Giving a urine sample for drug and alcohol testing has become a routine part of getting a job, whether as a warehouse worker or a corporate executive.
So Michele Adkins’ demand is reasonable: Workers hired to care for vulnerable people, such as Adkins’ developmentally disabled daughter who lives in a group home, ought to be subject to testing, too.
Adkins didn’t realize they weren’t until the behavior of some caregivers at her daughter’s home led her to suspect that they were under the influence, and a subsequent investigation revealed more problems.
That was when her daughter told her of the time a caregiver, driving her to the store, weaved all over the road and almost hit another car.
The Ohio Department of Development tests its own employees for drugs but doesn’t require the same of private agencies who sometimes provide caregivers. That should change.
Consumer Support Services, the agency that provided some of Adkins’ daughter’s caregivers, plans to begin drug-testing employees soon.
That’s good, but it shouldn’t be optional.
Caregivers typically aren’t well paid, and some in the industry say requiring drug testing is too great a burden on workers and agencies that already are strapped for cash.
But caregivers are trusted with an enormously important responsibility.
The stakeholders in this relationship– families, agencies and taxpayers– should be able to find a way to pay for it.–Columbus Dispatch