Union gave away random drug testing

[Emergent, RN]

Our hospital pushed hard for random drug testing in our latest contract. The union gave in, in favor of some other items.

They have started pulling people from their sfifts, escorting to employee health nurse, and demanding urine.

My feelings are mixed. I'm against drug use generally, but actually don't care what people do on their days off. As long as you aren't diverting or impaired on the job, that's good enough for me. I don't see how random testing people who aren't acting suspiciously helps.

There are a lot of things that can impair you at work that don't involve drugs. Sleep deprivation comes to mind. Personal turmoil in one's life can distract a person from doing a good job at work.

Another thing, I've read on the recovery site here that there are things that can interfere with an accurate drug test. Eating certain foods can cause a false positive. It seems like it might be a big complication for innocent people.

As a side note it seems like the union gives up more and more every contract.

[HouTx, BSN, MSN, EdD]

Interesting. I wonder what prompted this. Was there an upsurge in the number of impaired staff? Otherwise, I can't really understand how they're justifying the expense. My organization (no unions at this point) only does testing 'for cause' - with very specific triggering criteria.

I totally agree about all the other things that can affect mental acuity. IMO, employers that implement random anything (locker searches, parking inspections, etc) aimed at enforcing employee regulations are creating an adversarial culture that really enforces the "us versus them" attitude toward management. It's puzzling to me when companies deliberately move in this direction.

[Horseshoe, BSN, RN]

My feelings are mixed. I'm against drug use generally, but actually don't care what people do on their days off. As long as you aren't diverting or impaired on the job, that's good enough for me.

Ok, but it's not your hospital. When you own your own business, you get to call the shots. Otherwise, you either go with it or vote with your feet.

It seems maybe something specifically related to drug use, problems with narcotics counts, excessive callouts, surge in health insurance claims, etc., may have been the catalyst for this expensive course of action.

[MrNurse(x2), ADN]

I am a proponent of testing. All BON's are pretty clear, on or off duty, narcotics are not OK. The incidence of abuse amongst nurses is higher than national average and therefore, should be policed. Unions get a lot for their employees without much compromise given the employer, this is small change in the big picture. Yeah for the hospital.

[SmilingBluEyes]

I am a proponent of testing. All BON's are pretty clear, on or off duty, narcotics are not OK. The incidence of abuse amongst nurses is higher than national average and therefore, should be policed. Unions get a lot for their employees without much compromise given the employer, this is small change in the big picture. Yeah for the hospital.

No, actually, the incidence of nurses abusing and becoming addicted to substances, is roughly the same as in any population, which is around 10%. Basing random drug testing may be accurate in that we have more ACCESS to certain drugs, but our rate of abuse/addiction is really NOT greater, so your post is inaccurate.

[SmilingBluEyes]

I believe EVERY nurse (actually all healthcare providers) should be required to have a certain number of CEUs or some sort of documented continuing education on drug addiction and treatment, as well as recognizing the signs of abuse and diversion, designed especially for health care providers. It should start in nursing school and be required throughout the career.

There is so much misinformation and ignorance about the manifestations, precedence, and occurrence of substance abuse among health care providers. It is important we understand substance abuse among health care providers (not just nurses)---- and treat our colleagues so afflicted with compassion and understanding, not just stigma and out and out ignorance.

So many come on here with posts about their suspicion of diversion and drug use with a coworker, and it would be helpful to be able to recognize the signs, and know the right actions to take once a person falls under such suspicion.

Ok off soapbox now.....

[Wile E Coyote, ASN, RN]

I agree with Emergent, the absence of reasonable suspicion negates my employer's need to pry into my life.

Exacerbated by my military service, I personally am an 'orthopedic nightmare' with disabilities to every major joint group, yet stubbornly refuse chronic narcs and have greatly limited them acutely post-op. However, that's my personal decision and am unwilling to impose my preferences on others. If red flags raise, then by all means investigate.

[FolksBtrippin, BSN, RN]

Ok, but it's not your hospital. When you own your own business, you get to call the shots. Otherwise, you either go with it or vote with your feet.

It seems maybe something specifically related to drug use, problems with narcotics counts, excessive callouts, surge in health insurance claims, etc., may have been the catalyst for this expensive course of action.

Not really.

How do you figure that the hospital gets to call the shots when this was negotiated by the union?

That's not how the employer/employee relationship works.

[Here.I.Stand, BSN, RN]

I'd be irritated about being pulled away from pt care to drop trou. Pick my day off, and I would require payment at my hourly rate for the time in transit and at the lab. Because I don't do any work off the clock.

I mean I have nothing to hide -- the Ambien I take and any opioid painkillers I have taken all come with a valid Rx, and are ONLY taken on my days off. And the grocery store my mom has worked for for 25 yrs also does random UDSs, so don't see it as a sign of disrespect to RNs/LPNs... although I would hope that ALL employees would be subject to UDSs -- particularly pharmacy staff who has access to the controlled substances as well. If only nurses have this policy, I would really hope your union grows a spine because that is NOT okay.

[Horseshoe, BSN, RN]

Not really.

How do you figure that the hospital gets to call the shots when this was negotiated by the union?

That's not how the employer/employee relationship works.

Sounds like this is something the hospital wanted, and the union didn't think they'd be successful in fighting it. In any case, what individual employees are ok with as it relates to their coworker's illegal activities during their off time is clearly irrelevant.

It would make sense that there must be SOME reason the hospital is willing to shell out the bucks to do this. Something to do with drug use/drug diversion has obviously been presenting a problem on some level.

[Horseshoe, BSN, RN]

although I would hope that ALL employees would be subject to UDSs -- particularly pharmacy staff who has access to the controlled substances as well. If only nurses have this policy, I would really hope your union grows a spine because that is NOT okay.

That is a very good point.

[MunoRN, RN]

I am a proponent of testing. All BON's are pretty clear, on or off duty, narcotics are not OK. The incidence of abuse amongst nurses is higher than national average and therefore, should be policed. Unions get a lot for their employees without much compromise given the employer, this is small change in the big picture. Yeah for the hospital.

I don't think any broad prohibition of narcotics, which would include prescribed narcotics, exists among all BONs.