>>> Part 11 of 19...
 
At one organization, employees who fail their test the first or second 
time within a 90-day period go home, taking a sick day because there is
no safety-non-sensitive work to do; another employee takes over their 
safety-sensitive duties. The employees may be advised, but are not 
required, to visit the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor.
After the third failure within that 90-day period, an EAP visit is
mandatory.  After the fourth failure, the employee must submit to a drug
test.
 
The policy is similar at another organization. However, an employee 
who fails is usually reassigned to work that is not safety-sensitive. 
Also, EAP counseling is not mandatory until the fourth failure, at which
time the EAP counselor may also ask for a drug or alcohol test. Failure
to comply with the EAP results in suspension or termination. The
respondent explained: Human Resources has full discretion. This
eliminates favoritism. Our goal is not to punish but to help; the EAP is
the step between failing and being possibly fired.
 
At a third organization, there is broader supervisory discretion. If 
an employee fails all the allowed trials, the supervisor consults with
the employee to decide if the employee should be granted yet another
trial, after a half-hour to an hour has passed.
 
Upon failing this extra trial, the employee is sent home without pay 
(there are no sick days) and a part-timer or substitute takes over. 
Although the respondent conceded that "it's a bit of a pain to juggle
the schedule when someone fails and can't work," he hastened to add,
"but it's better than having an accident." Nobody at this organization
has failed more than once a month, and failures are usually due to
fatigue.  However, employees understand that they can be asked to take a
drug test after "excessive" failures and that they can be disciplined up
to termination.
 
Counseling is not recommended, "because that would get into the 
specifics of why the employee failed," but it is provided upon the 
employee's request.
 
At a fourth organization, someone who fails is interviewed by a human 
resources representative, who first checks that the employee is doing
the test correctly. An employee who fails either takes vacation or sick
time, goes home without pay (if no sick days remain), goes home to sleep
a few hours and return later, or is reassigned to a position that is not
safety-sensitive (possibly for less pay): "No impaired person should be
doing safety-sensitive work." The employee's work is either divided
among co-workers or assigned to a replacement. Counseling may be
recommended, especially for a first failure. Nobody has yet been tested
for drug or alcohol test use after failing the fitness-the-duty test,
but the organization is considering having someone tested after three
failures within 30 days.
 
At the organization that conducts random testing, roving supervisors 
have great discretion. Even if an employee fails, if the supervisor 
believes the employee can do the job and the employee has a good track 
record, the employee will be "given the benefit of the doubt" and
allowed to work. If the employee is new, he or she will more likely be
sent home, replaced easily by someone on the long backup list.
 
The remaining organization in the sample has no policy whatsoever. 
Rather, anyone who cannot meet his or her baseline is handled on a case
by case basis. Such flexibility gives total discretion to the
supervisor.  For example, it is up to the supervisor to decide whether
an employee who fails his or her test should be given another
opportunity to pass. At this lean-staffed organization, sending someone
home would create logistical difficulties, so supervisors try not to
exercise this option (which h as caused trouble). Instead, those who
fail are given safety-non-sensitive responsibilities.
 
Employees' responses to fitness-for-duty testing. As described by 
their representatives, employees' responses to fitness-for-duty testing 
depend on effective communication of these programs. At one
organization, employees reacted positively, seemingly because they were
educated and convinced about the need for testing and because their
input was solicited and used. Plus, their top management depicted
behavioral testing as preferable to biochemical testing. Similarly, at
two other organizations, appropriate preimplementation training
emphasized the necessity and safety benefits (for employees) of testing.
 
The other organizations might also have benefited from careful 
pre-implementation campaigning. Some employees at the fourth
organization complained ("Why are we doing this? Why don't we get a
raise for learning new skills?") until they became accustomed to
testing. This same group of employees had difficulty with the left-right
spatial relations involved in Delta-WP's mannequin test. The program
administrator eliminated this test, replacing three minute-long tests
with two 90-second tests.
 
Although employees are no longer confused, they are bored by their 
daily test session. The representative of the fifth organization implied
that employees are still ambivalent about testing: "They feel they're
above [daily testing]" even though they welcome "a system that assures
them that the guy [working] right next to them is okay." And the
respondent from the sixth organization told me that "the ones who stand
to get caught don't like it," but that the others have not complained.
 
Supervisors' responses to fitness-for-duty testing. Supervisors' 
 >>> Continued to next message...
___
 X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------