My boss wants to start random drug testing of staff.

[donco6]

Do any of your school districts have this? Random testing of all staff?

[KansDem]

1. Why?

What's the reason? :shrug:

[donco6]

2. Well, I'm not really sure.

We already have it for bus drivers, of course - it's required for their CO license. But she wants it for everyone operating heavy machinery (i.e., driving a vehicle), which would mean pretty much everyone. Even teachers drive district vehicles fairly often.

She went to a conference in San Diego last week and I guess a lot of people were talking about it there.

[donco6]

4. OH! Just got a text.

Turns out, someone told her a story about some school admin who had a party somewhere and people were smoking pot there.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. Cause we all know that educators who smoke pot at parties are poor teachers?

:crazy:

[donco6]

11. ?? I guess that's the idea.

I don't think she has any idea what she's in for.

[jtuck004]

14. We don't know. Obviously a need for more research in this area... :) n.t.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. Volunteeering?

LOL

[jtuck004]

19. Sure. But now we have to find a grant writer....

Wonder what we could pay them with ;)

[Scuba]

5. Tell her leadership is more than...

...following some trend she heard about at a conference. I also agree the money would be better spent on education. I've never heard of any problems, anywhere, regarding teachers on drugs.

[jtuck004]

3. What a great way to keep from spending tax money on education. n.t.

[RC]

12. Ain't it though?

It seems whenever administrators get together, they always come back with stupid ideas to "help" the teachers teach or "better educate" the kids.
The administrators always seem to come back with some new untried experiments that looked good on paper to someone or other and distributed by overeducated panels of experts that have no real world experience.

[baldguy]

6. Tell her "You first!"

[Catshrink]

7. It could be a liability thing too

especially for those driving kids in vans. There's a lot of CYA going on out there.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. My district talked about it 15 or so years ago

Our union president went to the board and told them there was a 5% false positive rate for drug testing. He asked if they were willing to falsely accuse 150 employees of abusing drugs.

They dropped the idea and have never brought it up again.

I have no idea if there is still a 5% false positive rate but I do know more than one person who has failed a drug test at work in spite of not being a drug user. So I adamantly oppose drug testing by employers.

[donco6]

9. Especially here in Colorado.

We have legal medical marijuana. So, if someone tests positive and has a prescription card . . . what does that mean? He gets away with it while someone else doing the same thing gets fired? No THERE'S some liability for ya.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. Is it requried for students participating in extra cirricular activities?

If so the all the employees should have it too,including the school board members.

[donco6]

15. No.

So far, we only test bus drivers. And there's no talk of testing students at all.

Frankly, our graduation rate is so shitty, we can't afford to provide more disincentives to come to school.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Then none for the teachers/staff

There needs to be some balance

[donco6]

18. I'm with you.

But - well, sometimes rationality doesn't prevail when it comes to boards of education.

[Hannah Bell]

26. extracurricular, professor.

[mzteris]

20. Most employees are drug-tested

why should teachers be exempt?

[jtuck004]

21. Why should "most" employees be drug tested?

It is a sign that you are not trustworthy. I think it is a bad signal to send to people before you put them on. And nearly any job I have ever seen that required it wasn't worth having. And there are so many worse things someone in charge of children can do other than a little weed or some blow, and a lot of things you can't test for. Why even start?

And if you are going to do that, shouldn't it just become a Federal mandate that everyone in the U.S. is drug tested every 2 months? Because a single drug test tells you nothing, even random ones let a percentage slip by (someone has to decide that is acceptable).
People who are not employees have to drive and interact, and if we are so freakin' paranoid about drug use, perhaps we should
test everyone, including business people and heads of state who dare enter our virgin territory?

But even with such a wide-ranging and far reaching test you would miss Timothy McVeigh. And the guy that flew the plane into the IRS building in Texas. And thousands of others who were just as straight as an arrow when they committed their special murders.

I could maybe see it for drivers and operators of heavy equipment, but it has gone too far beyond that now.

I think a far better test would be reflexes and a little psych eval performed on everyone in any company every few months, except for special categories that get it b4 each shift along with a breathalyzer. Then counseling for any positives before any "firing" is done. 'Cause who is gonna fire the CEO over a little recreational weed? And if his job is not on the line, why is it more important to get the secretary?

I think there are better ways to find out what we need to know.

[mzteris]

23. I didn't say they "should" - I said they "are".

[jtuck004]

25. Yes, I caught that. I just think it's a wrong way to proceed. From a civil

rights standpoint it's a terrible incursion. From a business perspective I think it's a real waste of money, and substitutes doing "something" instead of doing the right thing.

[montanto]

22. Now there's an argument.

So many fallacies packed into 10 words.

Just start by eliminating the faulty premise though and you won't have to worry about the others.

[donco6]

24. Not around here they're not. n/t