Important Notice: We have deployed some new anti-spam measures that have enabled us to once again allow registration with a simple email verification. However, please do not hesitate to report suspected spam threads should they arise.
Spammers take note - your posts, if successful, will not last here. Our community is vigilant in identifying and reporting spam posts for IMMEDIATE removal. Don't waste your time!
I think that depends on the company policy itself. However, since most company policies now days have in place for drug testing to take place after all accidents (and I will play devil's advocate here since I am an injured worker myself) and they should state whether or not medical treatment is needed, then a drug test should at the minimum be required. Sorry I am for zero tolerance in the work place when it comes to illegal drugs and over use of prescription drugs. As far as prescriptions drugs go, if they can perform the task without putting themselves and others at risk then I feel that it should be up to the department head and the employee and doctor working together to determine how those drugs with labels that say "may cause drowsiness" affect the employee and what other side effects they have. Sometimes it may mean moving a good employee around because of mediation they are on because of a medical condition, but better safe than sorry in the long run.
Why should they be terminated?? If the employee feels that there isn't any reason to be seen by an MD, why force them? Instead, I would get a handwritten letter from the employee stating that they had no wish to be seen for the injury, and their reasons for such. It is known as covering your rear end.
However, if there is a policy in place for mandatory drug screening after accidents, they can't refuse that. That would be a reason for termination.
I have to agree with Pooh on the drug issues. If a drug screen is given, and they find legitimate drugs and the employee can show the prescription, there may be a need to move them to an area where there is no risk to other employees or themselves, or have them taken off work, depending upon their abilities to function under said prescriptions. If illegal drugs are found, I would have them escorted off the property ASAP !!
I've always been crazy, but it keeps me from going insane.
Happiness comes through doors you didn't even know you left open
Im sure that when I was hired I signed something that said I had to at least see the company nurse if injured and it was up to her or if she wasnt available the superviser made the call. Because I would still be getting paid id figure why not but thats just me.
In my state and every company I've been associated with medical care has to be offered BUT the worker can refuse treatment. The injured employee is asked to sign a refusal of treatment form to document that THEY refused. You cannot terminate an employee for refusal of medical treatment; that is their right. Personally I think that anyone who is injured should seek treatment because you never know what can happen after what seems to be an insignificant injury.
Some people feel it's a hassle to travel to the doctor's and WAIT and WAIT, etc and they think they are going to be fine.
However, everywhere I've worked it is policy that a drug screen is required for all injuries other than needle sticks (don't ask me why a needle stick is an exemption-I don't know). If the employee refuses the drug screen THAT is grounds for termination because all employees know before they are hired that random drug screening as well as drug screens for accidents are policy. Refusal to submit to drug screening means automatic termination. I've had some employees who refused random drug screening knowing they would be terminated; I later learned from some of these employees that they knew illegal substances would show up on their drug screen and they preferred termination to leaving "evidence" of illegal drug use although we don't contact the authorities when a drug screen comes back with illegal or unauthorized prescription drugs in it.
Anyway, your state's laws or your company policy should spell out the answer to this. But, again, I've never heard of terminating an employee for refusal of treatment after an injury. Even people who have sought treatment and are in the ER or hospitalized have the right to sign out AMA (Against Medical Advice); obviiously they are counseled to stay but in the end it is their decision.
And the terminated employee would probably seek unemployment claiming being unjustly discharged and who knows where that would end up..........
"After all, tomorrow is another day." Wishing you a better tomorrow!
I agree with Nurse. When i was a phlebotomist, i had 2 needlesticks in 15 yrs. of that career. Noone ever subjected me to a drug test/except to be tested for HIV at a baseline level and then in a few months be checked again for it. I am not sure why we would not have had to be subjected to routine drug testing if an accident happened.
Where i work now in the construction field. We had a incident just a month ago where a construction worker got injured and we had to send him for a drug test even though he was refusing to be seen at the dr. He went, and everything came out okay. This is mandatory on our site that if anyone gets hurt out there working , that they be drug tested. Even if you drive a company vehicle and get in a accident , you are subjected to be tested for drugs.