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.
...why should regular staff get a pass when contract, travel & PD get tested more than parolees?
Because that hospital doesn't know you. No hospital you go to does. Drug testing makes sense for new empoyees. That's the standard for I think all but one of the numerous places I've worked at. I was drug tested in retail, drug tested in fast food. The only place that didn't drug test me was a college, and I don't think they'd have liked to find out how many of their student employees used drugs recreationally xD.
However, there is merit to the fact that if my hospital has no reason to suspect I'm using drugs, they shouldn't have any reason to randomly test me. I don't like medicines, so I don't even use the narcotics I get scripts for most of the time. They're not going to bother me by doing a random drug screen because they're not going to find anything. The issue comes when I don't do drugs and they do find something. Maybe they do another test that's more sensitive, but maybe they don't. I've seen cases where they just used it as grounds to fire someone without ever taking that step. And if they're reporting it to a BON, you'd better believe it's going to create a massive legal mess, because BONs are even more unwilling to listen to people when they say this was just a mess up.
I wouldn't have a problem with random drug testing. I am thinking that there has been an uptick in your hospital or geographic area that has led to this being implemented. If you have nothing to hide, what's a little pee?
It's the DEA they account to, as a new nurse I once had a Morphine pill roll under the Pyxis machine; looked everywhere as it had rolled into some dusty corner of the med room and they freaked. The pharmacist said "what are we going to tell the DEA!"
I said "tell them it's lost."
The DEA once had actual police-like work chasing down Colombian cartel cocaine dealers until they discovered they could sit behind a desk all day harassing doctors and hospitals in the interest of accounting for every last microgram of controlled drugs...I'm sure there are DEA records somewhere of that 1 mg of Dilaudid.
Whoever stated it's just 'unacceptable' for anything to be unaccounted for apparently never dropped a PO narc and had it roll away. It would be a laughable as an episode of Dragnet if she/he were not so serious...
I guess I am not sure what I think of random drug testing policies and reading the posts here have made things clear as mud for me. On the one hand, why should nurses be exempt over bus drivers and air traffic controllers? On the other hand it isn't fair to assume nurses are a high risk group making random tests justifiable. False positives do happen and can have really negative outcomes for a totally innocent person. A positive drug test is definitely one of those guilty until proven innocent situations.
The question I have that would make me decide if I feel this policy is OK for this situation is a simple one. Is the hospital unfairly targeting nurses or are they implementing random testing for all staff? After all, just because the housekeeper or dietary aid doesn't have access to drugs on the job does that mean it's OK for them to come to work high as a kite since they are not a diversion risk? What about the doctors and pharmacy staff that most decidedly do have access to drugs on the job, are they testing them as well?
If the hospital is actually randomly testing every employee then I don't have a problem with the policy but if it is only nursing then I do have a problem with it. The perception that only nursing staff needs to be held accountable for possible illegal drug use is insulting.
I've worked at a place that pushed for broad random testing, they were pretty straightforward about the reason why; it's cheaper to 'randomly' weed out (no pun intended) a portion of their staff and replace them with newer nurses who are at the bottom or near the bottom of the pay scale. They don't have any legal mechanism to just get rid of a portion of their staff, so this is the alternative.
Really? I must be naive....Do you really think a hospital would do this as a way to get rid of employees?
Your cavalier attitude will not do anything for your BON, their stance is for patient safety and they are pretty clear, any opioid in your system, on or off duty is enough for discipline. They don't care if they are needed so you can work,they don't care if this is what is keeping you off disability.
varies by state. the only state i know that does it your way is Florida.
Enough with this "I don't work off the clock" and "my time is my business." Nursing is a profession, not a job...therefore you are a nurse 24/7. In my state (Washington) cannabis is 100% legal for adults, but most employers have a policy against it for nurses, including my employer which is an educational institution and the teachers have no direct patient care. However, in cases of natural disaster or public emergency, war, terrorism, election outcome tantrums, whatever, ALL nurses are on the clock. Yes, at the beck and call of public need. So it is in the public interest that you are not impaired on your "time off."
Irony of ironies....the only job in nursing (and I have had lots, being a COB) that did NOT require a drug test prior to starting, was at an opioid treatment center that involved access to gallons of controlled substance. They looked at me weird when I asked if I would need a drug screen and said "why on earth would you take drugs?"
Thathat happened to me when I handed a patient her cup of meds and she dropped it scattering all which included Ativan and another controlled substance. My charge nurse and I were on our hands and knees to find each med so we could waste them.
I have lost plenty of controlled substances...Percocet rolled under a counter, vial of morphine dropped and broke, PCA leaked dilaudid on the floor, wasted Ativan without a witness. Noted in PYXIS, told my charge, end of story. Never had any repercussions.
Once, like 30 years ago, I was cleaning out cupboards in a physician's office and found very expired vial of morphine. Like a good girl, I DROVE this little vial to the DEA office in the city where I lived. They looked at this 20 mL of morphine, tossed it in a bin and said please don't ever do this again, we seriously do not care about one vial of morphine.
I agree with your opening sentence, but then you kind of lose me. Yes, the hospital would like to get rid of users of illegal or unprescribed drugs.
So are you thinking that there are so many in this category that admin can then sort through, and pick the ones they don't like? Then, they take the ones they don't like and fire them, At the same time, they take drug users they do like, and offer a second chance?
I don't have a lot of respect for admin in general. I don't think they have my interests at heart. And, for the most part, I don't always think they have PT safety as a priority. But if I understand your claims, it all seems a bit far fetched.
No, I'm not necessarily saying that there are a whole bunch of users of illicit / unprescribed drugs in the nuring profession, so much as I am saying that in a "just cause" environment employers who really want to get rid of someone are a lot like bloodhounds sniffing around for a crumb... or like prosecuters looking for a crack to exploit in your story. They, when unable to get rid of a person for their own personal reasons, will seek any means they can find to "justifiably" terminate a person.
To be quite honest, the reason why I say they will offer some people help and others the door is because they cannot discriminate in who they "randomly" test if the language does not require "suspicious behavior"... would it not be grievable if they only tested people who were known to be disliked? That being said, lets pretend we have two workers who are genuinely drug-free. Both have spouses with prescribed medical marijuana. Both test positive for marijuana due to near proximity of their spouse's smoking. If the company really likes one nurse, maybe he / she is given a second chance... but if they've really been wanting to get rid of the other... well... they now have Just Cause.
Random drug testing doesnt entirely prevent individuals from working while impaired or catch individuals who are abusing medications... especially seeing how many abusers are prescibed the drug they are abusing... often these tests are meant to detect whether something is present in the system... not whether it is in the system at prescribed levels. Likewise, there are people who may use or be in "contact" with a drug and show up to work a day or two later unimpaired, posing no risk to patient safety.
This is why the typical "random" drug test is performed more to the degree of confirming a suspicion based on an observed behavior. For this reason, randomly pulling people off the floor simply because they are present almost certainly points to an alternative motive.
I do not happen to use any form of drug, but I do understand that sometimes life happens... and that a single moment in time outside of work should not be used to dictate the course of a persons life and destroy years of hard work and education simply because an employer cannot legitimately get rid of you otherwise.
I think that's terrible . Someone is doing their job & all of the sudden the pee police runs up on you & demands a specimen. Testing pre employment or for just cause is one thing. Completely random is a violation in my book.
Amnesty
170 Posts
Because that hospital doesn't know you. No hospital you go to does. Drug testing makes sense for new empoyees. That's the standard for I think all but one of the numerous places I've worked at. I was drug tested in retail, drug tested in fast food. The only place that didn't drug test me was a college, and I don't think they'd have liked to find out how many of their student employees used drugs recreationally xD.
However, there is merit to the fact that if my hospital has no reason to suspect I'm using drugs, they shouldn't have any reason to randomly test me. I don't like medicines, so I don't even use the narcotics I get scripts for most of the time. They're not going to bother me by doing a random drug screen because they're not going to find anything. The issue comes when I don't do drugs and they do find something. Maybe they do another test that's more sensitive, but maybe they don't. I've seen cases where they just used it as grounds to fire someone without ever taking that step. And if they're reporting it to a BON, you'd better believe it's going to create a massive legal mess, because BONs are even more unwilling to listen to people when they say this was just a mess up.