolerance for ANY illegal drugs in the system.

Does anyone have a policy that treats marijuana differently than any other illegal substance? We considered the option of demanding enrollment in some type of diversion program, but if (as he insists) this is one-time use, that seems to be a useless waste of time and money. I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who has similar circumstances and would appreciate receiving copies of any policies that take an approach other than zero tolerance as it relates to marijuana.

P.S. I personally feel we would be making a mistake to loosen up our standards. Am I out of touch?

Thanks.

Don D

The policies I've participated in are as strict as yours with zero tolerance. The exception being a diversion program. There should never be consideration given because of who somebody is or how long he's been an employee. Safety is the issue and the reason for the policy. Nothing else. Take two people operating two identical pieces of equipment. One has 20 years on the job, the other 20 months. Both got stoned over the weekend or last nite or this morning on the way to work. Nobody knows which. Both are equally capable of having or causing an accident and consting the business tons of money and perhaps a life. Both are randomed and test positive. Which one gets terminated? The manager in your scenario is making an emotional case. He is clearly wrong. Either have the policy or don't. Relax it if you will, but do it across the board, consistently, not based on who somebody is or his tenure.

Balloonman

Interesting post. I have been dealing with something similar this past week. We offer a last chance agreement for employees if they have been with us for a while. Typically 2-3 years or more. Calls for follow up testing at 30 day s and random testing up to 5 times a year for 3 years.
We had a batch of new hires, where one got let go early upon giving notice and another was on vacation so I did the pre-employment testing the day of hire. (yeah I know)
Well one came up positive for marijuna.....the nephew of our most critical employee. I fired him. That did not go over well with key employee, he talked to his nephew, he is convinced nephew did not smoke, was from secondhand smoke. I was about to have the decision reversed by my boss.
I wrote out a memo outline why we should not make an exception. Also included a list of previous employees who we hired in spite of positive drug tests (before I arrived) and the issues/wc claims and other problems with them. Also the fact that people talk, and it would undermind my program. Keep in mind my boss already indicated to me I was going to have my decision overruled. After he and the other manager saw, in black and white, the facts, and a well thought out arguement he agreed with me and we will not be hiring this person back. (YEAH)
You might go this approach, I was lucky the 4 bad hires cost us........in many ways.....it really strengthened my arguement.
My $0.02 worth!
DJ The Balloonman

madison31401

This is really not a gray area. You set up a policy because either you had to or you had concerns. You do random testing to ensure there is no drug use on/in your premises. If positive your policy states out the door. I don't see where you have any problem. If you open the door to allow one person to get by with "just" the use of mj you will be opening it for everyone and every other type of illegal drug. Stand your ground.

My company has a "zero tolerance" for drug use. We don't hire anyone with a positive test, and if we do random or probable cause, any positive test we terminate.

We just had a probable cause drug testing occur in a field office. We tested 23 people (due to 2 supervisors and 1 other employee telling our HR rep on site that there was dealing and using going on in a particular area of the facility). We fired 5. Now, just so you know this only happened about 5 weeks ago and I suspect there is still time for further fall out - but two of the terminated employees who filed for UI have since been denied!!!! Go figure!!!!

Again, stand your ground or you will be opening a can of worms.

Don D

I certainly would hope they have been denied UI!! As to the notion of second hand smoke with the nephew of the important/key/irreplaceable employee, there is a word for that and it's initials are BS! I don't know which smells worse, BS or the situation with the meddling uncle.

Balloonman

LOL, Don you know that, and I know that. Fact is I am feeling pretty good that my boss made the right decision............... leaving my decision stand.
My $0.02 worth!
DJ The Balloonman

Cinderella

DJ you should feel good - you did the right thing and your boss did the right thing by listening to you. Good job for standing your ground.

deniseE

I agree with the other posters that the policy was implemented this way for a reason. And you should stick to your guns.

If you make this exception...you'll find yourself doing this everytime OR in litigation with an ee that was fired.

ray a

Our policy is zero tolerance. We do prescreen and random screening and any positive test results in immediate dismissal. We will rehire under very special circumstances, but that is another story. We follow the DOT equivalent process. My understanding is any positive testing at the DOT level must result in immediate dismissal.

If you allow an exception for pot, then you are qualifying the degree of illegality.

mushroomHR

You might as well not even have a policy if you allow exceptions. Your company will find itself in court so fast it will make their heads spin. Please, take the other posters' advice and make no exceptions to your policy for any illegal substance. You will be sorry.

szemcumo

The bottom line should be if you have a policy in place you should stick with it. The last time I checked marijuana is still an ILLEGAL drug. You can't pick and choose which ILLEGAL drugs are ok to use and who can use them. Top exec or the janitor.... it is still the same ILLEGAL drug regardless.

Just the way I see it anyway!

Balloonman

Just curious, any of the individuals previously fired black, hispanic, or any other race than the employee the owner wants to make an exception for? $$$$ Fire the druggie and don't feel bad.
My $0.02 worth!
DJ The Balloonman

amwkim

Why have an exception just for marijuana. Why not crack?

Illegal drugs are just that ~ ILLEGAL.

Zero tolerancy is the only way to go!

Cinderella

You hit the nail on the head, Amwkim.

I get so bloody sick and tired of hearing people say that pot is harmless and blah blah blah. It's total BS. I smoked pot about a dozen times in highschool and I'm here to tell you it is NOT harmless and there should be no exceptions for it when it comes to positive drug tests. My friend recently went through a very painful divorce because of her ex-husband's pot use. It caused so much damage to their relationship, his job, his relationship with his son, his mental health, I could go on and on. Bottom line is it's illegal and it causes major safety issues and impairs the user's judgement. I could give a CRAP what scientists say about physical versus psychological addiction. The latter is probably more damaging than the former - from what I've seen anyways.

System

5560905, I agree with the others that you would run into lots of trouble if you start making exceptions to a crystal-clear policy. If it says they're fired, no if's, and's or but's, then that's it. But I do think it's wise to review any policy if you think it might be off-target.

I'm probably in the minority with my libertarian views on drug testing, but you really need to look at the purpose behind your zero-tolerance policy as it applies to off-duty drug use. If safety's an issue, then I understand.

But if it's not a safety issue, I question why you'd treat off-duty drug use differently from other off-duty crimes, like DUI, beating a spouse, stealing, hiring a prostitute, etc. In those cases, you'd at least investigate and have the discretion to do something other than terminate.

For the record, I don't use drugs, don't smoke, don't drink very often, and don't abuse any substances other than iced tea and ice cream.

Yes, I think drug abuse is bad. But your zero-tolerance policy puts weekend pot-smoking in the category of the absolute worst things an employee could do to harm your company, and I don't think that's true.

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com

Balloonman

I am cool with most of your arguement James, except that off duty drug use can and does cause impairment. Smoking pot on Sunday still affects your optical nerves and impairs depth perception on Monday morning. Do we want someone using powered equipment with that issue. I also require notification of DUI/DWI, because they cannot drive company vehicles if they get one. If they want to pick up a prostitute, I don't care, I don't see them being able to give someone at work VD in the scope of their employment.
My $0.02 worth!
DJ The Balloonman

System

Right. I agree that for people who drive or operate machinery, that's a safety issue where zero tolerance makes sense.

As for work-related VD ... uh, I'd better not touch that one.

James Sokolowski
HRhero.com

Frenchie

I agree with the other posts. There isn't any sense in having a policy if you don't apply it consistently.

We don't hire anyone who fails a pre-employment drug screen. If one of our current associates fail a random, they are referred to a Substance Abuse Professional(SAP) for evaluation, and must follow all recommendations of the SAP to remain employed. They are subject to follow-up testing for up to five years. If they would fail a second test, they would be terminated. Although this may seem extreme for the person that just tried it once on the weekend, it is very effective in helping them decide if they want to continue to dabble with illegal drug use. I would be glad to share our policy with you. I can be reached at (740)670-8128.

earlru

We have a drug and alcohol policy and it is zero tolerance and you are separated from the company.

The one out is a diversion program, however that is only used if the person comes forward before any random, reasonable cause or post accident testing.

They must go to their supervisor and let them know they have a alcohol or drug abuse problem and they are give a specific amount of personal leave in which to enter a rehab program. They may return to work once they can bring documentation of successful completion of the program. If however, they do not complete the program or don't complete within a specific time period they are released from employment.

All this is clearly spelled out in the employee handbook.

It is my personal opinion that a person abusing any substance is putting at risk all of their fellow co-workers. Plus, when I go home at night I think do I want this person on the road with my children play outside or my wife driving on the streets? I can only come up with the answer NO.

In some ways I think I am helping this person by making them think. I know this sounds harsh, however I have seen the destruction this brings into peoples lives.