by Natalie Beck

This is very good news for all of you employers out there that conduct pre and post-hire drug testing.  In addition to the safeguards laboratories have put in place to detect any type of dilution or adulteration to a urine specimen, a new bill called ”The Drug Testing Integrity Act” has been proposed that will “outlaw the manufacture, sale, shipment or provision of any product designed to assist in defeating a drug test.” Those in violation of this bill would be subjected to penalties and fines.

Stepped-Up Efforts Aim To Thwart Cheating On Drug Tests

Legislation has been introduced, and regulations soon will take effect to crack down on products and guidance designed to defeat testing.

By Susan J. Landers,  AMNews staff. August 25, 2008.

Washington - What do salt, bleach, soap, drain cleaner, detergent, lemon juice and white vinegar have in common? All are promoted on Web sites as substances that can be added to urine to mask the presence of illegal drugs.

Thousands of sites provide information on how to cheat on drug tests, and many of the techniques have been publicized for decades. No sooner had regulations been developed to institute President Ronald Reagan’s 1986 call for a drug-free federal workplace than people began searching for ways to evade detection, said Amitava Dasgupta, PhD, professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston.

Labs have been successful, so far, at keeping up with the methods employed, but “it’s a cat and mouse game,” Dasgupta said. Just when labs catch up with one subterfuge, another comes along.

Dasgupta spoke July 29 at the Annual Meeting and Clinical Laboratory Expo 2008 of the American Assn. for Clinical Chemistry in Washington, D.C.

With drug abuse a critical problem in the U.S. and many other nations, the screening of potential employees has become common, Dasgupta said. More than 47 million adults reported working in settings where testing for illicit drug or alcohol use occurred during the hiring process, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Drug testing is also a public safety issue, and American Medical Association policy outlines the need to safeguard the validity and integrity of the testing system.

More

by Nick Fishman

Does your organization have a Substance Abuse Screening program for prospective and existing employees?  Well then, you might wonder why a Medical Review Officer (MRO) is so critical to the process.

Joe Reilly from Florida Drug Screening was kind enough to share some insights with us about why an MRO can be helpful in reviewing all substance abuse screening results, not just those that are positive.  The following is an excerpt from his guest article which was published on employeescreen University earlier today:

The MRO must not be an employee or agent of or have any financial interest in the laboratory for which the MRO is reviewing drug test results. Additionally, the MRO must not derive any financial benefit by having an agency use a specific drug testing laboratory or have any agreement with the laboratory that may be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The purpose of this requirement is to prevent any arrangement between a laboratory and an MRO that would prevent the MRO from reporting a problem identified with a laboratory’s test results or testing procedures.

The MRO has the following responsibilities:

(1) Determine that the information on the drug testing Custody and Control Form (CCF) is forensically and scientifically supportable;

(2) Interview the donor when required;

(3) Make a determination regarding the test result;

(4) Report the verified result to the employer or agency ordering the test; and

(5) Maintain records and confidentiality of the information.

Click here to view the full article

by Natalie Beck

I love, love, LOVE this idea!  In my opinion, the Australian authorities have a fantastic program on their hands.  Now, I know that many local police stations set up DUI checkpoints during the holidays and do catch quite a few under the influence.  But think of how many more they would catch if they did this intermittently throughout the year?  And how many of those would be YOUR employees?  Even though this is a different concept altogether, one can infer from this story that it is a good idea for employers to randomly test their employees for drugs and alcohol as well as continually screen them for possible criminal activity.  You’ll never know what your employees have been up to if you don’t bother to check!

Random Testing Catches Doped-Up Drivers

16/07/2008 12:00am  Campbelltown-Macarthur Advertiser

IT looked just like a random breath test unit but instead many motorists asked by police to pull over on Therry Road, Campbelltown, earlier this month got their first taste of random drug testing.

“The look on some people’s faces when we said they’d been selected for a random drug test was surprising,”‘ Sergeant Grant Bucknell said.

About 1400 people were pulled over and 348 of them were also tested for drugs.

Sergeant Bucknell, from Macquarie Fields Highway Patrol, said five people returned a positive blood alcohol reading while six returned positive readings for drugs.

“This means that about one in 50 people tested positive to drugs, which makes it a bigger problem than alcohol,” he said.

Click here for the rest of the story

by Natalie Beck

We really don’t touch on student drug testing as we work within the confines of pre-employment screening.  But, I found this story to be absolutely ridiculous and thought it was worth sharing.

Drug-Testing Advocate Indicted On Charges Of Heroin Trafficking

July 15, 2008 - newsnet5.com

NORWALK, Ohio — A northern Ohio woman who encouraged Norwalk school board members to start drug testing students has been indicted on charges of heroin trafficking.

Police in Norwalk said Stephanie Broz admitted to them that her advocacy of drug testing was to take attention away from her.

Norwalk Detective Todd Temple said she told police it was a scam.

Broz also faces a charge of possession of heroin.

Police arrested her in early June during a traffic stop. Officers said they found her with a large amount of heroin.

by Natalie Beck

The Boston Firefighters’ Union is fighting a new mandate that all firefighters will be randomly tested for drug and alcohol use. The excuse they are using is “self protection”.  In my opinion, the protection of the public from these civil servants completely outweighs that of the civil servants themselves.  These people are responsible for protecting citizens from dangerous situations.  How can they do that if they are using alcohol or narcotics on the job?  This union should take a long hard look at their position on this matter and weigh the pros and cons.  Do their personal beliefs regarding drug and alcohol testing really surpass the need for public safety?  If the answer is yes, then I would suggest they find another career.

Fire Department’s culture problem

July 10, 2008 By Joan Vennochi, The Boston Globe

The Boston Firefighters’ Union is once again flaunting its me-first culture and resistance to change.

Four months ago, Boston Fire Commissioner Roderick Fraser demanded that a department board reopen its investigation and examine autopsy reports of two firefighters who died last year in a restaurant fire. The board - composed entirely of union members - did nothing. As reported by the Globe’s Donovan Slack, board members refused to examine autopsy reports that indicate that one firefighter had cocaine in his system and the second had a blood alcohol level of 0.27, more than three times the legal limit to drive in Massachusetts.

Meanwhile, the union, which has been without a contract since July 2006, continues to reject random drug testing, unless firefighters are paid more to do it. But despite strong union opposition, change is coming to the Boston Fire Department.

More

by Natalie Beck

As a member of the Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA), we receive notification of any important information with regards to substance abuse screening. Effective this past Friday, the Department of Transportation (DOT)has passed an interim final rule which allows both employers and third party administrators (TPA’s) to divulge drug and alcohol testing violations of employees who hold CDL licenses and drive commercial motor vehicles to the applicable state agency if required by state law. This ruling states that employers and TPA’s are not required to obtain the employee’s consent in order to release this information.

To read the ruling in its entirety, click here.

by Natalie Beck

A school bus driver in Salinas, CA failed a random alcohol test given to him on Monday by his employers, the Alisal Union School District. Unfortunately, this was after he had already driven 50 children to school. While it’s great to see schools following Department of Transportation protocol and randomly testing their drivers, it may be a good idea to randomly test before the start of the bus driver’s shift in order to avoid a situation like this (just a thought). Hopefully this individual will no longer be permitted to work as a school bus driver in that district, or ANY school district for that matter, in the future.

School bus driver arrested

By NICK RAHAIM • The Salinas Californian • June 3, 2008

A bus driver for the Alisal Union School District was arrested Monday on suspicion of being drunk while driving 50 children to school, police said.

Frankie Mata, 48, of Salinas, had a blood alcohol level of 0.12 percent when he and other district bus drivers were given a random drug and alcohol test following their morning bus routes, Salinas police said. The blood alcohol limit for drivers in California is 0.08 percent. But the blood alcohol limit for those with a commercial license, including bus drivers, is 0.04 percent.

Salinas police responded to the district about 12:40 p.m. and arrested Mata on suspicion of DUI and 50 counts of child endangerment - one for each child he transported.

More

by Natalie Beck

The use of marijuana for medicinal purposes has been a hot topic in recent years. Should doctors be allowed to prescribe marijuana for those with chronic pain? Is this an issue for the federal government to address or should this decision be left up to the states? Many states have already adopted bills either allowing for the use of medical marijuana or little to no criminal penalties resulting from the use of the drug with a valid prescription. In April, Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced H.R. 5842 “The Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act” that will “provide for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States.” But what you don’t see much of in the news is how this will affect employers should this bill pass and more states adopt a medical marijuana law. This article showcases the great debate between employers and employees in the state of California where in 1996, the use of medical marijuana was legalized. I can certainly see both sides to this issue. This is definitely an issue to keep an eye on in the coming months and years with respect to the employer/employee relationship.

Job security debated for medicinal pot users

By Jim Sanders, Sacramento Bee

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — For west

Californians gave Gary Ross the legal right to smoke medicinal marijuana at home.

But that didn’t keep the Carmichael resident from being fired for doing so.

Ross is at the epicenter of a fight pitting the rights of more than 250,000 medicinal marijuana users against those of business owners.

“It’s insane that someone has to fight so hard to use a medication that a doctor says is best for your treatment,” said Ross, 46.

The issue is not whether workers can be stoned on the job — they can’t — but whether even trace amounts of doctor-approved pot are grounds for firing.

The California Supreme Court ruled against Ross in January, sparking recent legislation to protect the jobs of medicinal users. The court found that California’s medicinal marijuana initiative, passed in 1996, did not address employment.

More

by Natalie Beck

A lot of the stories you read about individuals applying for jobs talks about dishonesty on the resume or attempting to cheat a drug test. It is very rare to see a story about an applicant’s honesty (though extremely refreshing). It’s even rarer to see a story about a company intentionally trying to cheat the system and increasing their liability for a potential bad hire – which is what we have here. Yes, there is something to be said about trying to minimize your costs and being able to fill positions quickly in an attempt to remain competitive. However, there is a right way and wrong way to do this. This company went about this all wrong and hopefully, now that their deception has been made public, they will do the right thing by their clients (if they have any left after this).

But for this applicant who maintained his integrity, all I can say is – good for you!

Click here for the story

by Natalie Beck

Any company that employs those that operate or work on any type of commercial transportation system (airplanes, semi-tractor trailers, boats, railroads, etc.) are mandated by the Department of Transportation (DOT) to test employees.  Employees whose positions fall under DOT rules and regulations for drugs and alcohol both prior to employment and randomly must be tested. The DOT is VERY specific about how the tests are conducted, the percentages of employees that must be tested for drugs and alcohol on a yearly basis (depending on applicable DOT agency), and how often random selections are made. Failure to properly manage your company’s DOT drug and alcohol testing program can get you into trouble – namely large fines and possible loss of government contracts. The City of Chicago learned this the hard way. If there is ever any question about your DOT drug and alcohol testing program, do not hesitate to consult with your legal department or the Department of Transportation directly to get those questions answered. It may save you some heartache (and money) in the future!

Click here to read “City’s Drug Testing Chief Fired for Errors”