Drug testing: Employment vs social welfare

[JollyRoger]

So, in the face of factual data indicated that your client did indeed provide a positive sample; you will attempt to discredit the process?

Good luck. Unless your opposition attorney is a complete chimp, I really dont think you will have much success in doing this. No matter how good you are at the song and dance.

I would have the factual data that the company rushed to judgment rather than have a simple confirming test performed. Jurors are employees and would expect their employer to offer them a confirming test in the face of a false positive - all I have to do is put the jurors in my client's shoes. I would have a fighting chance even against a non-chump attorney. In fact, most non-chump defense attorneys would advise their client to take my reasonable settlement offer before trial.

Actually...no. People these days are far more interested in such science due to shows like CSI...in fact, jurys are far more likely to trust in such data than they used to be.

When they find out it is far more boring than CSI, they will basically tune out.

I think you give yourself too much credit. You make yourself out like your Johnnie Cochran reincarnated.

I have yet to lose a plaintiff's case where an employer failed to perform a confirming drug test. Most settled. The two that have gone to trial resulted in money for my client above the last settlement offer. Johnny Cochran's showmanship would have been a detriment to those particular cases.

Again, you would have to prove that the test were faulty. In my experience, that is extremely hard to do. It is going to take a bit more than creative lawyering with a top hat and cane.

If you think I have to prove the test was faulty, you a wrong. I just have to prove the employer was too eager to jump the gun in firing the employee. Not too hard to do as most manager types are easily rolled on cross examination.

An effort worthy of John Edwards.

A very successful trial lawyer, so thanks.

 

[Methos]

Imagine this.. You're going on a date, and when you get there, your date asks you to pee in a cup.

That's how I feel about my employer asking me to pee in one. Disrespected.

Not even comparable. One is on a personal level, wherea the other is professional. Your employer doesn't know you from the guy beside you, all you are is a number to them. Look at it this way, if Sister Theresa or the Pope applied at a company that required drug screens, they'd have to take the test just the same as you. It doesn't matter who you are to the employer, as your just an employee to them and completely expendable.

I agree with you on the date scenario. That would tick me off!

So, in the face of factual data indicated that your client did indeed provide a positive sample; you will attempt to discredit the process?

Wouldn't you? There was a guy in my batallian who tested positive and he appealed it. He showed the enhancers he used. They were discussing granting his appeal until the got further word back from the lab. Basically, meth and the enhancers show up differently in the results and therefore can be easily distinguished.

He has every right to appeal it, or fight it, even if he knows he's in the wrong.

Agreed, but only because I don't think that you could prevent your usage of meth from affecting your job performance. If it was a one time thing and it didn't really affect your work.. Why not? Must people would not fall under this category - meth is highly addictive and most people who use it do so on a regular basis, so in that respect, I agree with you.

First time users are hit hard with meth. They won't stop talking and their up for a day straight. It's the middle users that are able to pass it off easier. By middle I mean they don't do it constantly, but don't do it so little that they scream user.

Another problem with meth is when your coming down. This can affect you long after the high is gone and is also not a good thing for work.

And should we really restrict this to illegal drugs? Someone sniffing paint at work wouldn't make a great employee either.

I agree with you here 100%. The problem is in determing what is or isn't allowed and than determining if it is considered illegal.

 

[warpus]

I agree with you here 100%. The problem is in determing what is or isn't allowed and than determining if it is considered illegal.

Right.

It shouldn't be even an issue if your on-work performance & professionalism isn't affected in a negative fashion.

What is and what isn't allowed should be based entirely on that - how it affects your work.

 

[T.A JONES]

If this goes down We'd all be smart to invest in methadope clinics. Lets get real, none of these guys will go clean once they find they can go on methadone which doesn't show on any standard drug screen, still gets them high and best of gives em their check to go to the casino instead.

Everyones happy especially the new dope pushers with the lisence to admister liquid handcuffs for hefty profits.

 

[mdwh]

if you drink only in the evening hours then the alchol should not show up in your test, unless you are binge drinking. now if you are an alcholic and drink round the clock, your test should show that, alchol stays in your sytem 12 hours.

That's fine then (assuming that we don't have a situation where the test is sprung randomly, and someone's caught out for a few drinks the night before - "should" isn't really good enough here). Is that the same for other drugs too? I'm sure that some drugs tests detect things that last a lot longer (like, weeks), which is the problem.

what drug is less harmful then alchol, considering that both were used in equal moderation.

I'm not an expert on drugs myself, but there are plenty who view alcohol to be more harmful than many illegal drugs - e.g., see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5230006.stm .

Also see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6917003.stm : "Professor David Nutt, head of psychopharmacology at the University of Bristol, said that cannabis was unquestionably harmful but very much less addictive or damaging than either alcohol or tobacco."

i am grey on wether pot should or should not be legal, but i think everything else should go.

What do you mean "should go"? Magically wave a wand to make it disappear? Or criminalising people for taking substances in their own home, as current policy in many countries?

 

[History_Buff]

Not if the private employer was 100% confident in their testing methodology

Perfect tests DO NOT EXIST. You can't even measure the length of your desk without error.


And nobody else here is upset that testing everybody would likely be more expensive than just handing the money out?

 

[El_Machinae]

That would be a bigger concern of mine.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

We are not talking about trying to find performance-enhancing drugs like that. We are talking about finding illegal drugs ala cocaine, marijuana, and meth. The illegal drugs commonly found in the USA; with the exception perhaps of LSD; are very easy to test for and the process for that is virtually fool-proof.

What method is used for testing?

 

[Bamspeedy]

That's fine then (assuming that we don't have a situation where the test is sprung randomly, and someone's caught out for a few drinks the night before - "should" isn't really good enough here).

When they do the drug tests for alcohol, they aren't concerned if you are at .01 BAC because even things like cough syrup has alcohol in it. But you fail it if you are legally drunk. At my work one guy came in one day reeking of alcohol and even though they could have sent him in for testing, they just sent him home for the day (and that was at the place that people here like to demonize, Wal-mart). When my ex had to go through a Justice Sanctions program (get out of jail as long as you report for drug testing everyday) she always drank the night before and still passed the tests...until one day she either drank more than usual (like .20 BAC or something) or drank later into the evening (like 4AM).

 

[History_Buff]

When they do the drug tests for alcohol, they aren't concerned if you are at .01 BAC because even things like cough syrup has alcohol in it. But you fail it if you are legally drunk. At my work one guy came in one day reeking of alcohol and even though they could have sent him in for testing, they just sent him home for the day (and that was at the place that people here like to demonize, Wal-mart). When my ex had to go through a Justice Sanctions program (get out of jail as long as you report for drug testing everyday) she always drank the night before and still passed the tests...until one day she either drank more than usual (like .20 BAC or something) or drank later into the evening (like 4AM).

Over here, you can still be hit with a DUI even if you're Blood Alcohol count is less than the legal limit, because you're still impaired.