Teacher's New Contract

[alohabear]

I for one agree with the teachers(who voted YES).... but test ALL of us in the DOE. If you have nothing to hide, why worry? I work in a High School in Hilo and the BIG complaints come from teachers who most suspect do drugs. The LOTUS notes this past week were unreal with all the talk of selling PEE and how to beat drug tests, the Principal finally put his foot down and said ENOUGH ,because teachers were sending messages to ALL of us on LOTUS and many did not want to hear their views.

Hawai'i teachers will have to wait for absentee ballots to be turned in by Wednesday before they'll know whether they have a new contract that calls for pay raises and random drug testing.

Some 60 percent of Hawai'i's teachers — or nearly 8,000 people — cast ballots at 25 polling places on all islands yesterday on whether to accept a new two-year contract.

But 1,900 absentee ballots are still outstanding and "could sway the outcome of the vote," the union's president, Roger Takabayashi, said last night.

Teachers have until Wednesday to turn in their absentee ballots, when the results of the votes will be announced, he said.

I guess they will find out Wednesday.


SOURCE

[Miulang]

I for one agree with the teachers(who voted YES).... but test ALL of us in the DOE. If you have nothing to hide, why worry? I work in a High School in Hilo and the BIG complaints come from teachers who most suspect do drugs. The LOTUS notes this past week were unreal with all the talk of selling PEE and how to beat drug tests, the Principal finally put his foot down and said ENOUGH ,because teachers were sending messages to ALL of us on LOTUS and many did not want to hear their views.I guess they will find out Wednesday.


SOURCE

I agree with you that any public school employee (whether it's a teacher, principal, janitor, cafeteria worker, etc.) should not object to periodic random urine testing for drugs. Wasn't it a few months ago that 2 janitors at some school in Honolulu were busted for selling crack? There was also a story in the Advertiser (I think) a few days ago that reported that one company that is used by local employers to screen for drugs was finding more traces of marijuana in the urine of current employees and job applicants.

Miulang

[craigwatanabe]

Just don't eat those Poppy Seed bagels! You will test positive.

I also agree that if you got nothing to hide there's nothing to worry about. If you got something to hide...then you got something to worry about.

We get so anal when other public officials get arrested for drunk driving or if they do something illegal and are held accountable, we demand that person step down from public office. Is it because of morality? Is because it impairs their ability to think cohesively? Is it because it gives us the power to selectively remove these officials?

But when it comes to teachers...no we can't drug test teachers. Why not? They help influence our children. But if they're doped out well hey if it's good for the teacher...it's good for the student too.

If drug testing is good enough for our mass transit drivers, then it's good enough for our teachers. This isn't a matter of invasion of privacy rights. It has everything to how our educators influence our keiki and that's important.

As a parent of six boys in all sectors of education from preschool to college and paying for it, I too would demand that those in charge be tested to ensure a drug free environment and mentoring to my boys, especially in light of the recent drug busts regarding those very educators. That's too many in too short of a time period.

[scrivener]

If your favorite clothing store puts cameras in the dressing rooms in order to control shoplifting, you should have no problem with it, then. Because as long as you know you're not stealing, you've got nothing to hide.

[Miulang]

If your favorite clothing store puts cameras in the dressing rooms in order to control shoplifting, you should have no problem with it, then. Because as long as you know you're not stealing, you've got nothing to hide.

You mean some stores don't already do that? Actually, they have surveillance cameras everywhere else, and if the item is high ticket enough, they pin those sensors on them that can't be removed, or they have magnetic strips that set off alarms (like in bookstores).

Miulang

[craigwatanabe]

Now Scrivner that was a bit absurd. Nudity is an invasion of privacy rights.

The problem with drugs is that it affects the way you think and administer your intelligence to those influenced by you. Teaching is an honored profession (you of all people should know that). Those who choose to take drugs and influence our keiki have no business teaching. They have no business interacting with children AT ALL!

BUT if you feel that I'm wrong...go ahead tell me it's right to have drugged out teachers influencing our keiki!

There would be no reason for drug testing if there wasn't a need for it because there wouldn't be any teachers using and getting caught. Now turn that statement around: There were teachers using drugs and getting caught, therefore there is a need for drug testing making for a valid reason for drug testing.

You have that logic formula, see if that makes sense. I surely think so.

[Glen Miyashiro]

I don't like it.

WHY is it so important that teachers be tested for drug use? Because they influence our children? Gee... what people are the biggest influences in the lives of our children? I'll give you a hint: the word I'm looking for starts with "P" and ends with "ARENTS".

Let's drug-test all of them first.

[Glen Miyashiro]

And here's another issue: it's a potential invasion of medical privacy. I know enough about drug testing to know that sometimes you get false positives -- when the test says it detected the chemical, but the test is really detecting another chemical that happens to be there.

What if you are on medication for a condition that you'd rather not disclose, and your meds show up on the DOE drug test? You're then forced to disclose your medical condition, because otherwise you lose your job because DOE will think you're an illegal drug abuser. Now your medical condition is on record, not because DOE specifically wants to know, but because DOE forced you to disclose it.

[alohabear]

Is the hair folic test more costly than a urine yest? It would seem less invasive.

[craigwatanabe]

Ya know Glenn that isn't too far off especially if a child has been suspected of child abuse.

But you know what, a good parent won't object because good parents don't do drugs. But bad parents...

Drugs is a bad thing, if it's in your system then you're being bad. You'd then deserve to be punished. Parents, teachers, WHOEVER.

One can hide behind the excuse that if one group then the whole group, or one can stay focused on the problem...Drugs in schools via school teachers.

That's the problem. CPS can take care of drugs in the home via drugged out parents.

The simple truth is that there is no excuse for illegal drugs in anybody, especially teachers! There's the union arguement that teachers are the role models of our keiki so they deserve better pay. ROLE MODELS! Get it? Well better pay comes with a heightened responsibility.

Teachers do more and expect more for and from our keiki, we all agree teachers should get more pay for what they do. We also agree that they are pivital in our keiki's youth (Mr. so and so in 5th grade influenced me to be a rocket scientist...you know?). So if we place them so high on the pedestal, they have to be scrutinized as pure as can be.

Parents are held to higher standards and will be punished in greater ways than a school teacher. A teacher may lose their job for drug use...a parent may lose their child for drug use. You can get another job...but you won't get little Johnny back for making a stupid mistake. That's what keeps parents like me from indulging in vices like drugs, smoking, and drinking. I do care about my kids so I take the high road to be that role model to my kids.

AND I will lobby to ensure those hours my kids are with the only adults that spend the second most time with my kids are drug free as well. That's what good parents do, they protect their kids from harm, not push them in front of the train.

I for one will not tolerate a drugged out teacher influencing my kids on my tax dollars. Privacy rights or not there is no place for drugs in schools whether it be in a kid's locker, or a teacher's body.

Parents have a hard enough time protecting their kids from peer pressure, we don't need the additional burden of protecting them from their teachers, the very ones we entrust to help good parents raise their kids.

TEST EM ALL! And let the DOE sort em out.

[craigwatanabe]

And here's another issue: it's a potential invasion of medical privacy. I know enough about drug testing to know that sometimes you get false positives -- when the test says it detected the chemical, but the test is really detecting another chemical that happens to be there.

What if you are on medication for a condition that you'd rather not disclose, and your meds show up on the DOE drug test? You're then forced to disclose your medical condition, because otherwise you lose your job because DOE will think you're an illegal drug abuser. Now your medical condition is on record, not because DOE specifically wants to know, but because DOE forced you to disclose it.

If you know enough about drug testing and false positives, then you must also know that when tested positive, another test is given to ensure an accurate positive test.

And you don't have to be forced to disclose your meddies. A simple doctor's note indicating the use of a drug that can cause a false positive should be enough to satisfy the drug tester. No need to disclose your medical condition.

[Glen Miyashiro]

If I want to be sure that the people who can have the most influence over my child's long term health and well being must be properly screened... then I want the President tested. Regularly. He's the one who is responsible for military deployments, which are a huge influence on the health and well being of thousands of our children. They're at severe risk of acute lead poisoning due to his decisions.

But regarding the false positives, well, I haven't ever actually participated in a drug testing program. Have you? If a doctor's note is really all that it takes, then my particular objection there is probably covered.

[craigwatanabe]

Anytime a positive drug test is discovered, there is always a secondary test to verify or disprove the results. You cannot hang an individual on a single test because as you stated, there is such a thing as a false positive test.

And yes I have been included in a random drug testing and I didn't have a problem with it at all.

Before you include the president you may want to consider the ramification of that statement because Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy are known to be heavy drinkers yet there isn't any problem with them running the country or making laws that affect all of us. Vices cross all party affiliations.

But let's not detract from the arguement at hand, Random Drug Testing for Teachers...not Presidents, not parents. TEACHERS! We can discuss President Bush all the way down to Washington on another thread. We've already bashed myself on another thread on my morality.

But the arguement here is should Teachers be drug tested? I laid out why they should be, all I heard from you is everybody else should be too. Not a convincing rebuttal because it doesn't defend the reasons why not.

Scriv defended privacy rights. Privacy to what? Doing illegal activities ON THE CLOCK? I'm sorry but in my book that's simply wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

[scrivener]

Okay, obviously there are a few things I need to say here.

First, privacy. A person I went to school with was asked to take a urine test. This involved going into a small room, pulling down her pants, facing a one-way window, raising one hand up into the air, and peeing into a cup. She was a woman, so the raising her hand up into the air made things quite challenging.

I don't expect things would be done in this way, but Craig, don't you see that even a doctor's note saying you're on meds, even without disclosing what those meds might be, is something of an invasion of privacy?

Next, why not test teachers? First of all, we have this thing in our country called "probable cause." As far as you or I know, no student has yet been harmed by a teacher who has been on drugs. Yes, students are getting harmed by teachers all the time in countless ways, but as far as I can remember, drugs has never been the reason. Yes, some teachers have been nailed for drug issues, but are those very rare instances worth the indignity (about which I'll address more in a second) of asking a professional with a completely exemplary record to pee into a cup?

Craig, I know we won't see eye to eye on this, because you're going to say yes. You're going to say that if what's at stake is the safety of a child, you DON'T WAIT until something happens before you institute policy. The fact that SOME teachers have been caught with drugs is enough to warrant this kind of testing for ALL teachers.

I say it's not, because there's a certain dignity and professionalism I believe teachers should be afforded and with which they should conduct themselves. I do not think striking and picketing are in line with that dignity and professionalism, so teachers already harm themselves by engaging in such non-professional behavior, but at the same time, teachers in just about every other way DO conduct themselves with dignity and professionalism.

What I am asking is that we look at the evidence. In my opinion, there is nowhere near enough evidence to suspect that this kind of thing is going on. If you believe your children's teachers are not conducting themselves professionally and that your child's safety is at risk, by all means, do something about it. But when the OVERWHELMING majority of teachers is made up of hard-working, underpaid professionals devoted to the betterment of your children, please don't thank us by asking us to pull our panties down.

I don't deserve to be treated this way.

[Miulang]

Maybe it's cruel, but it seems that the contract is a stick and carrot situation: you are underpaid and want a raise. If you want the raise, you have to agree to be subject to random testing for drugs. So the outcome of the voting will tell you which will win: the practicality of making more money, or the ethical and moral issue of random testing for drugs when there is no evidence to support the claim that you use illegal drugs. Sometimes being right doesn't pay. If the vote is in favor of ratification, I bet somebody will challenge the drug testing part and it ends up in court.

Miulang

[scrivener]

I know. I'm worried.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

I crossed this bridge almost a decade ago (my husband for almost 15 yrs) and suffer no moral qualms trading my personal debris for the comfort of a work environment that ferrets out drug use. Social Contract, folks. In these times, we deal with stuff that our grandpappy didn't.

[scrivener]

I crossed this bridge almost a decade ago (my husband for almost 15 yrs) and suffer no moral qualms trading my personal debris for the comfort of a work environment that ferrets out drug use.

I think that's wonderful, honestly. I think that's a choice you should be allowed to make. The person I know who had to go through that awful drug test did it willingly, thinking that it was worth the chance to work for a HUGE multi-national company. And if the teachers vote to accept the drug-testing in exchange for the drug-testing, then I guess they've made their choice, too.

I would walk, but I guess that's just me. I choose not to teach in public schools because I don't think the extra money (and it is a LOT of extra money -- my salary still begins with a 3 after eleven years in the classroom) is worth all the other stuff. It is the DOE's loss, and forgive me for saying it, but it's your loss, too. I hope lots of other qualified teachers walk if this thing passes.

edited:
I am asking public-school-teaching friends of mine how they voted. So far, one out of one surveyed voted to accept. More as the weekend progresses.

[craigwatanabe]

Teachers don't deserve to be treated that way, but bus drivers do?

It's not about deserved treatment, it's about ensuring a school remains a drug free zone.

You say this is a rare instance, yet it seems to be happening more often as we read about it in the news.

Now days drug testing doesn't involve raising one's hand or having a monitor in the bathroom with you. There are guidelines that must be followed to ensure privacy rights are secure.

I'll admit there are legit reasons regarding the release of medication information on drug testing, however one doesn't have to disclose the type of medication being administered when being tested, just a declaration that this individual is under a doctor's care using drugs that can cause a false positive for the following drug tests.

Okay so one can "assume" by connecting a false positive with a known drug, but that remains an assumption and if that assumption is used as a tool to discriminate against a person protected by our laws then that person has legal recourse. AND no organization will put themselves at risk legally by using that assumption as a weapon against an employee randomly chosen to be tested.

You say probable cause? Yes if a small percentage of teachers are being caught with drugs, then that same percentage should be the factor in deciding on how many random tests are conducted. If one in a hundred teachers are being busted for drug abuse, then that same ratio should apply with random testing: 1:100. The level of testing should be consistant to the number of drug busts. If there's a lot of arrests, then there needs to be stepped up testing. If there's a decline in arrests then testing should be reduced or reaccessed to determine if it is still necessary.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Veering on the personal front for a bit:

There was a time when a great number of public servants had a collective rev problem. They showed up to work and did their jobs, but behind the scenes, their partying antics were waaay too much. Spouses left or threatened to, families were on the verge of falling apart, but it wasn't until they were faced with losing their jobs that these people got their act together en masse and gave up doing lines and an occasional hit on the pipe. Some of those people had a hard time cleaning up, but they did it. Drug testing implemented on the workfront was the saving grace. We are talking the early 1990s.

That the DOE has warded this off so many years after other state and county departments' implementation, and kept this on the discussion table instead of it being an established policy and practice, simply boggles me.

[Kalihiboy]

My wife voted no and I know some of her peers voted no as well. With rising costs of everything, not to mention medical insurance costs increasing as far as I know we'll be lucky to add 40 bucks into our paycheck.

So a couple teachers got busted using and selling drugs, gee I thought there was more of a problem with teachers and students sleeping with one another and having kids than this. Seems State of Hawaii wants to form some sort of a precedent. Personally I think it will pass because extra money always seems to win over the major and minor inconveniences of life, so it will probably pass but considering the fact the votes havent been counted yet leads me to believe it will be a very close vote.

I also would like to know if a firefighter, policeman, etc. gets caught using drugs is this covered by the media or is it all quieted down by the folks at the bureau.

Police Officers are around more drugs than drug addicts because of the nature of the job why is it they (SHOPO union) are not tested or are they please correct me if I'm wrong.

Busdrivers are tested, good? They in many ways control our safety getting from A to B, so nice to know things are taken care of there and their union is very strong, considering the raises they were able to barter after the 3 week strike a few years ago.

Go and ask the ILWU, the Carpenters Union, etc. they also need to get mandatory testing and let's see how that one will fly with them!

KalihiBoy

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Teachers don't deserve to be treated that way, but bus drivers do?

Continuing on with this logic, why shouldn't cops and firefighters catch slack for drugging on their days off? If anyone deserves to chemically induce some mental respite, isn't it the poor bloke who had to attend a ghastly crime scene or horrific accident involving children, and who do this constantly as part of their job description? But those guys have been tested for years, to the benefit of everyone.

Or is teaching a five-yr-old, or making his lunches beyond the scope of public safety? Deep down, I don't believe so.

[joshuatree]

Okay, obviously there are a few things I need to say here.

First, privacy. A person I went to school with was asked to take a urine test. This involved going into a small room, pulling down her pants, facing a one-way window, raising one hand up into the air, and peeing into a cup. She was a woman, so the raising her hand up into the air made things quite challenging.

I don't deserve to be treated this way.

Does this contract stipulate the drug test will have to be strictly a pee test? Because new methods of drug testing can be done by collecting a sample of your hair. Not very invasive of privacy with that method. Or are some people afraid because testing for drugs by hair is very accurate and can be traced back up to 90 days?

You don't deserve to be treated this way, so do many people in many other professions that have random drug testing. You know how it goes, it's always the few bad apples that ruin it.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

My wife voted no and I know some of her peers voted no as well. With rising costs of everything, not to mention medical insurance costs increasing as far as I know we'll be lucky to add 40 bucks into our paycheck.

So a couple teachers got busted using and selling drugs, gee I thought there was more of a problem with teachers and students sleeping with one another and having kids than this. Seems State of Hawaii wants to form some sort of a precedent. Personally I think it will pass because extra money always seems to win over the major and minor inconveniences of life, so it will probably pass but considering the fact the votes havent been counted yet leads me to believe it will be a very close vote.

I also would like to know if a firefighter, policeman, etc. gets caught using drugs is this covered by the media or is it all quieted down by the folks at the bureau.

Police Officers are around more drugs than drug addicts because of the nature of the job why is it they (SHOPO union) are not tested or are they please correct me if I'm wrong.

Busdrivers are tested, good? They in many ways control our safety getting from A to B, so nice to know things are taken care of there and their union is very strong, considering the raises they were able to barter after the 3 week strike a few years ago.

Go and ask the ILWU, the Carpenters Union, etc. they also need to get mandatory testing and let's see how that one will fly with them!

KalihiBoy

you are wrong. Police and firefighters are tested and have been for years. There have been a few instances where two drug tests failed and firings occured and it was in the papers. Edited to add that my brother-in-law is in the Carpenters union and he gets tested more frequently than either my husband or I.

[Kalihiboy]

Like I said correct me if I'm wrong and you did, now I can sleep at night knowing the police, firefighters and carpenters unions are randomly tested. Oh wait, let's not forget the teachers!

Pardon the pun as they say this too, will pass....

KalihiBoy