Steroid Testing in EMS...your thoughts?

[Bay_Medic]

If you don't know the cost, how do you know they are as costly as you have "heard"? In a profession that fails to police itself about a lot things including patient care, why should employers look the other way with illegal activity? Don't you think that it would end up costing them more?

i almost feel like youre arguing with me for the sake of arguing. like i already said...

-i dont know the exact cost, only that they cost more than the standard drug test they already use (this was from a dept. higher up, it could be wrong but ive heard it from other places as well)

-i never said employers should look the other way, in fact i said the opposite (random drug testing).

-and i just acknowledged that it would cost them more (see my previous post about money spent on prevention saving greater sums of money in future hassles associated with not testing).

come on man, im just discussing an issue that probably needs discussing in our line of work and throwing out some of different sides of the argument. no need get so defensive about it, and especially accuse me of being a drug user when im clearing against such things.

 

[Bay_Medic]

ok, after a quick google search it seems that these tests cost between $170-$250. seems like it would be feasible for most local government departments but might get costly for a very large department or large private companies like AMR.

a standard 9 panel drug test looks it costs about $15.

my only argument for or against this kind of testing is based on this...say you have a department that employs 400 uniform personnel. at the low end of $170/test, it would cost the dept. $68,000. at $200/test thats $80,000. i think we can all agree thats a significant sum of money. do you think its worth it or that this money could be better spent elsewhere? maybe to improve nutrition at the stations? just wanted to see what everyone thought.

 

[Aidey]

I don't think the math is that simple though. I would be interested to know if the employer's auto insurance and health insurance would give them discounts for doing the drug testing. Or even the company that provides the life insurance, or disability insurance. What about worker's comp?

Lets say random testing is done 3 times a year, $240,000 to ensure 400 people are clean and sober while at work seems like a fair bargain to me. Especially when the people in question are driving very expensive, very heavy, very large equipment around, driving code, and are responsible for the safety and lives of their co-workers and patients.

I know the economy sucks right now, and taxes are evil and people are sick of paying the high costs of government. But I bet in the long run it is less expensive to drug test everyone than to pay a settlement when someone is killed or injured due to an employee being intoxicated in some manner. Granted, this is going to depend on the department and number of employees and such, but still. Drug testing should not be something we have to worry about funding.

 

[Bay_Medic]

I don't think the math is that simple though. I would be interested to know if the employer's auto insurance and health insurance would give them discounts for doing the drug testing. Or even the company that provides the life insurance, or disability insurance. What about worker's comp?

Lets say random testing is done 3 times a year, $240,000 to ensure 400 people are clean and sober while at work seems like a fair bargain to me. Especially when the people in question are driving very expensive, very heavy, very large equipment around, driving code, and are responsible for the safety and lives of their co-workers and patients.

I know the economy sucks right now, and taxes are evil and people are sick of paying the high costs of government. But I bet in the long run it is less expensive to drug test everyone than to pay a settlement when someone is killed or injured due to an employee being intoxicated in some manner. Granted, this is going to depend on the department and number of employees and such, but still. Drug testing should not be something we have to worry about funding.

good point about insurance coverage, i didnt take that into account until after i posted.

and i see what you mean about it being worth the cost to make sure our people are clean, but what does that say about our hiring process? it seems like we should be able to hire individuals with integrity and know they will hold themselves to a high enough standard to not have to police them. maybe its just the way things are these days.

 

[Aidey]

You never know what is going on with someone though, I think it's impossible to trust that many employees. Pre-employment drug testing is not uncommon. I'm pretty sure I've been drug tested for every job I've ever had except for temp summer stuff I had as a teen.

I can see where drug testing may give people the impression that their employer doesn't trust them. On the flip side though how many incidents have there been in the national news about drunk/high/impaired people at work? On top of that there are all the incidents that don't make the news. People have proven over and over again that they will try and get away with as much as they can, including drug and alcohol use at work.

Have you ever discussed addiction from a psychological stand point? There are people who are addicted to whatever and are convinced they don't have a problem. Or at the very least they are convinced that it isn't affecting their job/marriage/life etc. How they perceive themselves may not really be at all how they are acting.

If I was a supervisor I would absolutely prefer that my employees get all grumbly about me not trusting them than have to clean up after a drug/alcohol related incident.