Crossing Guard, 79, Fired Over Drug Test

KPRC ^ | 7/22/05 | Mikey_1962

[Mikey_1962]

HOUSTON -- A 79-year-old school crossing guard was fired over a drug test, but not because he failed it, Local 2 reported Thursday. Francis Light refused to take it, violating Houston Independent School District policy.

Light has been a familiar face at Oak Forest Elementary School in northwest Houston for 16 years as the school's crossing guard. He was fired last month after refusing to take a random drug-alcohol test. Light said his system is clean, and after so many loyal years on the job, he was insulted.

"I got to think as long as people know me, long as I've been doing this, then they want me to take a drug test kind of made me mad," he said.

An HISD spokesman said all employees are subject to random tests.

Light signed the form, but did not read the fine print.

"He's the only one with loving touch. He knows you by name," said Kenneth Bonte, a student.

Parents said they would miss Light's presence at the school intersection.

"It sounds like there was a misunderstanding. He should've been handled possibly more gently," said Vonda Bonte, a mother.

"He's as much a part of the school as teachers are," said Ann Zallar, a mother.

Light said he should have just submitted to the drug-alcohol test, but said there are no hard feelings. He said that he will be turning 80 years old soon and he was considering retiring anyway. Light just did not want it to end like this.

HISD considers all refusals to take the drug-alcohol test as a positive test.

It requires employees to submit to the tests immediately. The district has a policy to terminate all employees who refuse to take the test

[Diddle E. Squat]

Wow, you seem to have an unending supply of trite soundbite bullcrap.

[thoughtomator]

I'm sure you are well aware that the rules for military personnel and those for civilians are not the same.

[bwteim]

Here is the poor crossing guard.

[thoughtomator]

I do, yes, thank you for noticing!

[goldstategop]

I understand him. For him it comes down to trust. No one in their right mind would see a 79 year old crossing guard as a habitual drug user. For the school bureaucrats, its important to make people go through a humiliating ritual to get their i's and t's crossed. Whatever happened the good old American presumption of innocence principle? The Drug Warriors have gone overboard in assuming every one who refuses to take a test must be high. The burden shouldn't be on the employee to prove he's clean, the burden should be on the government to prove he's breaking the law.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[cyborg]

I foresee grandpa getting lots of donations and cards in the mail and maybe an invite back to work!

[MikefromOhio]

yep but they ARE making people sign agreements when they are hired to take a yearly or a random pee test. Besides in my world EVERYONE has a clearance so it's a common occurrence....

it sucks, but that is the way things are going these days. And they DO end up busting a few people too....

[cyborg]

Reminds of zero tolerance only applying to clean cut,honor students at school!

[RetiredArmy]

Light signed the form, but did not read the fine print.

At 79, he probably COULD NOT EVEN SEE THE FINE PRINT!!!

[thoughtomator]

Either you own your body or the government does - it can't be both ways. In the case of being in the military, you are essentially consenting to have the government own your body for the enlistment period. For civilians that is not the case. Private employers shouldn't be able to demand that ownership, either.

[Eagles Talon IV]

"The old coot refused to follow his employer's policy, and he was shown the door. Cry me a freakin' river.<

Exactly right. What is it with some people on this forum and in society in general that they believe rules should only apply to some people and not others? If you don't like the rules as they apply to you then you have a choice. Either have them changed or failing that quit your job. Being 79 or 85 or 110 doesn't confer any additional rights on a person.

[goldstategop]

Power. I just love how we're all suspect. We're never innocent. And our life is fair game for those who insist on knowing whether we're of good character enough to do our jobs. I look with nostalgia on a time in America when a man's word used to be good enough for people.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[mmercier]

Guilty or innocent, it is always best to observe ones right to remain silent. I have no problem with tests decreed due to probable cause, I have a big problem with random tests, and refuse them. Once refusal cost me a possible job, the other time I never heard anything and worked the whole job.

Drug tests by their very nature require the individual to offer evidence against ones person.

This person made the right decision, as long as he is willing to bear the consequence, otherwise he will have to give testimony for against himself in order to remain employed.

I am from Massachusetts, so I am used to this; the rest of you all better get used to the idea too, as it will soon be national policy to work for any government or private entity that deals with them.

I want to see mandatory drug tests for all elected officials and their staffers... We will have a man on mars before this though.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Then how about doing everyone a favor and sparing us from your spam for a few days. Shockingly, FR might just survive just fine without you peddling the same worn out phrases and stereotypes on EVERY SINGLE THREAD.

[Luddite Patent Counsel]

So? Random drug tests required by government agencies and schools are clearly constitutional (besides being extremely useful), and courts have almost invariably upheld them. Such was the case here. If some ACLU type had managed to get a background check policy struck down, and Mister Kindly with the "loving touch" was a pedophile rather than a potential pothead, folks on this forum would be the first ones to squeal. If you won't do what your employer legally wants you to do, it's twenty-three skidoo, Gramps!

[thoughtomator]

Feel free to ignore me.

[microgood]

So I guess you wouldn't want our military drug tested either?

Those in the military are not protected by the Constitution, but are governed by UCMJ.

Read the 4th Amendment. You cannot search someone without probable cause...a reason to believe they have committed a crime. The Supreme Court has wrongly ruled it is OK is some circumstances such as public safety.

Drug testing is humiliating and degrading and I, for one, will never submit to one. This is one of the two things Reagan did that I hate. The other were his asset forfeiture laws, which have been grossly abused by extremely corrupt members of our government.

[MikefromOhio]

For civilians that is not the case. Private employers shouldn't be able to demand that ownership, either.

It's a street that goes both ways. I wish you would realize that. Sure they don't own your body, but they DO have the option of not hiring you. Companies especially have some of the same rights as others do. This is like having to wear a tie to work everyday. Bluster all you want, but do you REALLY want a drugged up hippie making estimates on the possible flight paths of a Chinese nuke? I don't. Maybe that would satisfy your Libertarian streak, but it won't make anyone any safer.

Look I understand it sucks. But that is what employers are requiring increasingly. If you don't want to do it, be my guest and I am sure they won't hire you. However, I tend to like being paid more. And I don't see it as a big loss of personal freedom either, but more of a requirement to keep my security clearance.

[thoughtomator]

That's pretty much my point... you're not going to find out who's a child molestor or otherwise dangerous to children through a drug test. And there may be some very good personnel who will fail those tests that you wouldn't want to fire.

[Junior_G]

I've never encountered a school district policy that didn't suck. It's the glorious age of Zero Tolerance.