9 Questions to Ask Before Implementing Drug Testing
I have been working on the pros and cons of drug testing over the last couple of weeks. If you are still in favour of drug testing for your workplace, here are some questions to ask yourself when building your drug testing policy:
- Is your company considered a “safety sensitive” or hazardous workplace? If yes, drug testing may be for you. If not, rethink.
- Is drug testing necessary for a legitimate work related purpose (e.g., safety)? if yes, proceed.
- Are you in Alberta? If yes, you may even be able to do pre-employment drug testing, something typically not supported in the rest of the country. If not, pre-employment testing is much much more difficult.
- Are there alternatives to drug testing that you can use? If no, be ready to prove it and proceed.
- Will you only do drug testing when necessary? If yes, proceed.
- What are you going to do if the results come back positive? i.e., Are you prepared to accommodate an employee who is addicted to drugs to the point of undue hardship? (A drug addiction is considered a medical disability meaning that human rights laws across the country will require you to accommodate an addicted employee. Accommodations may include time off for treatment and rehabilitation, rehabilitation plans, transfers to different crews, flexible schedules, etc.) Interestingly, “recreational use” isn’t protected by Human Rights legislation and you have no duty to accommodate in this situation so be clear about and be sure to define what recreational vs. addicted looks like in your policy.
- Have you chosen a reliable test that provides proof of current impairment (or proves past impairment only if acceptable for your circumstances)? If yes, proceed.
- What are you going to do if the drug test comes back with more information than you want, e.g., it identifies a pregnancy, a kidney disease, or the presence of medications which are sending your benefits costs through the roof? It is important to note that use of this type of information is generally prohibited by Human Rights legislation. Since the mere perception that you acted due to learning this type of information is grounds for a human rights claim, there is significant risk involved to learning this information. Are you sure you want to proceed?
- How are you going to balance the privacy rights of the individuals when conducting a drug test? E.g., are you collecting the “personal information” in the least invasive method possible to get accurate results, how are you going to use it, store it, and destroy it once its use has expired?
All of this being said, implement drug testing at your own risk. Get good advice on your circumstances and build your policy and practices around drug testing very, very carefully.
Greetings,
Great to see that you have taken an interest in the workplace drug testing scheme and are offering free advice for businesses. In addition to your blog I’d like to provide further information for businesses to consider when contemplating whether to introduce drug testing and to also comment on a few points you have stated.
My first issue with your blog is that you have neglected to state the fact that drug use adversely affects job performance and productivity. For any profitable organization this should go hand in hand with safety. Lower productions lead to lower profits and in the long run higher costs. The higher costs and lower profits come about by employees who use drugs tend to have more sick days and can be unreliable. To fund their habits theft may occur within the company as drug addicts are commonly known to be dishonest. Statistics prove that drug testing can be successful by reducing accidents and worker compensations. Drug testing can be a major advantage for a company and for further information on how drug testing can lower your costs and improve safety. Clearly when implementing drug testing businesses need to consider not only safety but the performance of their employees. In order for a business to prosper productivity should be at its highest along side safety standards. Employees and customers have a right to a safe workplace or service this being physically and mentally. Physically free from harm and mentally free from abusive or erratic behavior which is often a characteristic displayed by drug users. So employers have a duty and obligation to protect these rights of their employees or customers.
Drug testing can be an effective deterrent when there is regular or random testing of all employees. Due to the fear of being detected it can prevent the occasional or social drug user from partaking in certain social activities. This will allow the employer to discover any addicts within the company and prevent any potential harm that the addict may cause (Open Polytechnic 2012). It can also discourage drug users from applying for employment when there is the knowledge of drug testing within the company. Other alternatives to drug testing are psychological or dexterity tests where employees are assessed on their judgments and behavioral skills prior to performing any job duties. The benefits of psychological and dexterity tests in place of drug testing are that they have immediate results and are less invading to a person’s privacy. Although the costs are a lot higher than drug testing the immediate results give employers the opportunity to prevent any harm by taking appropriate action at the time.
Employers are justified in knowing about employee drug use in order to prevent any possible harm or injury. Employers must show discretion when deciding that the potential for harm is clear or evident. In saying this there also needs to be a system in place to check upon an employer’s actions throughout these matters. A just employment relationship needs to be set up explaining an employees expectations and responsibilities in detail and where an employer’s discretionary authority to discipline or dismiss an employee is limited (Open Polytechnic 2012). Since the employee employer relationship is a contractual one, it should meet the standards of a morally valid agreement which is informed consent. Good practice would be for an employer to work with employees to develop company policy this insures fairness to both parties.
Employees should be notified prior to implementing drug testing this gives employees the opportunity to freely refrain from drug use. This additionally lets those that do have drug abuse problems seek help and counsel. It’s also preferred to prevent drug use as opposed to disciplining users after the fact. Employees should be informed of the results and be entitled to appeal the outcome. Furthermore any information collected from the tests should remain private and confidential again employers are advised to use discretion. The other problem I found in your blog is that testing should only be used for detecting drugs in an employees system and that alone. Drug testing is a means for collecting information, information sought must be relevant to the contract or it is a violation to ones privacy. This is in relation to the comment of information other than drug use being detected such as pregnancy etc…The main concern for drug testing is to detect drugs other information is irrelevant and a direct invasion of ones privacy.
Overall in my opinion implementing a drug testing policy can be very beneficial to a business. Businesses that exist solely for profit should understand that drugs in the workplace hinder employee performance and productivity. On a personal level I too would prefer to work alongside drug free employees to whom I know I could trust and rely on if a dire situation were to occur in the workplace. I’ve also added some statistics below to give a brief glimpse of the drug use that actually occurs within the workplace these are taken from the annual Drug Testing Index from Quest Diagnostics it shows the large problem of methamphetamine use in the workplace in the western states. Results released from 4.5million tests performed in 2010 this is a detailed break down of positive meth results compared to the national average. Reference required from http colon backslash backslash www dot homehealthtesting dot com backslash blog backslash.
Hawaii – 410% greater than the national average
Arkansas – 280% greater than the national average
Oklahoma – 240% greater than the national average
Nevada – 180% greater than the national average
California – 140% greater than the national average
Wyoming – 130% greater than the national average
Utah – 120% greater than the national average
Arizona – 100% greater than the national average. Kansas – 80% greater than the national average
First of all, thank you so much for the time and effort you put into your response. Clearly you feel strongly about this topic and I appreciate your willingness to share your perspective.
At the heart of your comments is the fact that I neglected to separate recreational users from addicts. You are right that addicts place added strain on benefits costs, have poor attendance and often worse performance. The same can’t be proven for recreational users. Unfortunately, results of drug testing don’t identify which category (recreational or addict) the user falls into.
One further concern you raised was regarding drug testing and privacy. While I recognize what the results of drug tests should be used for, the fact is that if you get more information than you wanted (i.e., regarding a pregnancy), then in Canada, you can be on the hook for knowing it if the employee perceives you make a decision with that information in mind. If it sounds convoluted, it is because it is.
From your information, I suspect you reside outside of Canada. Our rules in Canada surrounding drug testing and what to do with addicted employees are different from that of the United States, just as our attitudes are different.
It is interesting to see how far apart we are.
Hi Shawnee,
I’m all the way over in New Zealand actually hehe I used your blog as part of my business ethics assignment to critically respond to a blog or article that’s related to our topics we’re studying. New Zealand is quite different from a lot of the world we’re what you call very green.
Although drugs in the workplace is somewhat rising over here i was shocked when I saw the statistics for Hawaii I was only there last year and they all seemed fine to me. Just goes to show you cant really tell if a person is on drugs by appearances alone with drug testing you get the facts.
I don’t mind drug testing I just disagree with the methods they use to obtain that information. I find it very invasive and honestly with the technology that’s out there these days I’m surprised no-one has come up with a gadget to breathalize for drugs if they can do it for alcohol why not drugs also.
In New Zealand the employer has no responsibility to get their employees counseling or rehabilitation. If employees use drugs and get a positive test back its up to the employee to pay for and seek help. They then get put on a regular random testing schedule and basically its three strikes your out.
Over here they don’t see drug addiction as a sickness and fair enough drug addicts freely make the choice to use drugs driven by their needs and desires. Cancer patients don’t ask to get cancer and cant choose whether they have it or not whereas drug addicts can choose not to use drugs and have they choice to not be a drug addict.
I know I sound harsh but I’ve had some terrible experiences with people who have been on drugs and I know deep down it’s not the people it’s the drugs. Drugs drive people to do some crazy stuff.
Anyway it’s been great talking to you shawnee keep up the great work and just to let you know i chose your blog over a few thousand for my assignment.
Thanks
xox xox