My immediate comment is that this policy puts way too much discretion in the hands of administrators who have shown a serious lack of judgment in the past. I am especially concerned by the random drug testing facet of the policy. As a professional, I believe that i should conduct myself as a professional AND be treated like a professional by those with whom I work and by those whom I instruct.

This policy says to me that I may be required to give a urine sample (without cause) or forfeit my employment at USM, and is just another way for the administration to invade my privacy without cause. If I do not appear to be intoxicated or under the influence of illegal substances, then NO ONE has the right to demand that I take a drug test. It is demeaning. Why don't we all just punch a clock at 8am, clock out and back in for our lunch break, and clock out at 5pm? We need to remove all personal items from our offices. We will begin to wear uniforms with our names sewn on a patch, along with the USM logo. We will be given prescribed syllabi and will teach out of prescribed textbooks. We will all be assigned fundraising and economic development projects and will be given space in the Starbucks Center (books and periodicals removed to make room for calling centers) to do our work. We will be able to park at the old K-Mart parking lot, and old school buses will shuttle us to the campus -- parking areas previously labeled "faculty/staff" will be auctioned to the highest bidding students -- more economic development.

I find it very interesting that "academic freedom" is the cry when Glamser & Stringer's computers were seized, but members of our academic community will cooperate to put into place a policy that invades the personal privacy and seriously damages the personal liberties of our faculty and staff. Police cannot demand that you provide samples of urine, hair, or DNA -- you have to volunteer them. Why should we give administrators such power over our lives, our liberties, and our livelihoods?

ram,

I'm not claiming expertise in this area, and I know that universities, like other employers, are boxed in by the various Federal laws cited in the draft policy.

However... I'm in my 14th year at Clemson and I have neither been "escorted" to a lab and ordered to pi$$ in a bottle on account of random alcohol and drug screening, nor heard of anyone else who had that experience.

I strongly recommend checking out the policies in effect at other universities.

Unless random alcohol and drug testing is mandated by Feds for employees who are not driving vehicles or operating heavy machinery, the Faculty Senate does not need to be drafting a policy that includes that provision.

If the Senate is afraid that the upper administration will reject the policy without the provision for random alcohol and drug testing, send the policy up without that provision.  Let the administration impose the random drug testing and explain why it is doing so.

Incidentally, under the current policy SFT cannot be ordered to undergo alchohol and drug testing unless his boss (the Board) requests it, or a computer program randomly selects him.

What do you suppose the probability of either of those events might be?  In particular, you really think that the program that selects employees for testing won't be excluding a select few of them?

Robert Campbell

I have no problem with a strong and enforcable policy in this area. But I have absolutely no confidence in this administration to construct or administer it.

Reporter,

You're right.  There's a provision for random testing, but it's not in Section III, which pertains to all university employees, but in Section V, which pertains to drivers and operators of machinery. 

Here's the part from Section V.

Who can authorize testing?

 

• Pre-employment - personnel appointing authority
  
• Post-Accident - supervisor or law enforcement officer as mandated for fatality or moving violations
  
• Reasonable Suspicion - trained designated supervisor(s)
  
• Random - computer generated or other random selection device
  
• Return to Duty and Follow-Up - substance abuse professional

The random drug testing of drivers and machinery operators may well be required by the Feds.

Sorry.

rlc

 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"ram, I'm not claiming expertise in this area, and I know that universities, like other employers, are boxed in by the various Federal laws cited in the draft policy. However... I'm in my 14th year at Clemson and I have neither been "escorted" to a lab and ordered to pi$$ in a bottle on account of random alcohol and drug screening, nor heard of anyone else who had that experience. I strongly recommend checking out the policies in effect at other universities. Unless random alcohol and drug testing is mandated by Feds for employees who are not driving vehicles or operating heavy machinery, the Faculty Senate does not need to be drafting a policy that includes that provision. If the Senate is afraid that the upper administration will reject the policy without the provision for random alcohol and drug testing, send the policy up without that provision.  Let the administration impose the random drug testing and explain why it is doing so. Incidentally, under the current policy SFT cannot be ordered to undergo alchohol and drug testing unless his boss (the Board) requests it, or a computer program randomly selects him. What do you suppose the probability of either of those events might be?  In particular, you really think that the program that selects employees for testing won't be excluding a select few of them? Robert Campbell"

---

Robert:

1. Yes, we did look at numerous other policies, including MSU, Ole Miss, and LSU. We wrote a less punitive policy.

2. There is no random drug testing unless you come under DOT regs. Very few employees here will do so (and probably no faculty).

3. The posters need to read the policy more carefully. And perhaps compare it to the one drafted without faculty input at USM and to LSUs, for example.

4. Members of AAUP, the FS, the community were involved in writing this policy.

5. It is not yet known whether this will be acceptable to the administration. That is the next hurdle.

 

Even disregarding issues pertaining to the Drug/Alcohol policy, USM is an institution filled with intrigue, suspiciousness, and distrust.Things are rotten to the core and they have been for many years. So much damage has been done over such an extended period of time that I am not certain that the current generation of faculty members will ever personally witness a changeover to a normal university environment.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Mitch, You are right that these policies are often imposed without faculty input. You know, a provision could be added to the draft policy that, on account of the vital nature of their work, in an environment that isn't very fault-tolerant, all upper administrators shall be subject to random drug and alcohol testing, conducted quarterly. But even though it takes their self-promotion literally, I doubt they would see the humor in it. Whatever policy ends up being enacted, faculty and staff people will have to live with the fact that it will be enforced much more thoroughly on them than on administrators. Robert Campbell  "

---

Given that I do NIMH and NIAAA funded drug and alcohol research, maybe the next time I need to meet with someone from the dome I'll insist that they provide a urine sample and "blow in the mouthpiece" before proceeding.

You state a truism that applies to virtually all organizations in all cultures. Those lower on the food chain have less power and influence. Those higher are less likely to be bothered by pesky regulations and following the rules set for all.

The faculty and staff who were involved in writing this policy and disseminating it for comment since the summer really want to wrap up the process and get on with more pressing issues.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Barrister Bob
"This thread demonstrates how you often speak without thinking.  The policy does not and cannot provide for random testing.  That is illegal. Further, you still complain about the lack of faculty input when one of your own admittedly wrote most of the policy. This just shows that you will never be satisfied and want to complain about everything, regardless of merit.  Now you see why you got the moniker, "Whiners.""

---

Attorney Bob:

I certainly hope you do not hold a bar card in Mississippi. You are incorrect about random testing under the Omnibus Transportation Act. If you know of any state or federal statute that prohibits such testing in the workplace in all circumstances, please provide the citation. Second, it is not faculty here who are "whining" about this draft policy--they seem satisfied in general with the outcome. This site is open to all, and many comments here are from non-USM faculty. A full range intellectual ability and personality are represented here. Your post is a case in point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Mitch
"
The faculty and staff who were involved in writing this policy and disseminating it for comment since the summer really want to wrap up the process and get on with more pressing issues.  "

---

Mitch,

I'm sure that's true... and the draft policy is a major improvement over the monster that M. Dvorak and J. Hanbury created.

The Federal laws with which USM must comply are a topic for a different discussion. But there is nothing that USM or another university can do to change them.

Robert Campbell

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Barrister Bob
"This thread demonstrates how you often speak without thinking.  The policy does not and cannot provide for random testing.  That is illegal. Further, you still complain about the lack of faculty input when one of your own admittedly wrote most of the policy. This just shows that you will never be satisfied and want to complain about everything, regardless of merit.  Now you see why you got the moniker, "Whiners.""

---

Bob,

Have you been around long enough to know that the original Drug and Alcohol Policy was established by Risk Manger Jack Hanbury with no faculty input?  No one was asked of input.  Just one day we were told the policy existed.  Some staff even had to sign a statement agreeing to it.  It was the Faculty Senate that reminded the powers that be that this wasn't the USSR and demanded a committee establish a policy suitable for a US citizen.  Yes, we are whiners for freedom; just like those whiners in Iraq.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Federal Urine Collector
"I trust the department chair, dean, or other "responsible" administrator will have to physically observe the urine sample being collected. Otherwise, the test is always going to be subject to something like this.

"

---

Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeez ...... I don't want to be holding that cup!