*
I have a drug policy that I have adopted in cooperation with my employee leasing company, which enforces a drug-free environment. All employees are subject to drug testing (periodic and post accident.) I have terminated 2 individuals, one who failed post his post accident test, and the other volunteered the information in casual conversation. I would say that the individual who volunteered the information had forgotten that he had signed a policy that states that positive test results “will result in discipline up to and including termination.”
The leasing company that I work with always prefers termination over discipline. I would like to hear your input on your experience with drug policies. Has anybody ever disciplined an employee successfully? I know the industry has had a colorful past, I wonder if that has changed any today.
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
The FHB Podcast crew takes a closer look at an interesting roof.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
*
Jon,
Joseph Fusco
View Image
*JonathanFrom your message : he had signed a policy that states that positive test results "will result in discipline up to and including termination." Casual conversation is not a positive test result. It is hearsay evidence. We would never fire this individual for this. We would not even try to test him, due to the possibility of a charge against the company of discrimination. We test upon employment and thereafter injury only. We do have an options of termination or counseling/rehab. We have used counseling on several occasions with good results. By the way. I joke with my crews constantly about everything under the sun. It would be a sad world if I or any of those working for me were fired for what they said while joking (within reason I have fired one individual for a racial slur, but that was after an intense confrontation, no one was joking).Scott
*What kind of "drugs" do you object to? Alchohol? Caffeine? Pain relievers? Sure glad my company is small enough that I can deal with decission making criteria like productivety, integrity, honesty, reliability and attitude. If someone really does have a "substance abuse" problem, it will surely affect those areas. - jb
*You all may be taking for granted that I merely summarized what actually took place. I could type all night long and still not portray the actual events clearly. We surely weren't joking when he admitted to drug use (and when I say drug, Jim, I'm refering to illegal substances)and we could have gone though the whole process of testing, but we both knew what the results would be. He could of refused to be tested based on grounds of heresey, but there again, refusal to be tested is also grounds for termination. I am a small company and I do pride myself on being personable with me employees. I also feel very strongly that there is a fine line between giving a guy a break and running a business. One other thing before I get back to my original question, the employee was already on "probation"(for lack of a better word) for other issues. Now back to what I really wanted to know. Do your companies have policies regarding this issue? What are your experiences enforcing them.
*JonathanIn that case he didn't "volunteer the information in a casual conversation." did he? It wasn't casual on your part, you were searching, got him to admit it, and then used it against him. This isn't right in my book, regardless of "policy". Play your cards straight up or don't play them when dealing with employees.I did state our policy. We also have the option for random testing(must be truly random), but do not desire to do so.I agree with JB. If there is a problem, it manifests itself in other areas also. I personally do not tolerate drug use on the jobsite because of the risk , and the fact that most of the people involved in the jobs I'm in charge of drive company trucks. However I, again personally, do not care what they do on THEIR weekend. Scott
*An admission of drug use is not hearsay. But I would be careful about unilaterally firing someone for casual drug use rather than a lesser discipline first, such as a one week unpaid furlough with drug counselling. The policy does not mandate termination, and you're not being consistent with the policy if any admission or evidence of drug use results in de fact automatic termination.But for those who think its wrong to use the "casual" admission of drug use against somebody, what would you think if he sawed off another carpenters hand after a bad night? And your liability to the injured person, knowing that the other person used controlled substances, would be huge. It's tough to be hard on people for what they do on their own time, but the influence of drugs don't go away the minute the guy walks on the site. Deal with it.SHG
*Whew, I beginning to think this was a one sided issue on the side of the employee. I too feel like it was far too much of a liability to just brush this conversation under the carpet. I stress again that it was just a conversation over lunch, there was no probing or inqusition. He just said it, like he was bragging or looking for more cronies to enjoy the stuff.
*Joe, I may be mistaken but I believe that alcoholism and in some instances presciption drugs are the only items that can protected under "illness" or "addiction." The drug policy that this individual signed is very clear and protects me as an employer in almost all cases. I really can't see a good lawyer defending an individual that openly admits to using, possible selling, or abusing a controlled substance. The fact that he has a criminal past wouldn't help him either.
*I can E-mail the entire policy to anyone that is curious. It's about 12 pages
* Jon,
Joseph Fusco View Image
*JonathanIt sounds like you had aproblem and you solved it. My real complaint was that your first post did not match the supporting information you gave in later posts, it sounded fishy.SHGI think you're comparing apples to oranges. If an employee is on the site that messed up, then he doesn't fit in the catagory of casual drug use. I think you missed my point. If the person has a drug problem to the extent of cutting off someone else's hand because of it, it would have probably manifested itself in other areas before that i.e. tardiness, absinteeism, poor quality work, poor work habits etc, therefore he would have been gone from the jobsite long before it escalated to the point of danger. These other areas are much easier to validate, especially in my case as where I am is a "right to work" state with the right to terminate at will. I am not a house-builder. Our work and workforce is also a little different than what seems to be the norm in house-building. Most of our employees are have been with us 5+ years and many are in the 10-20 year range. They are very stable and we actually have little concern over the above mentioned problemsScottYou can usually see problems coming.
*DSOB, I understand what you're saying, but sometimes it doesn't work that way. What if the first evidence of drug use turns out to be someone getting injured. If you know its coming, you can't stick your head in the sand. It's not that I'm unsympathetic to people, and that's why I suggest graduating discipline rather than just terminating someone. But if someone get's hurt as a result of another guy's drug use, or the remnants of drug use (loss of focus after a hard night out), I'm more sympathetic to the person who was hurt.As the employer, you have a responsibility to everyone to keep the site safe. That sometimes requires hard decisions, but it only takes one time for something bad to happen. It's like the first-time drunk driver killing a family. Is the family any less dead because the it was the first time the person drove drunk? Not in my book.When you have a long-time workforce, your situation can be different. You know them better, and have a better relationship with your people. This allows you greater insight than most people. But when people come and go, you don't get that kind of lattitude. And you may not get a second chance to make the right decision. And your mistake could cost someone a permanent injury. No one wants to make that kind of mistake. And no one should suffer a serious injury for his employer's mistake.SHG
* SHG,
Joseph Fusco View Image
*You are absolutely right about the primary fault lying with the drug-taking employee, Joe, but as the employer, that doesn't help you much. The employee is not on equal footing as to control of the worksite as the employer. It's just another burden that the boss has to shoulder as part of making the big bucks. By no means do I excuse the guy doing drugs, but the employer owes a duty to all of his employees to provide a safe workplace. When the employer knows of a thread to that workplace, and failed to act upon it, his failure to act becomes a proximate cause of injury and he has breached a duty. It's also true that insurance will likely cover the cost and defense, but who wants to see an employee injured and who wants to be embroiled in a lawsuit. This is not a matter of playing it defensively to protect yourself from a lawsuit, but rather taking the responsibility of being an employer seriously with regard to protecting all of your employees from harm. I'm sure that you are concerned for your people. And that will include the person who is taking drugs as well as the person who may be the victim of mishap. Nobody said it was easy being the boss.SHG
*I've been on jobs where workers were stoned. It was pretty obvious with some, (i.e. couldn't get up ladder) not so obvious with others (one guy peacefully decided to quit, showed up the next day for work. He had no idea.) Seen some good workers who smoked a lot of pot, but most were affected by it in terms of quality/output. Safety is the big issue and I agree with Joe, we can't babysit people with drug problems. That job is for the government!Tough situation in any case. My brother is a lawyer; I have learned from him to be extremely careful. I have gotten screwed, legally, even though completely the victim several times. We need to avoid getting into these jams.As with DSOB, I agree 100% about "what they do on weekends" They could be in the drug record books, just don't show up Monday and hurt somebody. Mad D
*SHGYou are beginning to get the gist of what I'm saying. I do not have my head in the sand. I am in charge of installing heavy machinery. The cranes, jacks, blocking, winches, site built ramps, etc make my jobsites inherantly(sp) dangerous. I do not tolerate drugs on my sites because of this. However I do not, and refuse to ever be in charge of a hard working man's time off. I have a major advantage in that, for each install I assemble a crew of 3 to 8 out of my choice of 50+ employees. I can make my decisions based on personal knowledge of each one. This does not just apply to the topic at hand but to every aspect. I have people I chose if I know we'll be pulling an all-nighter, or if it will be extremely hot, or if we have to start at 4 am, 100 miles from the shop, or if we'll be staying in motels for 3 weeks, or if we'll be pouring concrete, digging trenches, etc. Certain people are better at certain tasks under certain conditions, and I usually have the luxury to chose. Does this mean there are some people I won't chose for a Monday morning crane job? Because of my "personal" knowledge? Yes it does. But it also means there are people I don't chose to pull 500mcm wire in a tight space at 100+ degrees, no matter what they do "recreationally". My job is not to police what they do on their time, it is to get my project done safely and efficiently.As far as your comment on discipline, etc. to precede firing, I basically agree. Actually our program is written up as conseling, treatment, etc. or termination on a positive test, at our discretion, and I like that. I AM NOT going to fire a 10 year employee, with all his training, experience,knowledge, and history, because he smoked a joint. He might not be invited to my jobsite, but he is not going to be fired for HIS weekend. By the way, I don't know if it's because of our "mature" employee base or what, but I have declined more people for personal knowledge of messy divorce, break-up, ex-old lady problems, etc(mind definately not on task at hand) than a little pot,drinking, whatever, off the job.Scott
*ScottThat's basically the same idea. While we've been talking about drugs, the same problem can very well exist with anything that causes an employee to be distracted. But as an employer, that's your call.As to what a person does on his own time, I'm very big on personal privacy. I don't advocate snooping around a guys house on a Saturday night. But once it comes to your attention, and this is a relative thing since there's a difference between a guy who smoke an ocassional joint and a guy who gets bug-eyed from 5 o'clock Friday until 4 in the morning Sunday, you have to realize that it has the potential to put you (as employer) and others (co-workers) at risk.But I strongly agree with you about graduated discipline. This is about helping your workers, not just getting rid of a potential problem.SHG
*Some people like to rationalize drug use by citing alcohol, caffiene, tobacco, but in reality there are drugs that are illegal, and those are which an employer has a drug policy against. Be aware that if you fire one individual for drug use (which is going to have to mean that you actually caught them using it) you will have to fire anyone else under the same circumstances. In the event that you hire a super employee that starts to work 15 minutes before start time and takes 20 minutes out of a 30 minute lunch break, and works to perfection and never asks for a raise... but is caught doing drugs, unless you want a lawsuit (should anyone find out), you will have to fire them. Also be prepared for retaliation, threats, harassment from drug users that you might terminate. Also be prepared to overcompensate for drug users chronic paranoia, absenteism, attitude and moral degradation, deceit, theft and lying. Find a lawyer that doesn't do drugs and get his advice before you hire anyone.
*Working in a small town and working with strangers are two different things, but it still comes down to the same thing.You have to have a company philosophy as well as a policy.We are an "at will" employer state and we are a small company with 3 employees and me. I've worked in most construction enviornments there are, EXCEPT High STEEL. Our policy is unwritten,but everyone can recite it verbatim:"No alcohol or drugs form the time you wake up until after you punch out."A good number of my friends, relatives and aquaintences, are alcoholics, some ex-employees were hard core druggies, but life goes on and people mature, and some do change for the better. One of the most successful manufacturer's in RI was started and run by an alcoholic, and he was one of the insprirations for a friend who started another very successful business. All of these people were given a break by someone and more than once.I've had employees who couldn't,or didn't take control of their problems, but I never had to fire them. I would send them home if they weren't fit. If they couldn't make it, they would get the message and move on to where the atmosphere was more conducive to their habits.If you go into any working man's lunchroom that serves alcohol, you can see some of the other tradesmen drinking their lunch. That is the only way they can get thru the day.If we had a rigid policy of zero tolerance , I would have missed working with some great people. We hope that the examples we set can help those with addictions find a better way. If they do, they make great employees.
*
I have a drug policy that I have adopted in cooperation with my employee leasing company, which enforces a drug-free environment. All employees are subject to drug testing (periodic and post accident.) I have terminated 2 individuals, one who failed post his post accident test, and the other volunteered the information in casual conversation. I would say that the individual who volunteered the information had forgotten that he had signed a policy that states that positive test results "will result in discipline up to and including termination."
The leasing company that I work with always prefers termination over discipline. I would like to hear your input on your experience with drug policies. Has anybody ever disciplined an employee successfully? I know the industry has had a colorful past, I wonder if that has changed any today.