recognition of how employee marijuana use affects the employer long-term. Te following describes a batle that one client has endured. It’s important to give some background on


this client. His company produces a product that can be found in each of our homes and workplaces. He has both Department of Transportation (DOT) employees and non-DOT employees. Tere are two types of drug tests in use: DOT-mandated lab-based testing, and non-DOT rapid screen testing. Because most of the workers are


seasonal, yearly hiring campaigns are needed to fill those positions. Te employer oſten hires employees within a relatively short period, and utilizes their services for a fixed amount of time. Understanding this, we drug tested 172


individuals in 2016. Of those, 25 percent—or 43 individuals—tested positive for marijuana, or refused to test. Of those 43 individuals, nine were presumptive positive drug tests, and 34 refused to test. What's important to understand is that the 34 individuals who were test refusals had samples which were out-of-temperature range. When confronted with this information, these individuals either admited to, or were found to be in possession of fake/synthetic urine. Losing 25 percent of your applicants to


either positive test results, or test refusals as a result of using fake/synthetic urine, would put a dent in anyone's manufacturing business. Tis was of considerable concern for the owner of this company. Supervisors who were used to having a


fully staffed crew were now running their shiſts much leaner than in the past. Tis caused the supervisors to complain and question the validity of drug testing. One of the supervisors stated, “If they’re not high on marijuana at the time that they’re at work, why does it mater if they smoke marijuana?” One also asked, “If they’re not high, can't we just hire them anyway?” Te owner received so much


pushback—blaming drug testing for his inability to fully staff his shiſts—that he


www.datia.org +THC 21%


75%—PASSED DRUG SCREENS 25%—FAILED


conversation then turned to the detection windows of both urine and saliva testing. Te window of detection time is less for a saliva test than for a urine test. Te owner developed a solution to his


problem. He wanted to continue testing the new employees with the six-panel, rapid- screen testing already in use. If an individual came back presumptive positive for marijuana from the rapid test, he would be given a saliva test. If the results of the saliva test were negative, he would then be hired based on the owner’s feeling that he was not high. As Chuck Marting explains, “I spent


79% SUBSTITUTED OR REFUSED


decided he needed a workable solution to the problem. He asked if those who were testing positive were high. Tere is a lot of misunderstanding


surrounding the issue of marijuana impairment. Tose who support marijuana use will oſten claim that its regular use helps them build up such a tolerance to the drug that they no longer become impaired. Sadly, employers are prone to buy into this fiction adding to the pressure to tolerate the drug. However, a study from the Scripps Research Institute shows that psychomotor performance can continue to show observable impairment in chronic cannabis users even three weeks aſter continued, monitored abstinence.2 In this case, it was explained to the owner


that workplace drug testing was not designed to determine whether an individual was high or not. Rather, tests detect the presence of drugs in the individual’s system. Te


time speaking to the owner and explaining why, in my opinion, this could be disastrous not only to his company, but also to his employees. I explained that by manipulating the testing process to receive the results he was looking for, he could potentially open his company, and himself, up to legal action. If the employee who was hired using this testing combination was to hurt himself or somebody else during his employment, the liability could fall on the company.” A lack of basic information and facts are


leading to similarly poor decision-making by employers nationwide, as various forms of marijuana legalization touch states around the U.S. Employers are misinformed by employees


who bully or manipulate the employer into believing that there is nothing an employer can do, whether the marijuana use is considered recreational or medicinal. One employer in Illinois recently


discounted an employee’s positive THC random drug test result because the employee claimed, “I was on vacation, on my own time, and I visited Colorado where marijuana is legal. You can’t punish me for something I did in a ‘legal’ state two weeks ago.” Te employer spoke with Jo McGuire to find out what he should do moving forward. As McGuire recounts, “When I asked


the employer what his policy allowed, he stated, ‘Zero tolerance. But does that only


datia focus 21


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