Find management, clinical, and paraprofessional positions in healthcare, nursing,
financial, construction, architecture, manufacturing and legal fields.

Employment Today™


"EXEC'S POT-PUFFING PLAYS ROULETTE WITH CAREER"

Dear Kathryn: I work for a major New England bank and have my very well paying job in jeopardy due to silly state law.

I've been working for the Boston operation in an executive role for three years. I've been notified my department is going to be shut down here and my job moved to CT. I live in between the two states so don't have a problem with that. The issue is that the human resource department has told me that before the transfer can be official, I have to successfully pass a drug test.

I've been a high performance employee proving myself for two years and feel this is an invasion of my privacy. I didn't have to take a drug test to get this job here at their operation in Boston but human resources tells me CT has a different policy as CT allows drug testing.

To be frank, my only vice is that I dabble occasionally with a little marijuana and obviously fear this will show up. They've given me this week to complete this screen as my new assignment is to start the following Monday. What can I do to retain my position and skip this test? I'm even considering taking the pill that supposedly masks marijuana.

JONATHAN Y., Longmeadow, MA

Dear Jonathan:

Life would be so much easier for you if you just traded that vice for something with fewer consequences!

Your situation is a bit complex so I called in both labor guru's Atty. Clemow and Atty. O'Brien JR on this and here's their take on your dilemma.

If your bank is simply transferring you to CT, they cannot insist on a drug test. They already employ you and unless you're a potentially new employee, it is not legal for them by CT law to require a drug test.

If your employer were to terminate you and have you reapply for your job with the CT entity, the request for the pre-employment drug test would be in line.

If the second scenario is the case, I'd say good luck with your test, start job hunting and strongly consider giving up your habit.

Dear Kathryn:

How can an employer be the one to suffer the consequences of a lying candidate?

The first interview I had with the deceitful candidate I ultimately hired was a phone interview that I taped. As this person resided out of state, the interview was in-depth and I questioned him extensively as to salary history, reasons for leaving, his job history, including date confirmation. The next step was an interview that was so successful that it immediately resulted in our making him a job offer on the spot. In our excitement of landing this fabulous candidate after conducting numerous interviews, I didn't have him complete any applications or forms authorizing us to do background checks (stupid, I know!)

The candidate started soon thereafter and our personnel clerk proceeded with her normal hiring steps and ran salary history and background verifications. Nothing checked out. I was instructed to terminate him. I did so only to get notification that the thug is suing us! He's claiming he never signed any forms authorizing background checks nor filled out anything as to his salary history, so how could he by lying?!

It somehow had leaked to him that the phone interview was taped and on that issue he's truthfully stating he wasn't notified. Before I call our lawyer, how deep in quicksand are we with this? He's the one who lied and he's the one who's suing us!

What's the deal?

JACK P., Fairfield,CT

Dear Jack:

Gee Jack, forms signed or not, why bother with after employment checks when those calls can be accomplished within 24 hours? Take heart in knowing that you're not alone in completing that procedure as I know dozens of major companies that do things backwards, running background checks after the hire only to be faced with your dilemma-keep the deceitful employee or fire the liar.

Here's the good news and the bad. You're not in hot water as the background checks were provided by the employers you phoned. They could potentially be in a tough spot, but the fact your checks did not extend to credit, nor "investigation" (talking to their neighbors etc.) you're ok.

The secretive taping thing was wrong and the ex-employee could raise hell with that one. Attorney George O'Brien and Attorney Brian Clemow agree that his chances of a successful claim of "damages he suffered" are slim as your taping did him no harm; the result of his lying is what did him in.

Unfortunately, you'll still have to pay an attorney to get this monkey off your back. I'm assuming you learned your lesson and will practice due diligence before any future offers are extended.

Dear Kathryn:

My former employer is using my 401k money illegally! I left five months ago and requested that my 401k funds be immediately transferred to an IRA I set up. Nothing's happened nor have they responded to my numerous calls. I know this is wrong so what can I do?

DEBORAH G., Storrs, CT

Dear Deborah:

Don't be so quick to assume your employer's crossed an illegal line. You need to read the 401k's summary outline, which details just what the time frame is as to when your employer must transfer the funds.

Attorney Bruce Lewellyn of New Haven's Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn reports that there is no statutory time frame dictating when the transfer needs to occur. Most employers, in fact, don't bother with that exercise until the first few months of the following year to complete the transaction. Anything specific would need to be outlined in the Plan Summary. Request a copy.