Well, I WAS having a good day, until this meeting

[Slartibartfast]

Okay, that's not strictly true, I was pulling my hair out until the kids swarming my library go back to school.  But I got to close down my library for an hour and drive over to town hall for a mandatory employee meeting, which very quickly ruined what was left of my day.

I should note that the "town" is very small (less than 500 people and less than two square miles), and has only six employees - me (the librarian), two police officers, the clerk, the maintenance man, and the magistrate.  So the meeting was us six employees, plus the mayor (our boss).

First bummer: the town will require mandatory random drug testing for all employees.  No explanation given other than "we've never done this before so we decided to."  I don't do drugs, and none of the other five employees do either, so I don't see the sudden need for this.  I am seriously considering making a stink and trying to find out if there is another way I can prove I don't use drugs - I have major issues with peeing in a cup for my boss.

Second bummer: due to some state law changes, the "charity bingo" (read: room with lots of slot machines with pictures of bingo cards on them) in the town limits closed down about a month ago.  Turns out taxes and fees from this made up over 50% of the town's revenue, and that good revenue was the reason my application for full-time status with benefits instead of part-time was approved this fall.  And the mayor said she's not going to let the town go bankrupt on her watch (insinuating, I guess, that it's coming close?) and she doesn't want to cut any employees, but she can't guarantee it.  So that's got me very worried about my job security.

Third bummer: the magistrate, whom I'll call Lola.  The mayor finished her part of the meeting and asked if anyone wanted to add something.  Lola felt the need to subject us to a fifteen-minute rant about how the world is unfair.

1)  She believes people are parking in front of "her" door just to be mean.  Now, the parking area in front of the town hall is in a D shape - the curved part of the D is a fire lane that goes up next to the building, and the straight part has spaces for about a dozen cars.  The police officers keep parking their patrol cars in the curved part of the D, which is in front of THEIR office, which (surprise) happens to be the same one she's in.  But we're all out to get her, because she has an oxygen tank and she's the only disabled employee and the handicapped spaces (which are literally twenty feet from the fire lane) are just "for show."  The mayor quite rightly pointed out that since it's a fire lane, NOBODY should be parking there.

2)  She "just happened" to be snooping through some papers on the clerk's desk, and "happened to notice" a complaint that had been filed against her, and wanted to know what Mrs. Soandso said because [gives the whole long story about how she had called this lady something very rude but "she deserved it" and "I heard she called me a" such-and-such, etc].  First of all, why the HECK was she snooping, and why would she tell us all?  Secondly, what makes her think this should be shared in front of all the employees?  I don't want to know about her issues working with the police officers, or the details about what this lady did - part of Lola's job is to deal with CONFIDENTIAL information.  Great confidentiality she's showing.

3)  LONG rant directly at me about how unfair it is that when she applied for health insurance and benefits she was told no, but when "the little girl at the library" (yeah, that's 25-year-old me) asked, I was given full-time with benefits.  First off, I have NO say over what the town council decides about employee hours.  Secondly, Lola has missed, on average, two out of three workdays for the last year or two because of her "disability."  (She was a long-time smoker and is now on oxygen and some other medications to combat the health issues she has.  I have no idea whether it's legal disability or not, but she certainly does have health issues.)  She is also the reason we have to be reprimanded as a group EVERY MEETING about showing up to our jobs on time - she'd be scheduled to come in at 9:00, and call at 11:00 to say she'd be in at 2:00.  I'm amazed she's still around.  The mayor pretty much told her "everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I stand by my decision to support Miss Slartibart being full-time because we needed it and I know she can handle the work."

4)  Lola then began literally shouting at the mayor (her boss too, remember) about how everyone is so mean to her because she's disabled, her husband died two years ago, and she overheard someone say to someone else that the clerk said she's not a good worker.  (Which is obvious to anyone - no need to overhear it!)  The mayor ended up having to shout her down to end the meeting.

Seems to me the best way to cut expenses for the town is to get rid of this lazy [mutter mutter mutter].  There are times I really love this job, and there are times I am so frustrated I can just scream.

[sweedetobee]

I hope the mayor agrees with you and cuts the budget by cutting her!

[wetblanket]

I can certainly understand why you feel like screaming.

I hope it works out OK in the end.  The end of Lola!

[Lisbeth]

I'm sorry you have to deal with all this and hope things go better for you (preferably without Lola).

[Musicwoman]

First bummer: the town will require mandatory random drug testing for all employees.  No explanation given other than "we've never done this before so we decided to."  I don't do drugs, and none of the other five employees do either, so I don't see the sudden need for this.  I am seriously considering making a stink and trying to find out if there is another way I can prove I don't use drugs - I have major issues with peeing in a cup for my boss.

If you have major issues, you might indeed want to raise a stink.  In my town, a urine drug test requires that someone from the testing lab actually witnesses the pee going into the cup to prevent the testee substituting someone else's.

[smarterthanu213]

First bummer: the town will require mandatory random drug testing for all employees.  No explanation given other than "we've never done this before so we decided to."  I don't do drugs, and none of the other five employees do either, so I don't see the sudden need for this.  I am seriously considering making a stink and trying to find out if there is another way I can prove I don't use drugs - I have major issues with peeing in a cup for my boss.

If you have major issues, you might indeed want to raise a stink.  In my town, a urine drug test requires that someone from the testing lab actually witnesses the pee going into the cup to prevent the testee substituting someone else's.

Now that's just ridiculous. OT, does anyone know if a diabetic with high blood sugar at the time of the test will test positive for drugs? I heard that but I don't know if it's true. The guy might've just been trying to make excuses for why he tested positive.

[supernova]

I'd advise you to give up your poppy-seed-bagel habit, if you have one. 

The Mythbusters did an interesting study on this; they bought a six-pack of poppy bagels and a poppy-seed coffeecake, and starting half an hour after eating, they both popped positive for drugs for the next 24 hours.

From the Discovery Channel website:

Myth or Fact? MythBusters Quiz
YOU'RE CORRECT!

The right answer is true. Opiate drugs, such as heroin, morphine and codeine, are made from the seeds of opium poppies. The poppy seeds used in baked goods often come from the same or a similar type of poppy.

While the amount you'd typically consume would be too small for you to feel the effects, it can produce a positive result in a urine drug test. Several people have lost their jobs solely because they ate a poppy-seed muffin or bagel for breakfast before taking a drug test. As a result, the test is being revised to account for this eventuality.

You can eat just one poppy-seed bagel or muffin in the morning and pop positive all day.

     - saphie

[Kaylee]

Now that's just ridiculous. OT, does anyone know if a diabetic with high blood sugar at the time of the test will test positive for drugs? I heard that but I don't know if it's true. The guy might've just been trying to make excuses for why he tested positive.

It shouldn't, AFAIK, but I will do a little more research and report back if I learn anything different (med student).

There are two things a diabetic might spill in urine:  actual glucose (because they are not producing insulin in sufficient quantity to use it--insulin is necessary to bring the glucose into the individual cells of the body to be used as fuel) and ketones (if the diabetic is uncontrolled to the point where alternate forms of energy are being utilized, the end product of which is the group of molecules we call ketones).  (Sorry if you already knew that... Like I said, med student here.)

Both are sufficiently common that I would think a UA would differentiate them--you can pick up these on a simple urine dip.  They would also potentially be in much greater quantity than what they're actually looking for.   Generally what is being looked for in urine are the end products of drugs (a number of drugs are also excreted directly by the kidney, so maybe some tests look for them as well).  Additionally, you only get the results you look for, so if they don't run the test for, say, steroids, you wouldn't know whether that particular drug was being used.  When you hear about a "tox screen", we have a list of literally a hundred things we might be looking for, but we don't run all of them on any given person.

The cross-reactivity issue comes up if either a 'natural' molecule is so chemically similar to something that they're looking for that it sets off the test, or if (as in the poppy-seed thing) there is a benign reason for the positive test.  For that reason, anyone who is on *any* kind of legal medication would do well to inform the test facility of the fact before a test, including over-the-counter meds.

Having said that, I have very serious ethical issues with random drug tests.  First, they're an invasion of privacy, and second, I don't really think they work (either literally or in the ways they claim to improve the workforce).  To say nothing of the fact that they're expensive.  If the town is worried about budget, they really don't need to be spending $100+ a pop to analyze the librarians' urine.

[ShadesOfGrey]

If you have major issues, you might indeed want to raise a stink.  In my town, a urine drug test requires that someone from the testing lab actually witnesses the pee going into the cup to prevent the testee substituting someone else's.

I dont know where you live, but if this isnt illegal already, it should be. 

[Betsy]

If you have major issues, you might indeed want to raise a stink.  In my town, a urine drug test requires that someone from the testing lab actually witnesses the pee going into the cup to prevent the testee substituting someone else's.

I dont know where you live, but if this isnt illegal already, it should be. 

The one time I had to do a pee drug test (office job at a manufacturing plant covered by a union) I had to go into a broom-closet sized bathroom with nothing but myself, pee in the cup, and then the tech had to check the temperature. if it wasnt within a couple degrees of normal then I automatically failed and had to be retested (which it was perfectly normal but still). Thats about as close to "watching" as the techs can be I think because of public indecency laws.

Now the drug test I liked was the saliva test, at my second internship. I had to sit in HR for about a half hour with a cotton swab in my mouth absorbing a heck of a lot of saliva but it was neither embaressing nor uncomfortable and I got to hear about a whole bunch of rules at the same time

[Yarnspinner]

As a librarian whose job ALWAYS seems to be in jeopardy (I'm one of about 75 library employees who are always on pins and needles whenever there's a new budget crisis and there's always a new budget crisis) you have my deepest sympathy, warmest regards and best wishes.

I'm saying a prayer that Lola gets the ax.  She doesn't work in two places does she?  There's a Real Piece of Work at our city hall who, legend has it,  has marked out one parking spot as "her" parking spot.  It hasn't got her name on it.  It isn't a reserved spot.  She.....just......likes............it.  And God help the person who parks there on business.  RPoW has, on occasion, parked her car IN THE AISLE in order to block who ever "took her parking space."  She has refused to move her car when another coworker was parked in the space and needed to be somewhere fast (like an emergency at home).  Some folks have called a tow truck to take her car away and then the fur really flies...or so I'm told.  (This information comes second hand from someone who overheard a conversation with RPoW.)

Don't you hate employee meetings?  Especially when there's a dipstick who keeps talking and screaming. 

Sending you lots of hugs {{{{{{}}}}}} and positive energy.  Hang in there, Slartibart!  The profession desperately needs more fresh blood like you!

[HushHush]

I grew quite comfortable peeing in front of people during my stint in the Navy.  They start you the very first day peeing in a large open room for the initial drug test and after boot camp, there are random ones done based on who's on duty that day.  Yes, the pee must be witnessed going into the cup but most of the viewers (another watch if you were so unfortunate to be assigned that one) would just hold the stall door open.

The military is serious about drug testing.

Charlotte

[eport]

Unfortunately, they have to have someone watch.

My brother was a Div. I college athlete (cross country) and he got randomly selected for testing a couple of times (cause those steriods really work with long distance running  ). The one time he started up coversation with the guy, who told my brother some stories about how people tried to get around it (tubes hidden leading to bags of someone else's urine, etc.). There are so many ways people try to get around it. Unfortunate that someone has to watch, but there reasons why they have to.

[Chartreuse]

I'm just interested in how long Lola's had her job and wondering if we ought to take a pool on how long she'll be allowed to KEEP her job?

[Slartibartfast]

Lola has been here six or seven years, but as far as I know, her husband died about two years ago and she just got even more bitter and nasty than she already was.  She's one of those people who believes nothing is ever her fault, and doesn't understand why nobody bends over backwards to accomodate her because she's got a DISABILITY!!!!!(whine)  It actually kind of bothered me that she mentioned being "the only employee who is disabled" at the meeting - she would have NO way of knowing if I or the other employees had an "invisible' disability, but were gracious enough to shut up about it when we were around people who didn't need to know.

The mayor didn't say how often the drug testing would be, but if it is expensive maybe I don't have to worry *too* much about it.  My DH thinks I need to keep my head down for a bit and not complain, because it's very possible other people feel the same way Lola does about me getting to be full-time (and I should mention the library is usually only busy a few hours of the day, so it's not like they really *need* me all these extra hours, but they want desperately to be a "real" library, whether anyone uses it or not).  I have to think that this sudden drug policy is because they suspect one of the six of us is using drugs of some sort but didn't feel they could make an open accusation . . . in which case "once in a blue moon" is often enough to test.