New boss is requiring background checks and drug tests for already existing employees

[Arlington Road]

Jurisdiction

Alabama

I've been with my employer for over 22 years. A new boss has just taken over. This wasn't a promotion from within or anything. This is someone completely from the outside. Everyone who is reporting to him has been informed that he requires a background check and drug test for anyone and everyone under his supervision. This is regardless of the fact that we are employees that he is acquiring and not hiring. Also, each of have already had a background check and drug test at the time of our hiring. HR seems to be letting him make the call on this. His reasoning is that he needs to know who he has reporting to him. The issue is, how can someone new make this decision about already existing employees? New employees that he hires, sure. But existing ones? It seems like he is trying to retroactively change something. Like he is basically saying that we never took a drug screening or had a background check to begin with. Is being re-background checked and re-drug tested legal and/or common?

 

[adjusterjack]

HR seems to be letting him make the call on this.

Now you know. HR works for the bosses not for the employees.

Is being re-background checked and re-drug tested legal and/or common?

Legal? Yes, absolutely legal.

Common? Yes, it's quite common for new bosses to change things.

Happened to me. New boss, total reorganization, micro-managing. When it became unbearable, I retired.

That's your choice, too. Accept it, seek employment elsewhere, or retire (if able).

 

[cbg]

I don't know how common it is. It is legal. Alabama law allows random drug testing in the workplace.

 

[Arlington Road]

The new boss said he was shocked to hear that the place does not do periodic background checks and/or random drug tests. As much as it pains me to say it, he kind of has a point. One background check at the beginning of employment really isn't sufficient to last throughout someone's long term employment. A lot can change over the years. Same with drug screenings. This guy just has everyone uneasy (which is probably what he's going for) by treating everyone like we are the new people and he is the established one. He even told everyone "welcome to orientation".

 

[zddoodah]

The issue is, how can someone new make this decision about already existing employees?

I don't understand the "how" form of this question.

New employees that he hires, sure. But existing ones?

Apparently so.

Is being re-background checked and re-drug tested legal and/or common?

I don't understand what you mean by "re-background checked" and "re-drug tested."

You told us that this is a new requirement for both new and existing employees.

Obviously, drug testing isn't a one-time thing. If ABC Company hires Bill and requires a drug test as a condition of being hired, that test only covers what's in Bill's system at the time of the test. Bill might test clean and then go on a bender to celebrate his new job such that he might test positive two days later.

Likewise, a background check only covers what exists at the time of the check.

What I think you are intending to ask is whether or not it's legal for an employer to change the terms and conditions of employment for existing employees (whether it's "common" isn't legally relevant). The general answer is yes. Most employment in the United States is "at will," which means the employee can terminate the relationship at any time and for any reason, and the employer can terminate the relationship at any time for any reason that is not expressly illegal (e.g., discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc.). The most common exception to this is for union employees. The relationship between a union employer and union member employees is governed by the collective bargaining agreement. Other exceptions are for civil service employees and those who have a formal, written contract that limits the employer's ability to terminate the employee. Part and parcel of "at will" employment is that the employer has almost unlimited ability to change terms and conditions of employment.

Things like background checks and drug testing are sometimes governed by specific state (and federal) laws. I don't know if any such laws are applicable in Alabama. However, in general, there's nothing illegal about an employer imposing new requirements on existing employees.

 

[Arlington Road]

@zddoodah I didn't phrase it very well when I said re-background checked and re-drug tested. I was thinking along the lines of having to redo preemployment requirements. But I see now that background checking and drug screenings are ongoing. Our new boss, (who is only a department head), has changed the policy so as to include background checks every 2-3 years as well as random drug tests. I just wonder what this would mean for the company on the whole. It seems as if they would need to make it a sea change across the board, rather than just our department alone.

 

[cbg]

"What department you work for" is not a characteristic protected by law. Therefore, a change in policy that affects only one department is not illegal discrimination and is permitted by law.

It's really no different than, Sales employees have to wear business suits; Shipping employees can wear jeans and tee-shirts.

 

[zddoodah]

It seems as if they would need to make it a sea change across the board, rather than just our department

Why do you think that?

You haven't told us what you do, but let's just say that your employer has a bunch of drivers and a bunch of office workers. Your employer could, quite legitimately, decide to drug test only the drivers. That's not to say that there has to be an objectively reasonable basis for testing one group of employees and not testing another. As long as the employer isn't testing, e.g., only the white employees or only the Jewish employees, it's probably legal.

It's really no different than, Sales employees have to wear business suits; Shipping employees can wear jeans and tee-shirts.

Exactly.

 

[Arlington Road]

Why do you think that?

You haven't told us what you do, but let's just say that your employer has a bunch of drivers and a bunch of office workers. Your employer could, quite legitimately, decide to drug test only the drivers. That's not to say that there has to be an objectively reasonable basis for testing one group of employees and not testing another. As long as the employer isn't testing, e.g., only the white employees or only the Jewish employees, it's probably legal.

I was looking at it more like this guy is a department head and not a vice president or anything. Basically, he's middle management, not upper management. He is instituting a policy that everyone under him, whether a new or long term existing employee, must submit to a drug test, background check, and now he's added physical examination as well. And these things will be done periodically as well. I was wondering with him being only a department head, how could he implement something that hasn't been company policy, and won't be company policy for any other department, naturally, since he isn't over any other department. However, he couldn't have done this, minus upper management signing off on it. So, looks like I have answered my own question. It may be his policy, but HR, and ultimately upper management gave the nod.

 

[adjusterjack]

I was wondering with him being only a department head, how could he implement something that hasn't been company policy, and won't be company policy for any other department,

That's easy. His bosses have given him the authority to do what he is doing. If they didn't want him to do it, they would stop him.

It may be his policy, but HR, and ultimately upper management gave the nod.

Exactly.

Again, your choice is to accept it or leave.

 

[Arlington Road]

Looks like it's begun already. I go for my physical and drug test in the morning. Well, on the plus side, I will be retirement eligible in about 2 and half years

 

[zddoodah]

and now he's added physical examination as well.

Meaning what, exactly?

Basically, he's middle management, not upper management. . . . I was wondering with him being only a department head, how could he implement something that hasn't been company policy, and won't be company policy for any other department

I don't understand the "how" form of the question, but I assume the following explains it:

he couldn't have done this, minus upper management signing off on it. So, looks like I have answered my own question.

Indeed, and we've already told you that a requirement may legally be imposed on one department but not others.

 

[Arlington Road]

@zddoodah The physical exam refers to an exam/checkup with a doctor. This too was a preemployment requirement, and it looks like it will also become something that will be done periodically along with the background check and drug screening

 

[justblue]

@zddoodah The physical exam refers to an exam/checkup with a doctor. This too was a preemployment requirement, and it looks like it will also become something that will be done periodically along with the background check and drug screening

depending on what your job is, it may be a wise new policy.

 

[adjusterjack]

Well, on the plus side, I will be retirement eligible in about 2 and half years

Well, stick it out if there is a significant financial incentive, like maximizing your pension, or securing your financial position.

I was 60, and financially independent, when I did my Johnny Paycheck.

 

[army judge]

Well, stick it out if there is a significant financial incentive, like maximizing your pension, or securing your financial position.

I was 60, and financially independent, when I did my Johnny Paycheck.

I recall my first time, too.
LOL
I was about to become 52.
Never looked back since.

 

[Arlington Road]

depending on what your job is, it may be a wise new policy.

I agree. I have been thinking about what @zddoodah said. Background checks and drug tests only cover things to a certain point. Here I was thinking "but I did all that, preemployment". LOL Same with a physical exam. Of course I had one way back when I was going through the hiring process. But that was way back then and this is now. Preemployment background checks, drug tests, and physicals are all well and good at the time of initial hiring. But, needless to say, they sure don't have the capability of looking forward, and a lot can happen in the ensuing years. So, doing these things periodically makes sense. I'm seeing now why the new boss is implementing such. Also, word is, one thing he can't do (at least not right away) is terminate anyone, barring anyone doing something just horrific, like beating up a coworker, stealing, etc. And so, for his own well being, he wants to get a good understanding of who he has reporting to him.

 

[adjusterjack]

Also, word is, one thing he can't do (at least not right away) is terminate anyone, barring anyone doing something just horrific, like beating up a coworker, stealing, etc.

I don't know where you got that "word" from but it's not true. Unless you have a real employment contract or a union collective bargaining agreement, you're employed at will and can be terminated for any reason (except illegal discrimination) at any time, especially if you don't comply with the new requirements.

 

[Zigner]

I don't know where you got that "word" from but it's not true. Unless you have a real employment contract or a union collective bargaining agreement, you're employed at will and can be terminated for any reason (except illegal discrimination) at any time, especially if you don't comply with the new requirements.

I think the OP means that the company hasn't empowered the new boss to actually terminate anyone. I suspect that may not be true, but I think it's what the OP heard.

 

[Arlington Road]

I think the OP means that the company hasn't empowered the new boss to actually terminate anyone. I suspect that may not be true, but I think it's what the OP heard.

Exactly. From what I understand, the new boss can't come in the door firing anyone, as per his bosses, not by law or anything. IF what I heard is accurate