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 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”

by Natalie Beck

This company learned the hard way what can happen when an employee consumes alcohol on the job. A New Mexico man fell 20 feet to his death after slipping on a plank at a construction site. After the accident, it was discovered that this man along with some of his co-workers had been drinking on the job. One co-worker was arrested for a DWI shortly after the fall as he was leaving the scene of the accident. Not only had this employee been driving on a revoked license for the past 5 years, he had also been arrested previously for drunken driving.

The owner of the company indicated that he had no way of knowing about his employee’s revoked license and never would have allowed his employment if he had. A simple Motor Vehicle Record Check would have provided such information. A random drug and alcohol screening program may have deterred these employees from consuming alcohol during work hours (if keeping their job was important to them). Unfortunately, with all of these safeguards, accidents on the job can always happen. But it is up to the employer to make sure they are doing all that they can to make sure it doesn’t. Not only do employers need to actively protect their employees and customers from workplace accidents, they also need to protect the livelihood of their business.

Click here for the story

by Natalie Beck

If this study doesn’t convince you to randomly screen your employees for alcohol use (or drug use, for that matter), I don’t know what will. This UK study provides some staggering information on employee alcohol use in the workplace that may leave some of you surprised. While it is great that employers are conducting pre-employment alcohol and drug tests on their employees, it is equally important to continually screen your employees to make sure they are not drinking before work and habitually using illegal substances. Alcohol and drug use are the predominant factors in decreased productivity, absenteeism, and workplace accidents.

Your employee was clean when they started the job, but how about now?

Click here for the study

by Nick Fishman

This just in from the San Francisco “CRONIC”le (couldn’t help it): the Ninth District Court in San Francisco ruled that a city can’t require all job applicants to be tested for narcotics and must instead show why drug use in a particular job would be dangerous.

I would think that substance abuse is a societal problem and one that employers might choose to be concerned about. It not only affects the obvious things like job performance and company reputation, but some of the things we don’t think about everyday like the cost of healthcare. I can’t believe that the court would not at least allow (not mandate) the city to conduct substance abuse testing if they deemed it appropriate.

Read the full story here . . .