BEST PRACTICES BY DAVID BELL, USA MOBILE DRUG TESTING


Preconceptions About Drug Testing Are Rarely Accurate


C


onducting drug testing for thousands of companies across dozens of industries has shown us that most employers have preconceived notions about drug testing


that are often wrong. As you might imagine, many employers believe (or at least,


they tell themselves) that none of their employees could possibly be using drugs despite the fact that drug use statistics prove that is virtually impossible. According to SAMHSA, about 69 percent of drug users are employed,1


so finding a company


where no employees use drugs is about as likely as finding a unicorn or the tooth fairy. On the other hand, some employers are falsely sure that


most of their employees are using drugs. They fear that if they implemented a drug-free workplace program, they would certainly have to fire a majority of their staff and would be unable to find new drug-free employees. Unless a company is in the marijuana business, it’s highly unlikely that most, or even a large number of employees, are using drugs. In the real world, the truth is much closer to the first scenario.


A very small percentage of employees are using drugs. However, the risks associated with employee drug-use should not be downplayed due to small numbers. Reduced productivity, mistakes, and poor morale can all be caused by drug use, not to mention financially devastating workplace accidents. All it takes is a single drug-related accident to destroy a company’s finances and reputation.


One of our regional offices recently had the opportunity to


prove this to an employer in the restaurant industry who was sure that most of his employees used drugs regularly. He didn’t want to conduct drug testing because he thought he would be forced to fire around 80 percent of his staff, and insisted that rate of drug use was pretty typical in his industry so he would be unable to find new, drug-free employees. He had a pretty dark picture in his mind. After quite a bit of back and forth, the franchisee managed


to get the restaurateur to agree to a drug-testing program, and the results were surprising. His prediction of 80 percent of his employees testing positive did not materialize. It wasn’t 60 percent, or even 40 percent. Only 7 percent of his employees tested positive, and in this


struggling economy, he was able to quickly and easily replace them with new drug-free employees who ended up being safer and more productive workers. His other employees were happy that they no longer had to pick up the slack for unproductive workers, and needless to say, that restaurant owner was elated. (Results will vary by industry, but generally fall in the 2–10 percent positive test results range.) Another franchisee encountered a very different situation


when talking with the owner of a construction company who proudly boasted that drug testing would be a waste of money because he knew none of his employees used drugs. Fast forward to the day of the surprise drug test. When


the collectors showed up, one employee of that construction company literally ran off the job site and never returned. While the owner was a bit embarrassed, he was also happy to


have goten rid of two employees who, unbeknownst to him, posed a significant safety risk both to themselves and to other employees. Sometimes the outcome is a little more subtle. One small


employer in a conservative industry had fostered a very close culture within their company. All of their staff had been there for more than 15 years and they knew each other like family. It was a close-knit team and the owner had no doubt that none of his employees were using drugs, but under the terms of a contract with a client they had recently landed, he was required to implement a random drug testing program. Unfortunately he was wrong. His bookkeeper, who was involved in a car accident a few


years earlier, had inadvertently got addicted to painkillers as many people do with these over-prescribed drugs.


14 datia focus Winter 2016


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