1. - North of I-80 - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 10:52 am:

   Pre-employment screen; random so that most employees tested without warning approx 1x every 2 years; and articulable suspicion [report of use, performnance drop off, smell of pot in car/clothes].

   No exceptions, can’t believe this needs to be explained any further - who wants a caseworker responsible for assessing children at risk to show up with even a little coke or meth or pot in his/her blood stream? Janitors & secretaries & clerks in all agencies have access to sensitive information that I wouldn’t want compromised by someone whose judgement is impaired or who owes $2500 to a dealer.




2. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 11:04 am:

   I don’t believe in drug testing. I think it’s an invasion of privacy. It’s also a copout, a crutch.

   Human resource (Orwellian term; I prefer personnel) professionals should be able to determine the suitability of new hires, and supervisors should be able to evaluate job performance, without tapping someone’s urine or blood.

   I’m also not sure what it proves. If your job performance is excellent but you test positive, you should be fired? If you’re a schlump but test negative, you should be rewarded?

   Drug testing was a gimmick of the Reagan War on Drugs. Not that all those efforts were wrong; increased educational efforts for kids were good, as was removing the stigma of rehab (Betty Ford, of course, deserves a lot of credit).

   It’s like Lincoln said when envious generals were spreading rumors that Grant drank too much: “Find out what he’s drinking, then send a case to all my generals.”




3. - Wumpus - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 11:14 am:

   Yes, because once anything happens, people will sue and if you don’t drug test, prepare to pay.




4. - Boscobud - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 11:16 am:

   No, why should we give the state a reason to spend more money we don’t have.




5. - Speaking at Will - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 11:19 am:

   I second North of I 80’s comments.




6. - Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 11:27 am:

   What percentage of recreational drug users have out-of-control debt to a drug dealer?

   What percentage of recreational gamblers have out-of-control debt to a bookie?

   Should people who are “gateway drug” gamblers (state lottery, riverboats, football pool bettors, etc.) be excluded from government jobs?




7. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 11:28 am:

   Drug testing caught on in the 80s. We managed to get along without it.




8. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 11:28 am:

   … before the 80s, I mean.




9. - SIUPROF - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 11:40 am:

   For MJ not at all. I would rather have a caseworker who smoked MJ the night before than one who was drinking heavily. The MJ worker will not have a hangover.




10. - Ahem - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 11:51 am:

    A drug test but no psychological assessment? Seems kind of perfunctory to me.




11. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 11:52 am:

    When the job position requires operating heavy machinery.




12. - Speaking at Will - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 12:05 pm:

    Seriously? There are people who think we should not drug test DCFS applicants? Its pretty easy to post on the blog that

    == I would rather have a caseworker who smoked MJ the night before than one who was drinking heavily ==

    As if that is some kind of standard. I would rather have one that did niether. The lax attitude toward marijuana use in this country is amazing to me. Let your child go into a counselor who is reliving thier flower child days with a little wake and bake, I will send mine elsewhere.

    With all that said, state workers should be drug tested, including Marijuana. Is it really too much to ask of someone when taking a state job to stop smoking weed? Gimme a break.




13. - Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 12:08 pm:

    I’m with Wordslinger and Mr. Nyberg. Drug testing is illogical, ineffective, and too expensive. I’d rather have a case worker who smoked weed the night before and does a good job than one who is “clean” (or hungover) and incapable of performing his/her job.




14. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 12:08 pm:

    Speaking at Will –
    It is a freedom thing.
    Unless it makes you dangerous to those around you, what you do on your own time is none of my business.
    As long as you do the job well, I couldn’t care less what your tastes are.
    Unless, of course, you are a crane operator.




15. - Jake from Elwood - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 12:19 pm:

    I favor mandatory prehire drug screens on all state police officers, prison guards, heavy machinery operators, firefighters, medical personnel, judges and any officials that deal with children.

    I do not favor mandatory prehire drug screens for the routine state officials who do not work in positions where they place themselves or others in potential physical danger.

    All state employees should be subject to a reasonable suspicion standard for drug testing based on medically established standards. The positions I have identified above should be subject to some form of random drug testing as well.




16. - Oberon - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 12:34 pm:

    Drinking is not illegal; the possession, use, and purchase of controlled substances is illegal. This should be viewed as an ethics thing. State workers are proscribed from certain financial interests and must report them. Why would anyone want, as a state employee, in any capacity, someone who routinely commits misdemeanors and felonies “on their own time?” Nobody belongs in government who has so little respect for laws democratically enacted. Just as with teachers and ministers, state workers should be held to a higher standard. Zero tolerance.




17. - Gregor - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 12:42 pm:

    Ahem, why not just ask the applicants to pay for the drug testing themselves, send them to a commercial facility that does this? If the testing facility reports directly to the agency anyway, and gets paid regardless of result, shouldn’t that still work? And if an applicant gets accepted to the job, they can then get reimbursed somewhere along the line thru payroll. As for re-testing periodically, I think that for case workers, yes, it is important. Illegal-drug-using addicts tend to burn thru all their money to buy the drugs and can be easily compromised with bribes to do things like not report on a bad foster parent, or they may start rolling their clients for drug money in exchange for good reports. Plus they will spend too much work time trying to score or coming down off a score. They already have to deal with a level of society with a lot of drug problems, why make this worse?

    BYW, I know most caseworkers are not a problem and are doing God’s work under the Devil’s conditions. But the effort must be spent on the few percent of bad apples who are in a position to create horrific consequences if not detected and removed from the system.




18. - Cassandra - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 12:57 pm:

    Blago’s DCFS has a lot of problems, including chronically inept management and a history of really bad decisions resulting in serious harm and death to children, but I seriously doubt that substance abuse had anything to do with these disasters. With respect to DCFS, anyway, this is a red herring. What they need to do is get some innovation and some quality management in there, plus a sense of urgency about their mission.

    As to drug testing and employment in general, there should be a national standard governing who gets tested, how often, with recommendations as to how to handle positive findings. The standard would be based on the need to protect clients and the public. It should be used by all public and private employers. Piecemeal doesn’t work.




19. - Lefty Lefty - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 12:59 pm:

    Oberon makes a good point regarding the illegality of the habit that is being investigated. The problem is that many things people do are illegal–child support deadbeats, gambling, reckless driving, etc. But should recreational drug use be singled out through preventive (and costly and flawed etc.) inquiry?




20. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 1:01 pm:

    ===Zero tolerance.===

    I just want to interject that zero tolerance is probably the stupidest thing that anyone has ever come up with anywhere.




21. - anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 1:40 pm:

    I worked for DCFS for over 15 years. I worked with the families and the children, and did not sit behind a desk. I was never drug tested. I worked hard, nights, weekends, and did what I needed to do protect the children of Illinois in the best way I could. I cannot say that none of my coworkers used drugs, but I will say that if they did, I never noticed. We were too busy working.

    No one gets into child welfare for money. They do it because they long to make a difference and to help the ones who cannot help themselves. Do you know how many families could have been assisted with $70,000? How many counseling sessions, food baskets, and daycare fees that money could have assisted with? 2% tested positive. Believe me, if the drug use was that much of a problem, they would have screwed up somewhere else and been caught.

    DCFS is getting a bad rap on this. People act like meth users are showing up at someone’s house and taking kids away. That’s just crazy.

    Go shadow a caseworker and investigator for a day. Then you will know that drug testing these employees is the least of the problems DCFS faces.




22. - Gadfly - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 1:56 pm:

    It is sad to think that this debate is taking place in 2008, more than 75 years after prohibition was repealed. Jake, Skeeter, wordslinger got the answer to the question more or less right.

    Sadly, some others are showing some woefully misinformed views on illegal drugs and their effects on the user. Oberon, aside from sharing the name of one of my favorite beers, is the King of Shadows and Fairies. Nevertheless, s/he makes a valid argument re: legality, which is exactly why that is the question that must be addressed.

    When society recognizes that prohibition does not work, whether regarding alcohol or any other substance, we can solve some of these problems. Until then, we will be subjected to the privacy intrusions, gang violence, and the shameful posturing of politicians trying to take credit in this failed war on drugs.




23. - Anon - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 2:20 pm:

    Dude…What was the question?




24. - North of I-80 - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 3:42 pm:

    Rich; next time you fly cross country, you want a pilot flying your plane who failed the zero tolerance threshold? Oh wait, you think zero tolerance is a stupid idea… so just a little dope is OK? IDOT snow plow drivers will welcome the policy change for those long cold snowy nights. Is your threshold 5% Tolerance now? How about 10%?




25. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 3:53 pm:

    North, perhaps I should impose zero tolerance for goofy commenters. lol Save us all a lot of trouble, but would be a bit more boring around here. Zero tolerance means you demand perfection. Humans ain’t perfect.




26. - Justice - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 3:57 pm:

    Where lives are at risk drug testing is a common sense issue. In other areas I’m not sure drug testing has really accomplished much other than the delusion that the people working are doing so clear minded. That is a bit of a stretch as many people are simply not competent or just were shorted on common sense. If you want to get a job done by people unimpaired, observe their habits and go through a correcting process if necessary. If it doesn’t work then suggest they look for other employment. Stop wasting time and money on useless drug testing. I know many very successful and competent people who smoke whacky tabacci and do just fine. I have also known idiots and have on occasion fired them, and there were no drugs involved.




27. - GOPJay - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 4:15 pm:

    Pre-employment and random tests should be allowed, and used, in every position of the government. The reason is very simple. These tests screen for ILLEGAL drugs. It’s our tax money that pays the wages of these people.Obey the law and keep your paycheck, pretty simple I think.




28. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 4:19 pm:

    Have to be amused by all the “IT IS THE LAW” comments.
    In furtherance of that goal, we should put monitors on all gov’t employee cars, to make sure they don’t go over the limit.
    After all, a law is a law.
    There are some relatively legit arguments for drug testing, but this mindless “IT IS THE LAW” argument sure does not carry any weight.




29. - Oberon - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 4:57 pm:

    Zero tolerance can never be more than a goal to strive toward. But, Skeeter, exactly what forms of government corruption and unethical behavior can’t be justified by your argument? When it is acceptable to call such an argument “mindless,” then all you elected officials can hang up your hats and call it a day, since all of your efforts are dedicated to producing “mindless” results that every citizen can rightfully ignore as they see fit. Yes, I would agree there are a number of stupid, or at least not well-thought-out, laws on the books, and sometimes conscience might even dictate ignoring them or deliberately violating them, but I would never offer my selfish gratification as a sufficient reason for doing so.

    Gadfly, congratulations on your literacy, though I’m not sure you were trying to make a point.




30. - doubtful - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 5:09 pm:

    Zero tolerance means you demand perfection. Humans ain’t perfect. -Rich Miller

    Zero tolerance doesn’t demand perfection; it only demands you go be imperfect somewhere else.

    Not that I entirely disagree; zero tolerance is often a ridiculous extreme, but when it comes to working with kids I expect the the state to be heavy handed.

    It all comes down to cost. Will it cost more to pay the inevitable lawsuit that comes if there is no drug testing than the testing itself?




31. - Ahem - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 5:23 pm:

    Oh look, a roach!




32. - Ahem...The REAL Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 2, 08 @ 8:45 pm:

    OK. If the arguments using impaired judgment directly related to drug use, blackmail, etc. don’t hold water with some, what about the possibility of identifying to some degree with a parent who’s also addicted to drugs?

TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.