BEST PRACTICES BY DUFFY NABORS, PSYCHEMEDICS CORPORATION
Managing and Enforcing a Random Hair Testing Program (Non-DOT Testing): A Case Study
drug-free workplace. However, in order to ensure that a workplace maintains its drug- free status, a robust random testing pro- gram should also be in place. In a random program, individuals selected for testing are typically automatically selected (by a sci- entifically valid method) without advanced notice or planning. It is important to check state and local laws to make sure that they allow random testing programs. Some states and cities allow reasonable suspicion testing based on the observance of specific employee’s performance and behavior, rather than a broad random program. Once you have established that a random pro- gram is legal, how do you make it as robust as it can be? Consider how one well-known auto manufacturer implemented a best-in- class program that positively impacted the entire workforce:
T
esting applicants before bringing them into an organization is the first line of defense to establishing a
Tis particular manufacturer em-
ploys more than 30,000 people through 14 manufacturing facilities and over 1,500 dealerships. It is highly com- mited to providing employees a safe and drug-free work environment. Te company’s pre-employment hair drug testing program had such profound ad- vantages that it decided to implement a random testing program using the same hair test it adopted for pre-employment testing. Utilizing a hair test gave the em- ployer the longest window of detection possible. Tis was important because the company felt that it was the best indicator of a person’s inclination to abuse (or not abuse) drugs. Te intent was to deter drug-using applicants from applying, and also to deter those in the company’s current employment from using drugs. In 2008, the new companywide ran-
dom testing program was implemented. To initiate the program, a sweep of the managers was first conducted, followed up by the random testing of a specific percentage of the entire workforce. Employees were first given the option to come forward and admit to drug use, which put them in a “monitoring program” where they took an initial baseline test, then were tested quarterly for two years (6 percent of employees at one plant came forward). Any posi- tive results aſter the baseline test then resulted in termination.
Program Results • Since implementing the random hair testing program, the overall positive rate has dropped by more than half.
18 datia focus
• When new locations introduce random hair testing, they begin by testing a higher percentage of the workforce. As the posi- tive rates quickly decrease, the locations are able to gradually reduce the testing rate to a much lower percentage of the workforce.
• As the program continued and it became clear that drug use would be detected, the overall positive rates continued to steadily decrease.
• Tis comprehensive dual approach maximizes savings by keeping drug users out of the workforce, and minimizes the cost of the program by reducing the rate of random testing over time.
Conclusion Random drug testing plays an integral role in any workplace drug testing program. Without a robust random program that identifies the widest window of detection, employee pools are subject to becoming a safe place for drug users to go undetected. Make sure that your state allows random drug testing and write it into your policy. You might be amazed at what you find. ❚
Reference
Random Testing Case Study (Psychemedics Corporation)
https://origin.library.constantcontact.com/ doc200/1104210336469/doc/MiLicG82SPL6apsU.pdf
Duffy Nabors is a National Account Manager for Psychemedics Corporation (
www.psychemedics.com), the pioneer and worldwide leader in hair drug testing.
With over 18+ years of sales experience, he consults with businesses regarding how to implement and maintain the most effective drug screening program to increase their productivity and efficiency.
winter 2015
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64