Drug Testing
KCHR
38 Posts
Took yesterday off and came in to find that all the office staff had been asked to submit to a drug test due to signing a contract to provide services (staffing) to a large corporation that required maintaining a drug free workplace as part of the contract.
Here is the policy in the Handbook for internal office staff:
The Company reserves the right to request submitting and application for employment, or while employed by the Company to submit to drug tests at such times and places we might choose. Failure to comply will be cause for termination.
There are no other internal policies and the company has not conducted random testing on internal office staff.
Do we have a problem with what we did yesterday?
Here is the policy in the Handbook for internal office staff:
The Company reserves the right to request submitting and application for employment, or while employed by the Company to submit to drug tests at such times and places we might choose. Failure to comply will be cause for termination.
There are no other internal policies and the company has not conducted random testing on internal office staff.
Do we have a problem with what we did yesterday?
Comments
I agree that there is a need to respect one's privacy, and depending on your business, there may be little need to test. In other business areas, there is a greater need. Delivery drivers, heavy equipment operators, etc. should be randomly tested, in my opinion, because of the nature of the work performed. Using industrial equipment while impaired is a dafety risk to others and can be prevented, to a degree, if the company is proactive. Now, instead of urine samples, we use a company that supplies applicators (they look sorta like a large Q-tip, that is placed between the cheek and gum for a perod of several minutes. The test catches not only serious abusers, but recreational users because of the time the substance stays in your saliva. This test is effective and less intrusive. Maybe you would be more comfortable with this system instead of the urinalysis.
Huh? What about the long-haul dispatcher who sent two trucks almost a thousand miles out of route who later used the EAP to dry out? What about the administrative secretary who walked off the back dock, stoned? What about the accounting clerk who had both a gambling and drug habit and decided the payroll process could support both? What about the HR Assistant who had a wreck between plants going to do orientation and tested positive when checked at the clinic?
We have got to get over this notion that only big ugly men driving big ugly stuff could possibly be abusing drugs and impacting the corporation's bottom line.
By the way, all of those examples are real live examples among three places of employment!
In those that you mention, the long-haul dispatcher counts as safety-sensitive. The administrative secretary, the accounting clerk and the HR assistant, no. At best their handling of money, personnel records, or confidential files is related to integrity; not necessarily security or safety. If the company can assert that their need to secure money and information outweighs the employees right to privacy, then I say go ahead and test. Otherwise they should be covered only under the reasonable suspicion clause.
Are you stereotyping heavy equipment drivers as big and ugly?
It sounds like what your policy allows or dictates is the issue, unless there is contract-specific verbiage. There are references in many of the posts about drug-free workplace. I can't speak for other states, but in Florida that can have one of two meanings. 1. One is outlined in Florida Statute and is a voluntary option by employers to obtain a discount on W/C insurance premiums. The program specifics are fairly well defined and include drug tests upon job offer/hire, post accident, and reasonable suspicion, among other things. The random testing is generally meant to satisfy part of the legislation that imposes a burden to ensure a continued drug-free workplace, which should also include employee training/information and EAP. Also, the random selection process must be 'valid.' I'm not sure what the validity test is, but there is verbiage in the statute that infers a validity test on the random selection method adopted by the employer. Adoption of the program also gives the employer the right claim an 'official' drug-free workplace designation, i.e., 5% W/C prem discount, limited protections against minor procedural missteps in program administration, must advertise DFW in job ads, as well as many other responsibilities. 2. The second definition of DFW is a company's voluntary adoption of a similar practice but the company may be self-insured for W/C, thus no premium discount available, but still a very good and widely adopted practice by many employers. I don't know if your state's legislation is similar, and if it is, which of the two scenarios your company falls under.
Technically, the employees' opportunity to opt out this time means this was not random. If it was due to reasonable suspicion, there should have been specific documentation in place. Obviously, you & your coworkers are not new hires, so it isn't that. You were not all recently involved in a work accident (you were off that day), so it must not be post accident. My guess is that your company's entire drug-free work place program is unrelated to your W/C (official drug-free designation in Florida) or was improperly administered. Again, however, you and your cohorts have take corrective measures by reviewing/revising policy language.
I would like to have more information on these. Can you direct me?
We're also nonprofit. $79 is not very expensive, but if we can't get someone to donate the software to us, we probably won't designate funds for purchase.
Try your drug testing laboratory. If you don't have one, a quick search online search will get you to some fairly quickly.
I would suggest that since you have a requirement for drug screening you enact a more formal policy. (I would also suggest that you talk with management and ask them to please next time wait a day until you can help them with this process. I can't believe they couldn't have waited a day.)
Also, if you are changing your policy, in most states you have to give a "warning" before you enact it. I would worry more about this. However, if employees didn't complain and nothing came of it, I would forget it happened and just get things set up for the future, train management on it and follow it.
E Wart
E Wart