Small Business & HR

Ed C · January 2005

I have recently joined a very small company. (Less than 50 employees.) There were no real pre-employment checks. I've started a drug screen program and credit checks. If you were in my position, what other pre-employment checks would you recommend? Thanks for your help.

szemcumo · January 2005

Upon making a job offer we send app. for a pre-emp drug screen. Once that comes back negative we then do background checks that include a 7 year criminal history, workers comp history and verification of social security number. We ONLY do credit checks on upper manager personnel that would have a company credit card or access to financial information. We do our checks through ADP our drug screens through a local doctor.

Ed C · January 2005

Thanks for your helpful information. May I ask how you check the social security number?

szemcumo · January 2005

Verification of the SS# is included in the checks that ADP does for us.

System · January 2005

Be careful with the drug screening and credit check programs, making sure they have some relevance to the job or you may be embarking on some privacy issues. But then, I'll assume I just spoke to the choir. How have they been on checking references and documenting results? I find great value in checking references that I get other than the ones the candidate gave to me. Former employers are helpful; some give 'name, rank, and SS # only.' Depending on your industry, look at criminal background as a possibility.

Welcome to the Forum!!

Don D · January 2005

Miz Moll: Should I infer from your comments that your municipality has certain jobs for which a drug screen would have no relevance? Other than perhaps the job of Mayor, what positions do you have that might be safely and competently performed while high?

szemcumo · January 2005

Good question, I was wondering that myself but imagined that she typed both items together not meaning no relevance for dt screening or at least I hoped so.

System · January 2005

I should have clarified. We do pre-employment drug screening for all employees. We have post-accident and reasonable suspicion for all employees. Also have D.O.T. random for commercial drivers. This month we will adopt a random drug testing amendment to our policy. We will not randomly test those employees who do not operate equipment, drive vehicles, or work in a safety-sensitive environment. That excludes finance clerks, secretaries, and HR people. When they give me a car, I'll jump in the random pool with the rest.

szemcumo · January 2005

We too do random but EVERYONE from the OWNERS (at their insistance to drive the point home that everyone is accountable) to the maintenance crew are included in our random pool.

System · January 2005

That has been challenged in this state as a violation of privacy when no reason of safety or security exists. It's not enough to say that the person has access to funds or information pertinent only to finance or personnel (for example). It would be a violation of ones privacy to require a drug test when there is no business necessity to do so. Cops, public works crews, and building inspectors of course will be tested.

Hunter1 · January 2005

Sam: As you know, there is a different standard in public sector regarding random testing and privacy interests. Have you made the case that building inspectors are in safety sensitive positions?

Don D · January 2005

One of the hats I wear is Safety Manager. Therefore, I have the privilege of dealing with every accident and near miss. Some of these are in the parking lot and some are in the office areas and none is exempted from peeing in a cup when they go to the clinic for treatment after an accident or injury. In my several prior lifes (lives?) in other environments, the same policy applied to all employees as any stoned employee can run your comp costs through the roof and it certainly cannot be limited to what people call 'safety sensitive jobs'.

The standard the court should observe is that anyone subject to a government contract who has a 'drugfree workplace act' policy must subject every employee to every facet of that policy, without regard to who someone might consider to be in a safety sensitive job. But, I'm not surprised that some MD court has ruled this way. I did see a survey that indicated upwards of 80% of municipal and circuit judges in the northeast are under the influence of drugs at any given time. The figure rises to 89% in California.

System · January 2005

Hunter1, yes I did include the building inspectors. No question that their position is safety sensitive.

I agree that any stoned employee can run up the comp costs. We have a post-accident policy that applies to ALL employees. We also have reasonable suspicion to cover all. Apparently the courts here feel that employees working in 'safety sensitive' positions pose a larger risk for serious injury than those who do not work in that environment. It's probably less costly to treat a secretary who fell off her (or his) chair than a concrete worker who gets sliced by a concrete blade or a backhoe operator who clips a co-worker into a ditch.

I'd like to see your survey.

Hunter1 · January 2005

You can and should check social security numbers with ssa.gov 'business services organization'. Go on the site and they explain what you need to do, then you can check up to five names at a time by toll free number. I'm going to assume that if you're doing credit checks that you're complying with the requirements of the FCRA.

Small Business & HR

Comments