My mileage varies quite a bit. I don’t know what level the OP is working at but I’ve dealt with government contracts before. It’s ludicrous to think that the entire contract would be canceled due to one bad test. It would be too expensive and counterproductive. The whole reason for testing is to ferret out non-compliance and to remove the individuals - not an excuse for scrapping the entire process.
I strongly suspect the reason for the contract not being renewed is totally unrelated to any dirty test.
And again, the OP didn’t have a good reason to suspect drug usage. By her own admission, her entire experience with pot is seeing it in a closed baggie on a table.
Like getting unlicensed as a lawyer, CPA, or PMP - to name a few organizations that require you to report suspected illegal or unethical behavior - which would include reporting suspected behavior that would breach a contract.
My certifications with ethical reporting requirements mean a lot to me - they enable me to have a very nice income and be fairly secure in my employment prospects. I’m not risking them because someone things its a privacy violation to have to pee in a cup when they have an employment contract that says they need to pee in a cup.
This isn’t looking the other way over something like catching the person red-handed, or spotting them popping a joint in their mouth.
This was going out of your way, based on very thin circumstantial suspicion, to find out if you painted this employee correctly.
Personally, I would have waited to see if other evidence of smoking weed would present itself. I mean, hell, this could’ve been an isolated incident, if this person was in fact guilty.
It was just an incredibly weak basis to take action on, if all TruCelt had to go on was a funny smell. Even so, keeping silent gives you plausible deniability in case the worst does happen. She had ZERO hard evidence.
In short: She could’ve (and IMHO, should’ve) left well enough alone.
Disagree. If the employee had nothing to fear, then peeing in a cup isn’t a big deal. Its only if there is the chance of finding something that it is a big deal.
Sure. But if relations with the contractees was so tenuous as the OP herself so concludes (i.e. One employee smoking pot = catastrophe), I don’t think it wise to go shining a spotlight on an issue that wasn’t even anywhere close to being on the radar of the higher up to begin with.
“Hey, just doing a one-on-one with everybody. What with the current state of affairs with our client, I just want to make sure we’re all ready for anything that might make us look bad. We’re not entirely sure if this is going to happen, but a random drug test might be coming up in the next four to six weeks among some other things, and just wanted to make sure our we’re all prepared for something like that…” hint hintwink wink**
Of course you can only conclude that, because it makes you feel better to think that you were right all along.
To be honest, i don’t believe your explanation for a minute. I’m not saying that you’re lying. I’m sure that you believe that this is what happened, but we have no evidence except your own self-serving interpretation of the situation.
I understand that the federal government has very strict requirements about this stuff, and we’ve been informed in this thread that contracts can be cancelled for “failure to, in good faith, maintain the requirements of a drug free workplace.”
But, while i’m not a federal government contract manager or a lawyer, it seems to me that a company that immediately ordered a drug test for a person suspected of using drugs, and then got rid of any person who returned a positive result, has, in fact, made a good faith effort to maintain the requirements of a drug free workplace.
Basically, it might have all happened for the reasons you say, but if i were a betting man, i’d bet against it.
I’m getting the feeling that people are overlooking the post I’m copying below that was posted in the thread because the suppositions that TruCelt is making are based on a lot of factors.
In her earlier post, she noted that someone did test positive in a random drug test. She doesn’t know if it was the person she reported, but if it was, then the person would likely be sent to work somewhere else. That person then got sent to work somewhere else. That’s some evidence that it was that worker who tested positive.
It could be coincidence that there was a positive drug test and that that employee got sent to work somewhere else, but the odds are a lot less than just random.
As for why the team got fired, that’s where she’s guessing more randomly and says so.
OK, I’m curious enough that I have to ask. Why wouldn’t you touch it? I mean, there is no way in hell I would ever use heroin, for example, but if I saw a baggie of it and wanted a closer look, I’d just pick it up and look at it. It wouldn’t even occur to me to get someone else to do it for me. What were you worried would happen if you touched the baggie?
Based on the evidence of a “skunky smell” I would be wary of putting anyone onto a testing schedule. Where I’m from this would raise the spectre of either discrimination or unfair workplace treatment
Much like Stui I do think however that it is appropriate to open discussions -
If it is drug use, something needs to be done to be fair to client and other employees
If it’s a hygiene issue - the employee needs to do something about it
If it’s a medical issue, something may need to be done to help
I’m going to bypass the snark a bit and just respond where I haven’t already. Most of the barbs aimed my way have already been addressed. And I totally get why you think I’m overreacting, and I’d dearly love to fill you in on the customer and contract, because if I did you’d all go “What a dumb@$$ that employee had to be!!” and stop making nasty assumptions about me. But I can’t, even now, so there it is.
It would also help those of you doubting that’s the reason for the downsizing of the project staff. Again, can’t be helped as I can’t expound. I’m certain that if you run through the various US Federal 3-letter agencies in your head you can make a decent enough guess to assuage your curiosity.
As for why I wouldn’t touch the bag - because I was young, (17-ish?) and naive, and had been well and thoroughly warned against having anything to do with the stuff. Just to be in the same house with it was an enormous shock to me. Not all of us are so inured to criminal activity. (Yes, it is, whether you think it should be or not, it IS.) I wasn’t working then, but I still didn’t want my fingerprints on a bag containing an illegal substance.
And for those of you wishing me harm for doing my job and protecting your tax dollars, you can sit back and enjoy the horror. Eviction looms, my car has been repossessed, the works, it has all come my way already and while I am coping to the best anyone can, life well and truly sucks at the moment.
Okay, first of all any government contractor that’s spending time and money to ferret out marijuana smokers is not protecting my tax dollars–they’re wasting them.
Beyond that, if you have a government contract where nobody’s supposed to flunk a drug test, and you have an employee who you think WILL flunk a drug test, so you send them in to be tested…well that just doesn’t make any sense. Say something to her. Ask her if she got pulled in for a random, would there be any trouble?
Finally, if you have a company where an employee flunks a drug test and gets transferred to a different section of the company where it doesn’t matter, and then the REST of the team who did NOT flunk the drug test gets axed, that is just totally nonsensical. I mean, the employee who got everyone fired (or laid off or not rehired or however you put it) is the only one who still has a job? That is fucked up. I don’t care what government agency it is.
I think that’s where people are having trouble.
If all this is somehow a stain on your record, that’s even more fucked up.
Short version is: dumbass employee may be a dumbass but still has a job. Process is really screwed up somewhere.
I hope you find a job, and a better one. This place just sounds like a clusterfuck.