Author Topic: Failed drug test implications? (Read 78423 times)

ChiefRocscooter · « **on:** Sep 05, 2006, 10:12 »

OK (this on is for a friend)
What are the long term implications for a guy who gets poped on pee test while working as a contractor at a plant site?
Details: Nuke MM2 who got discharged from navy for failing piss test then got hired on with contractor who sent him to nuke plants to work on diesel engines. He got dumb again and smoked dope failed piss test at a site (not sure which). This all happed over 4 years ago since he has held down good job (I am not sure if they drug test there but since they do lots of Navy contracts they might) and he has been going to college (high gpa in engineering AS program). What are his options for working in the Nuke industry now? How long will the failed test hang over his head? Can he do anything to impove situation with reguards to gettting into working at a nuclear power plant? He says he was dumb and young and now is more mature about his life but what damage has he done?

Rob

Fermi2 · « **Reply #1 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 12:05 »

Technically after 5 years he's eligible to get unescorted access.

Most likely it won't happen.

Mike

AS55555 · « **Reply #2 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 12:32 »

His best chance will be honesty. I had one person with a drug conviction and interstate transportation of firearms who listed his parole officer as a reference. He was honest about it and actually got a clearance. Time does help. I had another employee who said he had a college degree and was actually three credit hours short- did have 4 years of college. The job only required a HS education but he lost his clearance for not telling the truth on his application. Over the years I have seen a number of other people with past convictions get clearances after the 5 year period if they were totally honest and had an excellent current record.

Fermi2 · « **Reply #3 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 01:12 »

In todays day and age why take a chance? Many utilities currently have it written into their procedures that any drug related offense disqualifies a person forever. There's no percentage in giving someone a second chance. At the minimum it'll be 5 years.

Mike

hamsamich · « **Reply #4 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 01:20 »

Why take a chance? Well, I see many utilities scrouging for people right now at the last minute for techs...If a utility has a hard and fast rule they won't break maybe they won't take a chance. But, if another utility who will consider them has a choice between an excellent tech who failed a drug test 5 years ago and has been kicking butt ever since (like college, other jobs, drug free etc) and a loser with poor evals who is a marginal tech maybe the first guy will get the job. I have worked with a couple of guys that were REALLY bad. And I'm assuming they were there because no one else was available.....just using common sense, maybe I am missing something.

Fermi2 · « **Reply #5 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 01:25 »

Once a druggie always a druggie, I could care less about their work performance since the time they got caught.

Mike

ChiefRocscooter · « **Reply #6 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 01:36 »

Thanks for the input, I will pass it along to him. Well normally I would temper Mike's last comment a little, but he does deserve to hear it straight from the prespective from someone in Mike's position.
To me he seems like good guy (was my study partner for semesters of calc 1&2) who grew up when he figured out what he had done wrong, but I can see the why take a chance attitude. He is working on his ME degree and just wondered if he had slammed the door on himself or not.

Thanks
Rob

alphadude · « **Reply #7 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 01:40 »

there is more to life than nuke.....

PWHoppe · « **Reply #8 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 01:40 »

Quote from: Broadzilla on Sep 05, 2006, 01:25

Once a druggie always a druggie, I could care less about their work performance since the time they got caught.

Mike

Mike,

I can see your point and in todays world there is not a lot of incentive to cut anyone any slack. However let me just say this about that; if you had been around this industry in the late 70's or early 80's the culture that existed then (pre-FFD) lent itself to a wide open existence. There are many folks who reigned in their lifestyles and adapted and are now in positions of management and some who never did and are no longer in the business.

Point being, some folks can clean up their act.

Just my opinion I could be wrong.

Fermi2 · « **Reply #9 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 01:42 »

Maybe he hasn't, again it depends on the utility and won't even be considered until after the 5 year point. I'll give you an example, I know a guy who was one heck of an asset to his utility. In fact he was well thought of. He had an "issue" and his unescorted access revoked. It's been 8 years and still no one will touch him, and he has far more skills than an excellent technician. The real question is why take a chance on someone who knowingly violated an FFD rule when those rules are very black and white to begin with, when you get can someone who hasn't violated the rules? Put another way, there is tremendous competition for any job in this industry, look at the people asking for advice on this board then multiply it by 100. When we screened resumes for our last NLO Bid we screened it down to TWO HUNDRED before we even attempted final screening. Now given that many people, the majority of which have never had an FFD issue why would I even consider someone who has had their chance and blew it?

Mike

Fermi2 · « **Reply #10 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 01:45 »

Quote from: PWHoppe on Sep 05, 2006, 01:40

Mike,

I can see your point and in todays world there is not a lot of incentive to cut anyone any slack. However let me just say this about that; if you had been around this industry in the late 70's or early 80's the culture that existed then (pre-FFD) lent itself to a wide open existence. There are many folks who reigned in their lifestyles and adapted and are now in positions of management and some who never did and are no longer in the business.

Point being, some folks can clean up their act. Just my opinion I could be wrong.

I won't argue that, I think my post previous to this is more definitive on where I'm coming from. I just don't see the point in an employer even taking the risk given there are plenty of qualified people who are out there.

And yes I also realize at times there is a double standard on alcohol. But the questioned asked was about a druggie and not alcohol.

Mike

PWHoppe · « **Reply #11 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 01:48 »

Quote from: Broadzilla on Sep 05, 2006, 01:45

I just don't see the point in an employer even taking the risk given there are plenty of qualified people who are out there.

Mike

Point well made; and taken

ChiefRocscooter · « **Reply #12 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 01:53 »

Ok well since drinking came up? What do they disalow in comercial world? FOr example now days in Navy your test is tested for steroids and ephedria along with all the regular miscreatant drug types. Anything you have to be carfeful of in commercial world (the old poppy seed muffin??

Rob

DDD · « **Reply #13 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 02:12 »

Been there done that! All I can say is that if your friend is truthful and truely wants a career in this industry IT CAN be done, "good luck"

Quote from: PWHoppe on Sep 05, 2006, 01:40

Mike,

I can see your point and in todays world there is not a lot of incentive to cut anyone any slack. However let me just say this about that; if you had been around this industry in the late 70's or early 80's the culture that existed then (pre-FFD) lent itself to a wide open existence. There are many folks who reigned in their lifestyles and adapted and are now in positions of management and some who never did and are no longer in the business.

Point being, some folks can clean up their act. Just my opinion I could be wrong.

Daryl

hamsamich · « **Reply #14 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 02:58 »

I thought the question concerned whether or not a plant would hire a guy with past drug results, not everybody's personal opinion on 2nd chances. Well since the topic has magically changed here is my opinion: I think if a person has shown he can change for a considerable amount of time (like 5 years) then of course he should be considered. Everyone who tries drugs doesn't get hooked and aren't bad people. People who think this probably have an irrational view of life and don't want to look at reality due to some profound influence or anecdotal evidence which occured sometime early in life.

PWHoppe · « **Reply #15 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 03:17 »

Quote from: hamsamich on Sep 05, 2006, 02:58

I thought the question concerned whether or not a plant would hire a guy with past drug results, not everybody's personal opinion on 2nd chances.

You are correct. The topic somehow got off base, the answer is some plants will some won't it is all up to the individual facility.

Thanks for bringing us back on topic

vikingfan · « **Reply #16 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 03:22 »

Exactly hopster !! different utility, different interpretation of the procedures ! some may grant access after lets say 5 years for a previous drug offense while others will not. did such named individual go to some sort of rehab ? or just wait everything out ?

hamsamich · « **Reply #17 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 03:38 »

no prob, thanks hopster. I just feel that while many can't, some people can change, we all haven't been perfect our entire lives have we?

Anyway, I've talked to a couple people who have had priors in past lifetime and they are still working. One of them was drugs, the others were felonies. So there are people working today amongst us (we may not even know it) who have had problems but have overcame and are still accepted by nuclear plants, regardless of everyone's opinion of them.

ChiefRocscooter · « **Reply #18 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 03:41 »

Good question. He said he looked into it and could go if required but is expensive and he would have to put college on hold for a semester. It sounded to me like he would rather wait five years (since four have already gone by). Would it make a difference if he did?

RRhoads · « **Reply #19 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 03:50 »

Quote from: Broadzilla on Sep 05, 2006, 01:25

Once a druggie always a druggie, I could care less about their work performance since the time they got caught.

Mike

ahh i think that statement is bull#*&t...some people can learn from their mistakes.
BUt failing a piss test twice in 4 years hints at a problem...
but the above quote is ignorant IMHO.

PAULTHEVOL · « **Reply #20 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 05:29 »

I agree with you RRhodes.I know several people in the biz that cleaned they're act up after past mistakes in there life and went on to do very well,but the comment about not caring about someones work performance after failing a drug test is just as ignorant as the one he made ,and I quote,(Were talking about a druggie,not alcohol.)Hey genius,alcohol is a drug,and I suggest that you might open your mind and heart to a bit of forgiveness and you might find that some people learn from mistakes.Once a druggie does not mean,always a druggie!----Paul

Fermi2 · « **Reply #21 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 05:35 »

Note I did state alcohol is a tricky subject and case but alcohol was not the subject of the original post.

Rob the reason I said 5 years is that's the legal requirement for denial of unescorted access if one gets popped for a drug violation at a nuke facility.

I stand by my original statement, once a druggie always a druggie. It's not ignorant in the least.

Mike

RRhoads · « **Reply #22 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 06:41 »

well....then i doubt you have been in THIS business (the commercial side) for too long...i have know MANY of folks who got on board post FFD changes & still know some to this day & they are not still "druggies!"
gimme a break!....we all used to crap our pants too! that doesn't mean we still do!
get off your box dude!

RDTroja · « **Reply #23 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 08:45 »

IMHO -- and speaking as a participant, not a moderator -- Mike has consistently shown a closed minded and my-opinion-is-better-than-yours attitude. Of course he is entitled to think whatever he wants and allowed to express his opinions here. To me, anyone that could say something as ignorant as 'once a druggie always a druggie' deserves only to be ignored and I personally pity him for his outlook on life... not that he should care what I think. I am sure he will tell you he has never screwed up or done anything remotely illegal in his life and should therefore avoid the condemnation he so harshly pours upon others. Or, maybe he will admit some human failings and show that his statement is pure hypocrisy. Either way his opinioin means no more to me than mine does to him.

Dan_E. · « **Reply #24 on:** Sep 05, 2006, 11:57 »

Karma to Pat, hamsamich, & Roger; well said gentlemen!

Author Topic: Failed drug test implications? (Read 78423 times)

Fermi2

Fermi2

Fermi2

alphadude

Fermi2

Fermi2

DDD

vikingfan

PAULTHEVOL

Fermi2

Dan_E.