What do you think about Zero Tolerance? I am referring to Zero Tolerance regarding drug test. Me and a friend of mine was talking about it the other day. He was saying it was needed to keep the drugies out of the system and keep the non users safe. It sounds great but if you start looking into it i have to question if Zero Tolerance is very good.
Once you establish Zero Tolerance, you have no room for gray areas. Zero Tolerance is the end. You pop positive for anything and you are terminated. If you have a script for it your ok of course but what about the gray areas?
Example, a single parent has a teenager that get a bad cough and flu during the winter. The doctor prescribes the teen a narcotic based cough syrup. What are the chances of the parent getting the same bug? The parent gets the bug and uses the left over cough syrup from the teen. 2 days later the parent pops positive on a drug test. No script for the parent so they are terminated. This doesn't seem fair to me.
Another scenario. 2 years ago Joe has a surgical procedure. The doctor prescribed Loritab for pain with say 3 refills. After Joe refilled the third time he didn't need the pills anymore so he had about 20 pills left over. Joe put the bottle in his suitcase because he travelled a lot and thought he might need them. In the present Joe strains his back. He remembers the pain pills in his suitcase and takes a couple. Because the bottle was in the suitcase, the label has been scratched off. Joe gets popped on a random and doesn't have a script. Joe is terminated.
Two completely innocent scenarios that shows neither person is a drugie but both get terminated. Two valuable employees let go because idiots abuse the system.
This is why i am against Zero Tolerance. Each situation in my opinion should be evaluated to see if there is in fact drug use that would warrant termination.
I agree that we do not want or need drug use in the workplace or anywhere. We need a better mousetrap to catch the rats. Hopefully the new hair folicle test can eliminate the pitfalls of the urine test.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
So who gets to be the one to decide whether there are special circumstances or not?
I disagree with the 'Zero Tolerance' to an extent.
That's how favoritism gets started in the work place also and that 'favoritism' might not always be just. It may be that a supervisor, or whoever it is that has to make the decision to fire or keep the guy/gal, may just decide to keep the person after scenario one or two because they're good drinking buddies after work. The idiot may still be a waste of space, time, and/or money.
Who's gonna make sure that the supervisor isn't playing "let's stay friends" instead of unbiasedly making a case by case decision?
And for that matter what aout the idiots who always show up to work hung over or borderline drunk--working off the night before's binge? I know a few of them myself. How would you deal with that? Does it fall into the 'Zero Tolerance' suggestion box?
Later Gater
Some companies have used local drug coucelors to determine if a person is addicted or not. I am not trying to write policy here, i am simply debating it. As for showing up hungover, that is a lifestyle issue. I like to take the hungover person and give them a really crappy job to make their day less desirable.
Post a Comment