Crossing Guard, 79, Fired Over Drug Test

KPRC ^ | 7/22/05 | Mikey_1962

[Black Tooth]

And this goes for those doing the testing too.

When I heard those doing the actual testing are not drug tested themselves, I was floored.

[The Red Zone]

get proved wrong, change your criterion. neat.

[Sandy]

I'm always "real proud" when Justice Scalia agrees with me, as when he wrote the opinion in Veronia School District case in '95.

Vernonia had nothing to do with random drug testing of adult government workers. Skinner and Von Raab are the relevant cases. You might want to read Scalia's Von Raab dissent before simply assuming that he'd rubberstamp HISD's policy.

[jim_trent]

Luckily, the druggies never killed anyone, but they injured others as well as themselves. You would know that if you bothered to read what I wrote. You either did not do that or, you approve of that. If the person wants to kill themselves, they can go to it. They have NO RIGHT to harm anyone else.

[Graybeard58]

If I get "proved wrong" I'll let you know.

[Wolfie]

The sooner the World War II generation dies off the better. Then we can really start busting heads without anyone around who remembers what freedom was like.

[Know your rights]

Anyone who says that they should be able to do whatever they want on their own time is trying to fool themselves. It slops over into work and endangers everyone they work with.

Depends on the job; how can someone who, say, works on a Web site endanger his coworkers through poor job performance?

[Looking4Truth]

The Drug Warriors have gone overboard in assuming every one who refuses to take a test must be high. The burden shouldn't be on the employee to prove he's clean, the burden should be on the government to prove he's breaking the law.

This bears repeating.

[Xenalyte]

On the one hand, random testing sucks.

On the other hand, "didn't read the fine print" is no excuse when you sign something. Which he didn't, and did.

[The Red Zone]

You already let everybody know.

[Mister Da]

I'd say it is you who did not read my statement, refering to the incredibly fascist statement you made regarding peoples basic right to privacy. I am not required to respond to all your foolish statements, only those I so chose. This is my right - you know, rights, those things you would so blatantly abuse.

As for your statistics, I don't believe them for a minute, for those who would lie to themselves would also lie to others.

BTW, I'll bet you don't test management and I bet you don't test for alcohol. If you did, I'll bet again that 1/2 the management tested would fail, every day. Yet alchohol kills more people & destroys more lives that all drugs, legal & illegal combined. Bottoms-up!

[Eagles Talon IV]

Sorry, rules need to be followed, or changed. As long as the objector to the rule has the ability to refuse by quitting his position (in this case) there can be no legitimate argument for having rules applied selectively.

I remember the past also and do long for those days but the fact is they are gone and are not coming back.

[Racehorse]

Last things first.  :-)

I remember the past also and do long for those days but the fact is they are gone and are not coming back.

I sadly agree.

My intent, such as it was, was only to answer your question:  What is it with some people on this forum and in society in general that they believe rules should only apply to some people and not others?

The short version, to repeat myself, remains true:  age and nostalgia. 

But there is no necessity imposed by God, or by myopic school district apparatchiks, requiring this old geezer or his friends to meekly accept the passing of those better values.

I rather like the way Dylan Thomas addresses a similar circumstance.  Hope you don't mind too much:  I seldom have an opportunity to remember old poetry. :-)

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Sorry, rules need to be followed, or changed.

And this is how petty rules and stiff-necked, bureaucratic procedures get changed, by someone refusing to go along . . . even accidentally

As long as the objector to the rule has the ability to refuse by quitting his position (in this case) there can be no legitimate argument for having rules applied selectively.

Sure there is.  But, in this case, making an argument isn't even necessary.  The school district failed Mr. Light.

From the Houston Chronicle story from which I took my excerpt:

. . . He would have submitted to the drug test, he said, except he couldn't find any Oak Forest administrators to tell him it was required.

"My nurse, my secretary, my principal — nobody was there," Light said. "I didn't have anybody there to talk to, and I didn't know who this lady was."

Can't you just envision it?  A strange woman walks up to you and says she's here to collect your urine for a random drug test.  I'd love to know how the other more compliant crossing guards complied.  Where?  How was chain of custody ensured?  Etc. etc. etc.

And, the best the HISD can do is claim the safety of every child in the district is at risk because poor ole Mr. Light didn't pee in a bottle . . . on command.  "Here doggey, doggey, fetch, roll over . . ." :-)

[Eagles Talon IV]

" . . He would have submitted to the drug test, he said, except he couldn't find any Oak Forest administrators to tell him it was required."

+++Sorry, I am not buying this.

"My nurse, my secretary, my principal — nobody was there," Light said. "I didn't have anybody there to talk to, and I didn't know who this lady was."

+++We are asked to believe this woman walked up to the man in the street and said "pee in the cup, please", no? Ok then he was notified to report to such and such a place at a certain time for the purpose of....what? Surely it was stated that it was for a drug test and even if it was id'd as a check-up, after he arrived and saw what it was really about he could have said he wanted to verify the fact this was mandated by the State. No way he would have been fired because he sought clarification on the rule.

Something is missing here

Thank you for the poem.

[jim_trent]

Wrong on all counts. Management was included. Only a couple in lower level management were busted. Booze was tested for (and some were found to be legally drunk), too. They also faced discipline.

Unfortunately, when it comes to drugs and booze, what people do at home does not stay at home. It comes into work the next day. That is where I draw the line. You obviously don't. Is it because you have brought it in with you? Personally, I don't want to be killed or injured by a druggie or drunk while at work. You do what you want.

BTW, I am invoking Godwin's law. You lose.

[jim_trent]

I don't know about that. However, I do know that people who work with press brakes, punches, shears that can cut up to 1/2" HSLA steel by 20'long, oxyacetylene cutters, plasma arc cutters, 20 ton cranes, over-the-road tractor/trailers do have a possibility of killing or injuring someone if they are impaired. That is the situation we had here.

And, since it was questioned before. Management was also tested and booze was one of the things that was tested for. There were some of each that were caught in the dragnet in addition to illegal drugs.

[cajun-jack]

My wife used to work for a major supermarket chain here in Northeast Louisiana and over the years had taken many random urine tests.

Then along comes a "new girl" and in about 3 - 5 weeks was screwing the boss (store mgr) and moves right on up. She thinks it is a great idea for everyone to be tested by their hair follicles.

My wife had been a hard working, loyal employee for many years and was insulted that the store management wanted to cut her hair (a piece of it) and she called me crying and wanted to know what to do...she was very insulted and hurt.

I made more than enough money for us to live on and i told her that if she wanted to quit, to tell the store mgr and his his floozy to kiss her ass as she walked out the door.

that was in 1997 and she has not worked outside the home since. The lady was soon fired and the store manager was transferred to south louisiana on probation.

Yes, she agreed to their drug testing policy when she hired on, but after so many years, just felt insulted that she couldn't be trusted to pee in a cup.

worked out great for us, cause the little grandbabies always had someone to love them one on one while their moms worked.

[Know your rights]

I do know that people who work with press brakes, punches, shears that can cut up to 1/2" HSLA steel by 20'long, oxyacetylene cutters, plasma arc cutters, 20 ton cranes, over-the-road tractor/trailers do have a possibility of killing or injuring someone if they are impaired. [...] Management was also tested and booze was one of the things that was tested for.

I have no problem with this testing program.