Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Drug Testing for Employees

This is topic Drug Testing for Employees in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001380

Posted by Timothy Ervin (Member # 733) on 03-13-2005, 08:38 PM:

Do you or your company require drug tests for employees?

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 03-13-2005, 09:08 PM:

No.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-13-2005, 09:50 PM:

Most of the companies I've worked for in the last 13 years have required a drug test at time of hire. In fact, I got hired at PanAmSat when I did because my predecessor failed his test. Of course, when I was flying professionally pilots were (and still are) subject to random drug testing as well.

Most of the tests I took were pee-in-the-bottle; Caesars Palace Omnimax required a hair sample.

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 03-13-2005, 09:58 PM:

No drug testing required.

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 03-14-2005, 02:28 AM:

No, but there needs to be.

Posted by Stephen Frazza (Member # 2320) on 03-14-2005, 03:00 AM:

No, none of the theaters i've ever worked out has.And there shouldn't ever be.

Posted by James Faber (Member # 2796) on 03-14-2005, 03:15 AM:

A theater that requires drug testing, is a theater that is losing most of it's employees(ground floor staff, of course, never a projectionist!), in my experience

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 03-14-2005, 05:09 AM:

No drug testing here, we know the ones that use drugs anyway. I really don't care what the employees do, as long as they are sober and professional at work.

I think the most effective drug testing would be just to say "Everyone show up at 9 am tomorrow for a drug test" and see who shows up (or just watch the expressions on their faces)!

Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 03-14-2005, 07:50 AM:

It would be too cost prohibitive for what we pay employees. I would prefer to never have dopers work for me, but it's hard to justify if they are fine at work. Most of the time, the dopers will miss work with no call and give a good reason to can them.

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 03-14-2005, 08:21 AM:

at either place I've worked for, they haven't, and I honestly don't think that it would really matter. Mgmt is another animal though, I think once you are at that level, you should have random testing. I'm sure we all have experimented, but once you get to a certain point...what's more important? On the other hand, if it doesn't effect the workplace.....well, it's not affecting the workplace [Big Grin]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-14-2005, 11:38 AM:

Since the test costs as much as a week's pay for most floor/booth staff, and said staff is easily replaceable under today's standards, I can see where theaters wouldn't bother with it. In the transportation industry we have no choice. Even $7.00/hour ramp rats get tested.

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 03-14-2005, 12:33 PM:

The City of Orlando Utilities won't hire people who even Smoke Cigaretes now....

Posted by Matt Whitney (Member # 2909) on 03-14-2005, 01:29 PM:

Here all employees get tested at time of hire or promotion. No further testing after that though.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 03-14-2005, 05:23 PM:

I personally think drug testing is stupid.
It's really none of your employer's business what you do with your own time.
If an employee's drug use is having a negative effect on his or her job performance, it will show and there will be reason to fire him or her anyway.
I've heard the argument that drugs are illegal, but that doesn't really work here.
It is also illegal for anyone under 21 to drink alcohol, but no one tests for that.
I've also never heard of anyone under 21 losing his or her job because because his or her employer found out the he or she drinks when he or she is off the clock.

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 03-14-2005, 05:42 PM:

No drug tests at my theater but..

At my other job we sell a 'detox' drink, which, if you do have a peepee test, you can drink it and it the test should come out negative for drugs.

So either way, if and when jobs and/or paroll officers test for drugs, then the person can come on down and get a drink to make them pass. I hate hate hate hate HATE selling that stuff, it's just a big pain in the ass. ugh

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 03-14-2005, 05:44 PM:

No drug testing here. We have fired an assistant manager and concession worker for selling pot on the grounds. I recall that a few years back having a concession employee meeting a "friend" in the restroom. We knew they were selling pot, so I had mentioned that the corporate office was starting Drug Testing for all employees, two days later one of them gave his two week notice. The other quit a few weeks later. I don't care what an employee does on their own time, but they better not show up under the influence. I have one employee that always comes in to see a movie with a bud, er... friend, and is high as a kite. I don't think that it is very professional of him to arrive HIGH at his work place, even if its on his own time. His days are numbered, and not because of drugs. I guess that drugs are just a part of everyday life for teens. They can always get another job and don't seem to be too worried about getting canned. Oh well. I'm no angel. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 03-15-2005, 02:19 AM:

I agree with James, & the only substance I abuse is gasoline.

Except for the transportation industry & some others where public safety is critically concerned, I think that drug testing is stupid &/or abusive.

What, gonna drug screen projectionist applicants so you don't get one whose work will be affected, resulting in out-of-frame splices & scratched prints?

All that's taken care of in just firing those who can't fulfill the requirements of the job.

The argument that they'll be more likely to steal is idiotic, too. People not under the influence steal. They may not fire the incompetent or destructively negligent, but Mike Spaeth & Jim Zeigler will have a thief under the bright light in an instant.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-15-2005, 11:56 AM:

Even in transportation, I think drug testing is abusive and not particularly effective. In college my most famous (or infamous) research paper was an argument against drug testing for professional pilots (which was just starting at the time), citing the numerous problems for pilots that test "false positive", something that happens more often than it should. The list included things like the stigma and suspicion that come with a failed test result (even when that test result later turns out to be false), or the fact that a pilot gets several weeks of unpaid "vacation" until a negative test result can be verified, assuming he doesn't automatically get fired first.

Instead, I advocated the use of duty-fitness testing at the time of check-in. Essentially the worker plays a video game that measures the accuracy and timeliness of his responses, calibrated against his usual responses to the game. Fail it and you don't work that day. The beauty of it is it doesn't falsely label you with the tag of "suspected drug user". It just says that for whatever reason you're having a bad day that day. No lengthy grounding while waiting for a lab to verify test results. At the time, some progressive companies (like the San Diego Trolly Company) were using this kind of testing with good results.

Obviously no one in the FAA or the air transportation industry bought my arguments. But I'm used to that. [Wink]

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 03-15-2005, 11:58 AM:

quote: Don Anderson
I guess that drugs are just a part of everyday life for teens.

Well, it's not limited to teens.
That's a pretty unfair stereotype if you think about it.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 03-15-2005, 12:02 PM:

quote: Paul Mayer
At the time, some progressive companies (like the San Diego Trolly Company) were using this kind of testing with good results.

By "good results", do you mean they were consistently at least as accurate as random drug screening? If this kind of testing is not also accompanied by a drug screen when someone "fails", how would there be any way to know if the testing is effective?

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 03-15-2005, 02:02 PM:

Not sure, can't remember enough about their program now to comment (that paper was written in 1992, and I've since lost both it and all of my original notes). At the time they were on record as being very satisfied with their testing program. Wish I could remember which medical journal I used for the citation--it might have been JAMA. I was looking for any published comments on the efficacy of random drug testing, obviously looking specifically for instances that supported my arguments for alternatives.

All a moot point now anyway--SDTI now uses drug testing, as required by the FTA. They also immediately terminate any employee that tests positive during the random checks, which is typical transportation industry practice.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 03-16-2005, 03:04 AM:

quote: James R. Hammonds, Jr
Well, it's not limited to teens.
That's a pretty unfair stereotype if you think about it.

Agreed, & up towards the top of social respectability which by the nature of achieving the position takes a time that moves past youth, every city has a story about some DA &/or judge that showed up most days coked to the gills, drunk, otherwise out of it.

quote: Paul Mayer
Instead, I advocated the use of duty-fitness testing at the time of check-in. Essentially the worker plays a video game that measures the accuracy and timeliness of his responses, calibrated against his usual responses to the game. Fail it and you don't work that day.

That's the best functional procedure I've heard of! It weeds out people who've got no business working that day because they don't care about their performance for other reasons: the most notorious is people who don't get any sleep because of something else they wanted to do & show up dead tired & unfit for work. "Man, last night I had to go get the boat & pack up my kids, it was then too late & I didn't think the alarm clock would go off, so we just went out to eat & then came back & watched some TV before I came in. I really shouldn't be here!"

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 03-16-2005, 03:47 AM:

quote: David Stambaugh
By "good results", do you mean they were consistently at least as accurate as random drug screening? If this kind of testing is not also accompanied by a drug screen when someone "fails", how would there be any way to know if the testing is effective?

i think the point is that it's not a drug test at all. it's a fitness test. what really matters is whether the job can be performed safely and effectively, not whether someone has been drinking, say. (i avoided the term "drunk" because that pretty much implies impairment.)

carl

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-16-2005, 04:21 AM:

quote: James R. Hammonds, Jr
Well, it's not limited to teens.

That's true! Contrary to popular belief, teens do not have a monopoly on stupidity.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 03-16-2005, 02:04 PM:

I know....many adults do drugs as well....both legal and illegal.

[ 03-17-2005, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: James R. Hammonds, Jr ]