Teacher's New Contract

[scrivener]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

I know. I'm worried.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

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]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

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]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

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]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

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]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

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]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

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]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

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]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

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]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

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

[craigwatanabe]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

When working at the Gas Company, the company and union agreed on random drug testing as we work with both natural and propane gas in very large quantities. In this case public safety was the driving concern and if a tanker driver was under any influence while driving a 4,000 gallon tanker filled with liquified propane gas, he could create a situation that would affect many people at once.

Teachers are one of many (if not some of the most important) pillars of society. If teachers in general fall so does society (intellectually). If you found termite damage in one pillar amongst the thousands that support our society thru the education of another generation, wouldn't you inspect the rest? Or at least a random selection of pillars to check for damage?

When working at Home Depot, I work with some of my fellow sales associates that cannot or will not comprehend the term, "giving excellent customer service". They'd rather just collect the paycheck until they're fired for poor performance. I don't snitch on them because I saw them sneaking an extra break. Instead I talk to them and encourage them to remember why they need that paycheck and who's giving them an opportunity to earn it.

In teaching, as in any profession where you work as a team, if you as a teacher saw another taking a mid day toke, would you turn away or would you try to do something? Anything?

The DOE is trying to do something. Left unchecked the school system leaves themselves wide open to liability IF a drugged out teacher causes physical or emotional harm to their students. Fact is there are a few that use drugs. Fact is some got caught. These are reality statements of fact.

If a student is impaired or somehow is "damaged" by the effects of a drugged out teacher they can claim the school knew there was a drug problem within it's employees yet did nothing to prevent this "future" incident from happening. Neglectful is the word and lawsuit is the result.

Whether there was just one teacher doing it or a hundred, failure to act is enough to warrant willful neglect on the part of the school's administration and can be held accountable. How do you resolve a drug problem without singling out any one individual resulting in discrimination charges? You do RANDOM drug testing. Even if it doesn't prove anything, it does show the DOE did SOMETHING to try to resolve this issue and cannot be charged with willful neglect.

This isn't a witch hunt to remove teachers from their jobs, it's a legal motion to prevent a possible lawsuit from happening. And preventing the State of Hawaii from the threat of being sued is a good thing for taxpayers who will ultimately have to pay for one teacher's misgivings should the DOE do nothing.

What would be a better alternative to random drug testing? If one doesn't like the current method then maybe that person should attempt to find a resolution that will work for the masses. But doing nothing is just as wrong as the crime itself.

[Pua'i Mana'o]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

its cool. A great deal of my immediate family are in the police and fire departments. I work in the private sector. My BIL's tools are potentially lethal weapons and he makes an obscene wage/hr using them. We each have stories about trying to get the perfect potential hiree into the company/dept and the resulting anger we go through when said person fails his/her piss tests.

I want to talk about "loss", which Scriv mentions earlier. We are who we are. Our character spills into all areas of our lives. When we face the above scenario of losing a hiree because of failing a drug test, the root of the anger is towards the guy for not having the discipline to clean up when he knows that he will be tested before being hired. Drug screening is de facto behavior screening, like it or not. In my company's last situation, the testing picked up the masking agent. Bummer; smart person, witty, articulate, and loaded with chemicals designed to break down the presence of amphetamine. Our loss? Yeah, sure, but nah, no. A potential headache thwarted.

[scrivener]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

I meant that it was your loss that I'm not a public-school teacher.

[GnosticWarrior]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

I see drug testing in any form as a proactive performance screen. Anyone who uses any illicit or intoxicating drugs is not serious about delievering his/her highest potential in performance. An employer should be able to use such a proactive performance screen to prevent a failure of job performance from occuring. The best example would be a pilot. Who would wait for the crash to occur first? Its all about probability. Its legitamate. Insurance companies use it all the time. I don't see why it should not also be applied to teachers.

A true professional is serious about their job performance and creating an atmosphere that improves the overall performance of the organization. I think drug testing only helps to create that atmosphere and does not take away from it.

[Miulang]

Re: Teacher's New Contract

As Craig stated above, one of the main reasons why random drug tests are done is because American institutions have this inordinate fear of litigation: they fear they will be sued if they don't try to identify people who take illegal drugs and an equal fear of being sued if they single out a person who is found not to be using drugs. So in the interest of "fairness", they believe that random testing will kill two birds with one stone.

It's the same reason that the cops have the holiday traffic checks...they randomly pull over cars to see if the drivers are under the influence. The drivers don't have to be speeding or weaving dangerously all across the road to be stopped. The cops' rationalization is that by just mentioning that they will be stopping cars randomly, it will prevent some impaired drivers from getting behind the wheel of their car. That tactic may or may not work, but when was the last time you heard anybody object?

Unfortunately, when social contracts are not honored (and people can't monitor themselves for appropriate behavior), then more formal types of regulations have to be implemented. I didn't read anything about what the consequences were if one was found to have drug residues in their urine. Do they get fired immediately? Do they get to stay employed by the school system and be subject to mandatory drug counseling? Seems to me that just because someone might be using drugs recreationally, it doesn't mean that they can't teach or they can't be around children (teachers of either sex who prey on their students are a lot more dangerous, IMO). Lots of companies now offer EAP options that include drug counseling for their employees rather than outright termination. Or set up a diversion program that allows staff who self-identify themselves as having drug problems to be treated confidentially but not terminated. That would be the best option.

Is the real issue the method of testing, or the principle of random testing? If there were alternative methods to do drug testing (like hair samples) would that make it less onerous?

But I can also see where Scriv is coming from. It's rules like this that have undermined the general American public's right to privacy. Just another bump on the slippery slide to the total elimination of individual rights, just like the Patriot Act did in terms of your financial privacy.

Miulang