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

[CocoCamm]

Unfortunately, they have to have someone watch.

Nope~the company could nto be cheapskates and opt for the hair test which is way more accurate AND no one has to embarrased.

[RubySlippers]

Let me say first of all that I don't do drugs.  I don't drink often.  I don't care for poppy seed bagels.  However - if my boss wanted me to subject myself to random drug testing I would be screaming bloody murder.  I'm a bookkeeper so my work safety issues would be similar to a librarian's.  (Don't get your jewelry caught in the photocopier or the shredder.)  The closest I get to endangering anyone else is on my 1 km drive to the bank each day.  But - I do not trust the drug testing methods.  I have heard too many horror stories about people who have had false positives.  The poppy seed incidents aside, there is the issue of marijuana testing.  There does not seem to be a reliable test for this.  Teens have been expelled because drug dogs smelled pot on their lockers.  NO pot found, mind you.  Just a dog's word for it.  Similarly, if one should be so imprudent as to attend an event where one is exposed to pot smoke and unknowingly inhale some second hand smoke - this could show up on the test.  How does one prove that one did not smoke it?
(Just ask the Canadian snow boarding team!)

[Suze]

at our company you can be tested - whenever - but in reality, you might have to get a test on hire in (I didn't have to, but I started there 27 years ago.  When the "physical" was going to your family Dr. and him signing a paper, no check up needed)

I think that the people who drive lift trucks around and the support staff of drivers (we have 12 plants, so there is always somebody driving something around town)  are subject to random tests as a matter of policy.

And if there is an accedent it is a for sure test.

[cheyne]

Maybe the Mayors announcement was her way of giving a "heads up" to all the employees that one of them was going to be let go.  My money is on Lola.  I can just see Lola going the "You only fired me because I have a disability" route.  Maybe the Mayor feels that if it is in the employee meeting minutes that the towns budget can't stretch to pay all the positions, she can head Lola off at the pass.  I wouldn't worry too much about your job. 

As for the drug testing, it is pretty much mandatory in my area, at least for a new hire.  After that, semi truck drivers are the only ones in my company that have to take random drug tests (about 2 a year).  I agree with previous posters about the usefullness and accuracy of drug testing.  However, after 10 years in the Air Force, I got used to it.

[Musicwoman]

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.

To those who are curious; My Town is Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, the centre of the WA gold mining industry.  The only place I know which has a permanent sign saying "Please remove steel-capped boots before entering metal detector" in the airport.

The drug (and alcohol) testing is done by the mining companies, on people who are operating HUGE pieces of machinery in inherently dangerous environments.  The testing is done by the local pathology lab. and they have signs up all over the place saying someone needs to watch you pee in the cup.  If you have a problem with it, you don't work in the mining industry. 

However, the dangers of having someone drunk or high when they're operating a 225-tonne dump truck underground are obvious.  The reasons for wanting to test a librarian are a little beyond me.

[oogyda]

I suggest you dig in for the long haul.  They probably won't fire Lola due to fear of a lawsuit for firing her because of her disability. 

[LJM]

Maybe they suspect Lola is doing drugs, and that's the reason "random" testing has been announced? I doublt it would be legal for them to single her out specifically, so the other choices are "random", and across-the-board.

[Athos_000]

Peeing in a cup is hard enough in private, I could never do it if someone was watching me. Hopefully if they do the drug screening they will at least spare you THAT bit of embarassment.

I hope they have lots of documentation that Lola is a terrible employee, because if she gets the axe the city will have one whopper of a law suit on their hands. (at the same time, I hope they don't get rid of somebody else instead out of fear!)

[blue2000]

I suspect that if you were given full-time with benefits, and others weren't, that you are pretty highly regarded by the town. They might cut you back a little, but your job should be safe.
I wouldn't bet on Lola's job, though. It does sound like the mayor is preparing you all for some pretty harsh budget cuts, and annoying the boss is not a good way to keep her job.

[LibraryLady]

 

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.

Here is our county, the only employees who are subject to drug testing are the precinct workers who do the road repairs, and I suppose the sheriff's department. 

In the for what it is worth department.

hollis

[Slartibartfast]

I suspect Lola will be around for a while longer, mostly because becoming a registered magistrate takes a long time and nobody in their right mind would drive all the way out here to take a job that I'm sure pays less than being a magistrate somewhere larger.  (Err, kind of like me being the librarian out here for significantly below the going rate in Nearby City . . . but being the only employee, having free rein over my library, and being a mentor to the kids is worth it.)  They also don't really need her full-time, so it's just as well she comes in late or not at all . . . if only they could get her to schedule her "sick days" so they could just assign her 10 hours a week and be done with it.

Despite this being a very small town, I know the police officers are frustrated at how bad the drug problem is out here.  Drug dealers from Nearby City know the police force is NOT round-the-clock here, so apparently there are frequent midnight drug deals.  Combine that with the 50% high school drop-out rate for this town and a historically poor area, and well, you have a town culture where drugs are largely ignored.  The more I think about it, the more I suspect one of the employees may have a drug problem (probably Lola or the maintenance guy, who is very nice but wouldn't surprise me at all if he smoked marijuana on occasion), and this is the town's way of dealing with it in a hands-off manner.

ETA: because there are only six of us, requiring drug tests "only from the people with outdoors jobs" or "only from office staff" would pretty much point a finger at the culprit.  Maybe they'll be "random" like "Well we COULD ask any of you, but we're just happening to ask this one person we suspect . . ."

[Slartibartfast]

UPDATE!

So I talked to the Mayor this morning, and apparently the new police officer (hired a few months ago) has quit.  I know he had some issues with the other officer (who was technically the "chief" and his superior), but I'm guessing he didn't want to have to deal with Lola any more than I do!  The town isn't going to fill his position for a while, so I'm guessing that pulls them out of the immediate budget crunch.  So not a really happy ending, but at least I'm not so worried . . .

[sammycat]

Could the new police officer be the one doing drugs and quit before he was found out?

[Slartibartfast]

I really doubt it, but I suppose it's possible.  I would think they would have fired him outright for that, though!