Failed drug test implications?

[Roll Tide]

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

That is a very harsh statement. But the perspective offered is that multiple drug test failures will absolutely rule someone out of many nuclear plants. That is the harsh reality. Should a company spend thousands of dollars to hire and train a new employee, only to lose them to another drug test? Exceptional circumstances would have to be present. 5 years drug free (with verification) and completion of a treatment program along with a skill set in high demand would be "exceptional circumstances" for some plants.

The old-timers pre-FFD are a different category. They operated by the rule of the day. In comparison, if alcohol consumption was suddenly forbidden by nukeworkers, many could make the transition to prohibition but some would not. The question is, whether you operate under the rules in place or will you try to game the system (or in this case, game the system again).

Mike is consistent in these posts. He would not waste the company money if there was another choice to hire. Should I ask him to sugar-coat it, but still have the same meaning?

[vikingfan]

    its a risk reward scenario ! is it worth the risk of the utility to like rad ghost stated would spend the money to train someone ect only to have access denied ect. don't get us wrong we all  know individuals who have failed FFD. but who have eventually had their access reinstated. just a case by case basis. Good Luck my friend.

[vikingfan]

woops i credited rad ghost when i meant to credit roll tide !!

[ChiefRocscooter]

Coming from a background where we have gone to zero tollerence for drugs and a DUI is now a career killer (second is a career ender) I can see the "too bad you screwed up we will get some one else" mentality thyat some plants are said to have.  However I have dealt with any number of guys who screwed up at one point or another in thier lives with drugs and still turned out ok (this includes a lot of officers who were prior enlisted and are now CWO/LDO).  The problem is they no longer exist, what I mean is that by going to zero tollerence we have lost those people.  IMHO Zero tollerence like all absolute criteria policies is a mistake the individual and situation should be considered first then dealt with individually.  I some times think it relates back to our "politically correct" & fair socity were giving one guy a second chance and not another would be considered unfair.  I am sure some one could raise an issue about why they were not given a second chance and try and take an employer to court cause another guys was.
Now in this case (trying to put aside the fact I know him) I would say 5 years and some demonstrated change in life would make enough reason to reevaluate this individual and thier potential to contribute to a company.  However if I had two equally qualified guy  and one does not have his baggage well.... I think you can guess who gets the job.  Second chances in life are hard to get and we all know it, but they CAN be had and that was what I wanted to find out for him

Thanks for your input
Rob

[hamsamich]

yes marssim.  and to Roll Tide, man, I really DON'T think deep down in your heart of hearts you think that Mike's stance is a logical one.  you know what he said is wrong.  there is a difference between what he said and taking the stance that the company shouldn't gamble money on people with priors, period, which is what you are talking about.  that is NOT what mike said.

Once a druggy always a druggy is a 100% statement that says people can't change EVER if they have ever ingested a hardcore drug.  I don't have to go on about the implications of a comment like this one.  most of you get how obtuse and potentially hurtful it is.

What the rest of us are aruging about is whether or not it is a good idea ECONOMICALY and SAFE to let people who have drug priors back into the nuclear world.

I think the answer to that is yes, if they have shown a considerable amount of progress over a long period of time. Is 5 years the best answer and of what criteria, I don't know, but people fail everyday and it seems to be the American way to give a second chance if that chance is DESERVED.

[astronuke]

I think the regulations (10CFR26) also require proof of rehab before someone can be granted access again following a positive test.

[thenukeman]

Convicted felons are repeat offenders 80 percent of the time.  I would think this is true of druggies.  Five years of documented clean with rehab shows a start. A second offense should be a permanent ban.  Failed Drug test shows defiance of laws, Will that person defy rad regulations, defy work practices, show contempt of superiors and coworkers. I think this is a strong sign.  I would not hire that person if she was my mother, but thats my opinion.  Thats what wrong with society too many whiney babies and wanting second chances for things they know are wrong.
I also think three strikes your out for a felon is one too many strikes.  Permanent jail for a second felony. DUI second offense, life time driving ban and 2 years jail.  I guess I am ranting so I will stop.

[WADecay]

Nobodys Perfect, But plenty of High and Mighty Folks.  I hope some of you never have to be in the other person's shoes...............

[Laning]

"Failed Drug test shows defiance of laws, Will that person defy rad regulations, defy work practices, show contempt of superiors and coworkers. I think this is a strong sign."

Dude...ever drive drunk? Get in a fight...Run a stop sign...red light...or any other minor unlawful offense. Afterall...breaking the law is breaking the law, no? Last I knew, failing a drug test was NOT a crime in this country. Don't treat it like one. Its a condition of employment no more no less. How many Jack-ass techs have shown up on jobs claiming to be qualified and failed entrance exams. You wanna hop on a bandwagon, try the falsifying-of-resumes bandwagon. I can't think of a more compelling reason to deny ones access. If someone has the lack of integrity to radio a resume, what do you think he's doing with all of that equipment he just free released?

I agree with the notion of multiple offenses being a good case for not hiring someone. It shows a pattern. One mistake is not a pattern. If a person satisfies the follow-up requirements such as rehab...penalty period, etc, it would be un -American not to afford her/him the opportunity to make a living in their field of choice.

"Once a druggy always a druggy"...sounds like my Granny.....who reminded me a lot of Archie Bunker.

[PWHoppe]

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?

WOW!

This is the topic of the thread and yet we seem to have morphed into something else I'm as guilty of this as everyone else, but let's all try to stay on the topic at hand...or start a new topic..."Second chances YES or NO", or some such title...OK 

your friendly neighborhood moderator

[Laning]

PWHoppe,

My humble apology. I initially intended to offer advice, then got sucked in.

My advice to ChiefRocscooter's friend:

1. Change your lifestyle
2. Look for work where 10CFR26 does not apply
3. Be persistent
4. Take the jobs and tasks that nobody else wants...and do them well.
5. Show up everyday, on time, volunteer for the OT nobody else wants, keep your mouth shut, work your ass off.

[ChiefRocscooter]

I believe I have my answer in the form of :
1. Five year min legal wait
2. Rehab would look good but so does other proven work/personal improvements
3. He will face some prejudice (rightly so to a point) that may hamper his chances, but he is not "locked" out.  He has to be better than the next (maybe much better) guy to get back in.

Anyone disagree that this is what I should tell him?  (I am going to get him to look at this board so he can get a feel for how the viws run for and against.

Thanks everyone for helping (even the "negitives" answers are helpful)
Rob

[ChiefRocscooter]

Bravo Laning that wouild make good addition to my last post!

[Already Gone]

THose points are the ones to give him.  BUT (there's always one of those, isn't there?) Almost EVERYBODY here has missed one very important piece of information.
You don't have to put the results of drug testing on your resume - you don't even have to put it on your job application.  The ONE and ONLY reason to mention it during an intgerview is if you are asked a direct question which you cannot answer truthfully without doing so.
The probability of anyone asking you, "did you fail a drug test?" during an interview is practically nil.  If they ask you why you left nuclear power five years ago, you gotta give it up.  Otherwise, you don't have to say a single word about it.  Naturally, a manager should be smart enough to recognize the significance of a five year absence.  I have no doubt that someone like Broadzilla would catch that at the first glance and ask you about it.  But it may not be up to him if you are hired or not.
IFF (that's BASIC programming language for "if and only if") you are hired for the job, you will have to fill out a Personnel History Questionnaire.  That is the place you will have to answer for your FFD history.  Although the PHQ only asks you about the previous five years or your last unescorted access, whichever is more recent, the part about FFD goes back to your last access regardless of how long ago.
My point is that a hiring manager may be as prejudiced against drug abusers as Mike is, but still have no idea that you ever were one.
As long as you are the one who is offered the job, and you meet the requirements for a clearance, you should get the job without anyone outside of the Security department ever knowing what you did in your youth.
Being better than the next guy actually applies to everyone, doesn't it?  If you are not better than the competition, you ain't gettin' the job whether you smoked dope or not.  And if the hiring manager has Mike's attitude, it won't matter whether you are good or not - he won't hire you anyway because his mind is closed on the matter.
Bottom line:  You won't get any job unless you try.  If you go in with "ex-druggie" tattooed on your forehead, you're not really trying, are you?

[incrediblehulk]

OK Mike -
I AM one of those pre -FFD old-time roadies. When I got into this business in the late '70's, there was a lot of drug use...both in the industry and in society in general. The only thing that made us different from your "normal" folks was that we were a very small insular society with more money than most. I freely admit that I had my share (ok...more than my share) of illegal smiles. Most of the people I knew were in the same category. When FFD came along, the VAST majority of us changed and conformed. We found other things to enjoy (for me, a beautiful wife). A mere handful of folks could not, or would not conform. Most of them went on to have successful careers outside Nuclear power, by the way. For you to state that I'm a druggie is an insult to me and to every other worker who provided the foundation of the business and the solid base that your soapbox is on.
...getting off mine now. Thanks
Steve

[DDD]

   Amen

[PWHoppe]

  Amen

I'm guessing that Amen is for Brother Incredibles posting, right DDD 

I'm thinking that the Chief never thought a simple question would stir up the troops like this

I'm also thinking that Broadzilla's comment struck some nerves, but hey everyones got an opinion.

Beercourt, Great advice, Karma to ya

[RRhoads]

THose points are the ones to give him.  BUT (there's always one of those, isn't there?) Almost EVERYBODY here has missed one very important piece of information.
You don't have to put the results of drug testing on your resume - you don't even have to put it on your job application.  The ONE and ONLY reason to mention it during an intgerview is if you are asked a direct question which you cannot answer truthfully without doing so.
The probability of anyone asking you, "did you fail a drug test?" during an interview is practically nil.  If they ask you why you left nuclear power five years ago, you gotta give it up.  Otherwise, you don't have to say a single word about it.  Naturally, a manager should be smart enough to recognize the significance of a five year absence.  I have no doubt that someone like Broadzilla would catch that at the first glance and ask you about it.  But it may not be up to him if you are hired or not.
IFF (that's BASIC programming language for "if and only if") you are hired for the job, you will have to fill out a Personnel History Questionnaire.  That is the place you will have to answer for your FFD history.  Although the PHQ only asks you about the previous five years or your last unescorted access, whichever is more recent, the part about FFD goes back to your last access regardless of how long ago.
My point is that a hiring manager may be as prejudiced against drug abusers as Mike is, but still have no idea that you ever were one.
As long as you are the one who is offered the job, and you meet the requirements for a clearance, you should get the job without anyone outside of the Security department ever knowing what you did in your youth.
Being better than the next guy actually applies to everyone, doesn't it?  If you are not better than the competition, you ain't gettin' the job whether you smoked dope or not.  And if the hiring manager has Mike's attitude, it won't matter whether you are good or not - he won't hire you anyway because his mind is closed on the matter.
Bottom line:  You won't get any job unless you try.  If you go in with "ex-druggie" tattooed on your forehead, you're not really trying, are you?

Well more to the point.....it's the one that gets you the security clearance...to a HP tech that does outages..it's the only one that matters.
Resume is just job title history & work experience...
i still think Broadzilla is WAAAY off base & Steve....i totally agree w/ you...but this guy is obvioulsy not old school!
He'd prob. be surprised at those around him that came up in the mid- late 80's

[thenukeman]

Failing a Drug test is not against the law is true but, It is a strong indicator of breaking the law.  Having your DNA show up on a rape kit or a murder scene also is not against the law.  But you better have a great excuse I have heard of Marijuana brownies and second hand smoke, But I doubt people accidently ate a brownie or were hanging out in a nuclear cloud of dope smoke if they value their clearance , like I said before society is trying to make excuses for felons who go back to jail 80 percent of the time.  Yes I have committed misdemeanors like speeding, but I keep that to a minimum because the consequence is a ticket, insurance goes up, safety of my family, others.  Most drug possesions are felonies.  Failing a drug test to me is a indication of a felony.  I would not hire a person who committed a felony.  Just my choice.  I hope this gives your friend and others a opinion that will help them. 

[ChiefRocscooter]

No did not expect as much fire, and it does to appear that I have hit on a hot button issue.  What is cool though is the way the discussion flows and that ther is a considerable amount of effort on peoples part to make thier points on this one!

Rob

[SloGlo]

knot having the time two due this myself, but why doesn't sumbuddy download the actual penalties for gitting popped ona test?  back ina day, i thought their were three levels of time off.  my bell rings with 3 years, 5 years, lifetime.  i may be rong, but what are the regs? 
btw, once a druggie always a druggie.... nice touch.  i guess, once a murderer, always a murderer.  i know of murderers who did their time and got their clearances and worked in the commercial and the doe worlds.  fact.

[Already Gone]

Failing a Drug test is not against the law is true but, It is a strong indicator of breaking the law.  Having your DNA show up on a rape kit or a murder scene also is not against the law.  But you better have a great excuse I have heard of Marijuana brownies and second hand smoke, But I doubt people accidently ate a brownie or were hanging out in a nuclear cloud of dope smoke if they value their clearance , like I said before society is trying to make excuses for felons who go back to jail 80 percent of the time.  Yes I have committed misdemeanors like speeding, but I keep that to a minimum because the consequence is a ticket, insurance goes up, safety of my family, others.  Most drug possesions are felonies.  Failing a drug test to me is a indication of a felony.  I would not hire a person who committed a felony.  Just my choice.  I hope this gives your friend and others a opinion that will help them. 

In New York, possession of  less than 25 grams of Marijuana isn't even a misdemeanor until the third offense.  For the first two offenses, the maximum penalty is a fine of $100 and $200.  Technically, the person who failed two drug tests may very well have committed an offense far less serious than speeding.  Smoking 25 g will definitely result in a positive test.  You can do that twice before you have commited a crime in this state.
In Alaska you may possess up to 4 ounces of Marijuana in your residence without penalty of any kind.
Many other states have decriminalized the posession of small amounts (enough for personal use) for at least the first offense or two.
Considering that personal use of small amounts of marijuana in many states is not a crime at all, then the failure of a urinalysis is not necessarily evidence of a crime.  It is merely evidence that a young guy did a stupid thing.  Do you really NEED evidence that young guys do stupid things?  Isn't that one we can just take for granted?  Hell! if youthful indiscretions were enough to disqualify people from operating nuke plants we'd all be shovelling coal for a living!
So, maybe we ought to dial down the rhetoric before we start equating someone who burned a couple of doobies in his younger days with a felon.

[hamsamich]

I know we are off topic but this is so interesting to me.  A person can be a functioning alcoholic, drinks every night, parties way hard on the weekend.  Maybe he even has a DUI in his file, but he does his job, stops drinking by 11pm and the boys like him.  But the same people who look up to this guy would totally condemn him or someone else for getting busted smoking weed.  People need to re-engage and think about this....  Marijuana has a stigma attatched to it from early government programs attacking it based on pseudoscience, and many people have bought into that to this day!  I don't have the study with me, but there have been quite a few done (long term) on people that have smoked MJ for 20 years or more (much of it done in jamaica I believe) and while there are slight findings in cognitive ability impairment, it is barely signifigant with no loss of major functionality.  To be more specific I'd have to look up the studies.  Weed is no worse than alky, and possibly it is not as bad with fewer long-term harmful cognitive effects.  That is what we are worried about here, right?  He too dum to scram reactor...

[PWHoppe]

Sorry to the moderators and to Mike R for again veering off course,

No problem   It would seem you are not alone in that area. I'm kinda just letting this run it's course right now since it is such a "hot" topic and I'm just letting everyone get it off their chests.

It is after all a subject that is very near and dear to all of us, our "paychecks" I think that SloGlo had a Great suggestion that someone should dig up the actual regulation on what it takes for someone to be reinstated, or maybe one of our security brothers or sisters that deals with FFD could chime in with first hand knowledge of the "real deal".

At any rate I'm not going to scold anyone for awhile unless of course someone starts any personal attacks  
but I'm sure that won't happen because we are all professionals  

your friendly neighborhood moderator.

[vikingfan]

  Great point Eric !! Many of us have been subject too making good money in our early years, and doing foolish things. maybe we smoked a few doobies after work or had way to many beers or jack and cokes also. but as we matured we got married, had kids bought cars and houses and paid are taxes even though unwillingly. since we did things in our past and we changed we are not to forever labeled as bad people or bad workers !!!!