News (Media Awareness Project) - US WV: Editorial: Drugs |
Title: | US WV: Editorial: Drugs |
Published On: | 2001-10-01 |
Source: | Charleston Daily Mail (WV) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-25 07:23:43 |
DRUGS
How Would Second Chances Affect The City's Legal Liability?
A Charleston City Council committee, after the usual earnest consideration,
recommends a "second chance" policy for city employees caught under the
influence of drugs or alcohol at work.
Dave Molgaard, a thoughtful and hard-working member of council, proposed
that city employees who flunk drug tests be given one chance to clean up
their act. But the proposal sets forth quite demanding requirements for
keeping a city job.
Within 48 hours of a positive drug test, the employee would be suspended
without pay and required to:
Waive all rights to grievances or other hearings.
Report promptly to a professional substance abuse counselor.
Agree to a treatment plan, usually a 30-day outpatient program.
Pay for the treatment. The employee would not be allowed to submit claims
to the city's health insurance plan.
Submit to drug testing at least six times during the first year.
Release the counselor's evaluations to the city.
Follow the counseling program to the letter.
Employees who tested positive a second time would be fired.
Molgaard said the city shouldn't fire people for doing something on their
own time that might show up on a drug test but did not affect their
performance at work.
"People do stupid things," he said. "I don't think we should destroy lives
for it."
If the full council approves tonight, the city will start computer-
selected random testing of the 800 (out of 900) city workers who drive city
vehicles or have safety-sensitive jobs.
The committee forwarded the proposal with a 5-1 vote, thoughtful and
hard-working council member Ditty Markham in opposition.
"The rate of recidivism is so high," she said. "In areas of high security,
I really don't think you can risk a second chance."
Good point.
If the city knew an employee had a drug problem and put him or her back on
the job anyway, it could hardly argue in court that it wasn't aware of the
dangers the employee presented to the public.
Second chances sound good. Losing lawsuit after lawsuit does not.
How Would Second Chances Affect The City's Legal Liability?
A Charleston City Council committee, after the usual earnest consideration,
recommends a "second chance" policy for city employees caught under the
influence of drugs or alcohol at work.
Dave Molgaard, a thoughtful and hard-working member of council, proposed
that city employees who flunk drug tests be given one chance to clean up
their act. But the proposal sets forth quite demanding requirements for
keeping a city job.
Within 48 hours of a positive drug test, the employee would be suspended
without pay and required to:
Waive all rights to grievances or other hearings.
Report promptly to a professional substance abuse counselor.
Agree to a treatment plan, usually a 30-day outpatient program.
Pay for the treatment. The employee would not be allowed to submit claims
to the city's health insurance plan.
Submit to drug testing at least six times during the first year.
Release the counselor's evaluations to the city.
Follow the counseling program to the letter.
Employees who tested positive a second time would be fired.
Molgaard said the city shouldn't fire people for doing something on their
own time that might show up on a drug test but did not affect their
performance at work.
"People do stupid things," he said. "I don't think we should destroy lives
for it."
If the full council approves tonight, the city will start computer-
selected random testing of the 800 (out of 900) city workers who drive city
vehicles or have safety-sensitive jobs.
The committee forwarded the proposal with a 5-1 vote, thoughtful and
hard-working council member Ditty Markham in opposition.
"The rate of recidivism is so high," she said. "In areas of high security,
I really don't think you can risk a second chance."
Good point.
If the city knew an employee had a drug problem and put him or her back on
the job anyway, it could hardly argue in court that it wasn't aware of the
dangers the employee presented to the public.
Second chances sound good. Losing lawsuit after lawsuit does not.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...