Smurf wrote:Does anyone think that it is possible that now that they are blocked from doing random tests they will be much tougher on who gets in in the first place. I know I would be. Someone who was borderline might have got in before when they could follow up randomly but now they might just be turned down because they are pretty well stuck once they get there.
Actually, this gets to the heart of the matter.
IF you hire properly in the first place, 90% of your labor force problems go away.
My experience taught me that many employers ignore a key element, psychological matching. Everyone out there has jobs/workplaces where they can be successful. Often though, a person who can be happy and gain job satisfaction in workplace situation/culture A, will fail - at the same job - in situation/culture B. (sometimes the culture needs change, but that's a whole 'nother).
What worked out very well paying the money, getting industrial psychologists involved, and testing the a number of volunteer workers who we felt embodied the closest to the employee model we wanted. That gave us a baseline, and all short list potential hires were tested against that baseline. Too far off, and off the individual went to the "thanks, but no thanks" list.
I actually think that really helped with avoiding workplace substance abuse. Those that were hired under that regime had a close to zero substance abuse rate - and a whole host of other better workplace outcomes.
There is another part of the equation that many companies don't seem to grasp. Front line supervisors. Most companies stick pretty rigidly to the hierarchy where front line supervisors are pretty considered "entry level" as far a supervisory/management staff goes. That's a mistake. The front line supervisor has the most impact on the quality of the workplace, and the quality of the workplace determines the outcomes. Unfortunately, in most cases, the front line supervisor either has hit his or her ceiling under the "Peter principle"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle or is enticed out of front line supervision by higher pay "further up" the management hierarchy.
In actual practice, a top notch front line supervisor requires a great deal of both skill and talent (plus a willingness to be the filling in the sandwich). But companies tend not to be willing to pay for that, nor recognize the value, and incentivize people to move "up and out" of those positions.
If you have well trained, and top notch front line supervisors, you won't need the Draconian measures of drug testing etc. and all the issues that come with it (one of which is that drug testing tells the employee "we don't trust you" - and how can that be a good thing to do?).
That said, having worked in a camp situation, it is indeed a 24/7 situation where the strains on supervision are greater. But not insurmountable with top notch supervision.
That's why I say that pee testing etc. are cop outs. They are actually bandaids covering up a poor management regime. They are not foolproof anyway. But they do provide poor managers with "cover".
