How to create a drug testing policy

Ensuring you have a safe, productive and efficient work environment is an integral part of a strong foundation for business success. This includes aspects such as management techniques, team morale and hiring strategy.

For this post, we are going to focus on the latter – hiring strategy – and more specifically, drug testing. A drug testing policy is vital for any business, to help ensure that those you hire are safe and sober, and that your employees remain that way once hired.

Implementing a drug testing policy can be tough, so here are MYB’s five steps to creating a successful policy for drug testing your employees:

1) Examine your needs

Before investing in a drug testing program for your workplace, first identify the drug abuse risk in your organization. Have you noticed a decrease in productivity,-an increase in absenteeism, or accidents by your employees? Are your insurance  and workers claims costs soaring?

Consider the specific areas it is that you want to improve with a drug testing policy, and that’s your starting point.

2) Understand the law

Some state and federal laws can make setting up an employee drug testing program difficult, so make sure you know your stuff. If necessary, get your legal team involved and ensure you’re not putting your company at risk.

3) Get help

No one knows more about drug screening policies and programs than a pre-employment screening company, so don’t be afraid to ask for help. They will be able to help you create a thorough, effective and affordable testing policy for your company, leaving you free to focus on sustaining and increasing business.

4) Process

With the above done, it’s time to create the actual process. Again, this is where an employment screening company is going to help. The process needs to involve getting employee consent, written policy, legal issues and HR processes.

If you’re a beginner, this is what’s really going to help you get to know what a drug screening program is all about.

5) Specifics

So now we’re down to the specifics. What type of test are you going to perform? What’s the company and legal process if a test result is positive? Or negative? How are you notifying current employees about the drug screening program? How are you integrating it into your current hiring strategy? Once again, a professional screening company can really take the load off with this stage of the policy and implementation.

Ready to get started?

So those are our five tips, and we hope this helps you to understand what a drug screening policy is all about. If you’re ready to get started, or you have more questions about drug screening, feel free to get in touch. We’ll be happy to help!

Drug testing for jobs: Employer’s guide

Drug testing for jobs is a commonplace occurrence in this day and age, with many employers implementing drug testing as a key part of their employment screening policy. Drug testing prior to an employee starting an employment contract reassures company management that their workforce is sober, and will be a productive and effective team.

But employers might be asking, why drug test employees? Why not follow your gut instinct, or rely on the interview to cast judgement?

Well, in truth, that’s your call to make as an employer. But is it worth the risk if you get it wrong?

Here are some drug screening facts to consider when making your decision:

•  The average costs of a bad hire may equal 30% of the first year’s potential earnings.
• According to statistics on drug abuse by American workers, workplace drug and alcohol use costs U.S. businesses an estimated $100 billion each year.
• The United States Department of Labor estimated that of the 17.2 million drug abusers in the US, 12.9 million are employed either full or part time.
• Statistics show drug and alcohol abusers to be ten times more likely of taking time off work.

Multiple Olympic athletes expelled after failed drug tests

Colombian 400m runner Diego Palomeque has become the latest in a long line of athletes to formally be excluded, banned or disqualified from the 2012 London Olympics after a failed drugs test. Palomeque gave a urine sample that tested positive for testosterone. He has stated that the result was caused by him injecting himself with a homeopathic product that he believed included no banned substances.

“It’s always a sad day when a cheating athlete is caught… the message is very clear: If you’re doping we’re going to catch you,” International Olympic Committee spokesman Mark Adams told the Associated Press before the start of the Games.

More than 5,000 blood and urine samples were tested for banned substances at this year’s Olympics, more than any previous games. The testing took place about 20 miles away from the competition sites, at the laboratories of GlaxoSmithKline in the town of Harlow as part of a collaboration between GSK and the Drug Control Center at King’s College London.

So far, at least nine other athletes have been expelled from the Olympics due to failing a drug test, either before – or during – the Games.

“This is about the integrity of London’s Games,” Olympics minister Hugh Robinson told The Telegraph in January. “Anybody who watches in person or on television wants to know that what they are seeing in front of them is a true and fair contest.”

After winning the 100 meters final in Seoul in 1988, a reporter asked the Canadian sprinter, Ben Johnson, what was more precious: a world record or the gold medal? Johnson chose the latter.

“Why?” the reporter asked.

“Because it’s something nobody can take away from you,” he replied.

The message coming from London 2012 organizers this year was, “Yes we can, and we will.”

It seems like they fulfilled that promise.

US athlete fails drug test – pulls out of Olympics

We highlighted recently just how seriously Olympic authorities were taking ethics at London 2012 – with more than 6,000 samples expected over the course of the games.

It seems that the influence of drugs, and the ferocity of drug screening procedures in place, have already begun. Sprinter Debbie Dunn recently withdrew from the U.S. Olympic team after failing a drug test during the selection trials last month.

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency

After trials on June 24 in Eugene, Oregon, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency informed her that a sample she gave contained an elevated testosterone/epitestosterone level. Artificial testosterone can be used to enhance performance by growing muscle.

“While I work with Usada to resolve this matter, I am withdrawing from my relay pool position for the 2012 Olympic Games,” Dunn said. “I do not want any issue like this to distract from my teammates’ focus for the biggest meet of their lives. I wish Team USA best in London as I work toward resolving this matter.”

The testosterone/epitestosterone, or T/E, ratio is used to check whether the naturally occurring substances are within normal limits. Usada is testing a second urine sample, Travis Tygart, chief executive officer of the Colorado Springs, Colorado-based organization, said in a statement.

“Usada appreciates Ms. Dunn voluntarily removing herself from the Olympic team while the full facts surrounding her elevated T/E ratio and adverse carbon isotope ratio analysis are evaluated,” Tygart said. “As in all cases all athletes are innocent until and unless proven otherwise.”

Dunn was the world indoor champion in the 400 meters in 2010, when she was also the U.S. outdoor champion. She would have been competing in her first Olympics.

Thorough screening procedures

Over the course of the games, the scientists will be tasked with analysing more than 6200 samples for as many as 400 banned substances across a range of pharmacological categories. Perhaps the toughest challenge is the rapid turnaround time required, with the majority of negative results set to take less than 24 hours to be announced.

Drug testing and the Olympics

With less than a month to go before the 2012 Olympics in London, we thought we would take this opportunity to explain a little bit about the drug screening procedures in place, and how the process is managed on such a vast scale.

The process

We have been told that 150 scientists will be working around the clock to test up to 400 blood and urine samples per day. About half of the athletes competing this year will be requested – without notice – to provide samples for testing, including all medallists. Most samples taken will be urine, but 1000 or more will be blood, according to David Cowan who heads the Olympic testing team.

Avoiding mistakes

To avoid any mistakes all samples will be barcoded, so that the testing centre knows where any sample is at any time and who is handling it. Each sample will be divided at the point of collection between two tamper-proof bottles labelled A and B. If the testing team gets a positive result from repeated tests on an A sample, the B bottle will be opened and analysed.

Challenges

Over the course of the games, the scientists will be tasked with analysing more than 6200 samples for as many as 400 banned substances across a range of pharmacological categories. Perhaps the toughest challenge is the rapid turnaround time required, with the majority of negative results set to take less than 24 hours to be announced.

All in all, it’s quite the process! With more than 6000 drug screens being performed over the 18 day period, we applaud those who are responsible for implementing these tests. Fingers crossed most samples are clean and we get to witness an exciting and enjoyable Olympics 2012.

Ten reasons to drug test your employees

Drug testing employees is a controversial subject for many, with questions posed about privacy, cost-effectiveness and trust. While we understand these issues, we also understand the benefits of screening employees in this way, and the pitfalls you can face if you don’t.

With that in mind, here our the top ten reasons you should be drug testing your employees:

1. Employees using drugs at work is a key contributor to  lower productivity.
2. Statistics show drug and alcohol abusers to be ten times more likely of taking time off work.
3. According to statistics on drug abuse by American workers, workplace drug and alcohol use costs U.S. businesses an estimated $100 billion each year.
4. The average costs of a bad hire may equal 30% of the first year’s potential earnings.
5. The United States Department of Labor estimated that of the 17.2 million drug abusers in the US, 12.9 million are employed either full or part time.
6. Many state and federal agencies require routine drug testing for all employees and contractors. Don’t risk the wrath of the law by trying to cut corners.
7. It’s a fact employees that use illegal drugs or routinely drink to excess have a much greater rate of health problems than their co-workers and peers. So you can reduce those healthcare costs by implementing a drug screening program.
8. Reduce illegal drug trafficking. Every little helps, and if all companies did their bit in stamping out illegal drug use, it can only be beneficial to all areas of society.
9. The Occupational Safety & Health Administration indicate that between 10 percent and 20 percent of the nation’s workers who die on the job test positive for alcohol or other drugs.
10. Even if you were to ignore all of the previous reasons, one of the biggest justifications for implementing drug screening at your business is to increase profits. By ensuring your workforce is drug free, you are taking a big step to a better (and more profitable) business.

If this has convinced you to get started with a drug screening program, or even if you’re still on the fence, learn more about the programs available by getting in touch.

Airline staff test positive to alcohol and drug tests

CASA was given the power to randomly test employees in sensitive areas of the aviation industry in September 2008. The Advertiser applied for details of the testing under the Freedom of Information laws because CASA would only publicly release the number of random tests, not the results.

In response, CASA released documents showing 41 people had been caught, with 13 later cleared of any wrongdoing. A CASA spokeswoman said the results should be compared with the number of tests carried out – 29,192 alcohol tests and 22,443 drug tests.

“CASA is heartened by the extremely low rate of positive results as a percentage of the total number of drug and alcohol tests conducted, but naturally would prefer to see no positive results,” the spokeswoman said.

“The drug and alcohol testing program will continue as part of a range of CASA surveillance activities aimed at maintaining Australia’s very high level of safety in aviation.”

The results did not include mandatory tests after accidents or when employers suspected staff were drug or alcohol affected. The staff were tested for drugs including cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy and morphine.

The 28 positive tests that resulted in further action included a refueller, a security guard, five aircraft engineers, eight cabin crew, four baggage handlers, one service employee and five people whose employment categories were not recorded.

DCPS not performing required drug tests

A city report has been published which claims that DC’s public school system has not – as required by law – implemented mandatory drug and alcohol screenings of its employees, according to the Washington Examiner.

Staff testing is becoming an integral process for most employers now, so a report like this has sent shock waves around the community – especially due to the fact that these employees are in close contact with children.

D.C. teacher screening code

“The D.C. Code requires that [DC Public Schools] employees who work in safety-sensitive positions undergo mandatory drug and alcohol testing,” D.C. Inspector General Charles Willoughby wrote. “This requirement is not being enforced at DCPS, and the policy and procedures necessary to implement testing of DCPS appointees and employees have not been finalized.”

Under District law, employees in so-called “safety-sensitive positions” – jobs that bring the employees into direct contact with children and youth – should be subjected to screenings for drugs and alcohol.

However, when city investigators began probing the existence of a testing program in January, they found little evidence that one existed. A few months later, a DCPS official acknowledged to investigators that the agency didn’t have a screening program.

DCPS statement

In a statement, DCPS spokeswoman Melissa Salmanowitz reiterated that the agency still intends to put a testing program into place. “DCPS is committed to ensuring all students are safe,” Salmanowitz said. “We are working on the final details of a drug and alcohol testing policy that we expect to implement in the upcoming school year.”

A nationwide problem?

It’s not just D.C. that seems to be failing in this area. The inspector general also said at least three states have encountered difficulty imposing random drug testing for teachers”. However, it was also noted that ”regardless of what has transpired in other jurisdictions regarding drug testing of school employees, the District’s requirement is clear and has not been implemented.”

All in all, it’s a worrying situation. Children are one of the most vulnerable sectors of society, and need the most protection. We hope that D.C. – and any other districts who have yet to implement a sufficient teacher screening program – get their act together soon.

Why staff testing is integral to your business success

First and foremost, let us define what we mean by ‘staff testing’. While it could refer to a multitude of HR practices, staff testing in this blog post relates to employment screening – such as drug tests and background checks – that will ensure your business is making the right hiring decisions for your future success.

As an employer, one of the most important aspects of hiring is this form of staff testing, which consists of two main parts: pre-employment background checks and drug screening.

There are several reasons as to why it’s a good idea to run pre-employment background checks on potential new hires, including taking precaution to avoid future litigation and legal requirements. When it comes to drug screening, the primary reason is to avoid the legal issues if an employee has an accident while intoxicated at work. Drugs in the workplace can result in big bills for workers compensation if there’s an accident. It can also reduce productivity, and statistics show that those who abuse drugs and alcohol are ten times more likely to take time off work.

Why are they important?

According to statistics from recent studies on drug abuse by American workers, workplace drug and alcohol use costs U.S. businesses an estimated $100 billion each year.

Furthermore, 30% of all business failures are caused by employee theft. That’s almost 1 in 3 failed businesses that may have been saved had employment screening occurred.

Take a look at more reasons why you should be screening your employees.

How to get started

Firstly, I would decide which types of background checks you would like to perform. To do this, it would be a good idea to talk to a pre-employment screening service. A background screening service will provide you with reliable results, ensuring that you know any information regarding applicants or employees that could put you at risk. By helping you obtain such information, you are in a better position to make any hiring decisions.

For more information on staff testing, your next steps and how we might be able to help, get in touch today!

Australian company told “no urine drug tests”

A state-owned electricity company is appealing against a Fair Work Australia ruling so it can conduct urine tests on its employees, arguing it has a right to determine whether its staff are chronic drug-users.

During arbitration last month, Fair Work Australia determined it would be ”unjust and unreasonable” for Endeavour Energy to conduct urine tests because the tests could show a positive result from drug use days earlier. The senior deputy president of FWA, Jonathan Hamberger, ruled the company should instead use oral swabs, which generally detected drugs taken only in the preceding hours.

In its notice of appeal, Endeavour Energy argued urine testing had value as a ”deterrent” to drug use and was more accurate than oral swab testing.

”We have an overriding legal and social responsibility to protect the safety of our staff at work from foreseeable risks associated with chronic drug use,” the company said. ”It is urine testing, not oral swab testing, that best mitigates those foreseeable risks.”

But one of the five unions representing Endeavour Energy’s workforce said its management was out of step with the state’s other energy distributors, who had moved to swab testing.

”The organisation is now, in my view, wasting taxpayers’ money for a vendetta against its workforce,” Scott McNamara, energy manager at the United Services Union, said. ”Urine testing is something that is done to basically socially monitor people, and has no effect in identifying fitness for work.”

The dispute is being watched by other unions, who believe it will set an important precedent for other workforces. Drug testing is increasingly common and the issue of swab versus urine testing is hotly contested.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald