BY JENNY LYNN, CO-FOUNDER AND CMO OF HOUND LABS, AND NINA FRENCH, SVP, OF EMPLOYER SOLUTIONS OF HOUND LABS
The Answer P
GIN' ARE
www.datia.org
re-access testing using technology that can identify the recent use of marijuana will replace workplace pre-
employment testing in the next 10 years. No, it isn’t a misprint—you didn’t miss
the beginning of the article. According to a study by
Wyzowl.com, the average atention span for adults decreased from 12 seconds in 2000 to only 8.2 seconds by 2015, so it is critical that we cut to the chase. Despite thousands of articles, news stories, and hours of discussions on marijuana legalization and its impact in the U.S., somehow many legislators, employers, and drug screening providers have thus far failed to understand the issue or embrace an effective solution. Tat failure will prove costly. Drug screening providers who do not modify their product offerings and provide their clients with a solution to “the marijuana problem” will experience a precipitous drop in revenue. Legislators who pass laws outlawing pre-employment drug testing without also prescribing alternatives will expose employers to litigation about workplace safety, product quality, and service failures. And employers who are slow to make changes will lose employees and profits to their competitors who are already seeking breath testing solutions to balance safety with fairness in the era of marijuana legalization.
The History In 1996, California’s Proposition 215, which legalized the use of medical marijuana, should have caused an avalanche of change to prevailing workplace drug testing standards. Yet, almost 25 years later, most employee drug testing policies remain largely unchanged. Historically, workplace drug testing was used as both a deterrent and detection
tool to mitigate the costs of drug use in the workplace. With a few exceptions, that remains the case today. Pre-employment drug testing—by far the majority of testing performed by employers—is used for candidate assessment and to deter drug users from seeking employment. Although pre-employment testing is still useful, the legalization of marijuana in over 34 states has rendered the practice less effective because current marijuana drug testing methods were not designed to determine WHEN an employee used marijuana, but only IF an employee did—information that is not as useful now that marijuana can be legally used.
The Issue Te combination of employees’ legal rights to use marijuana and current marijuana drug testing methods (which provide information about marijuana use long aſter impairment subsides) has made pre- employment testing for marijuana a risk for employers, leaving them with diminished applicant pools and open to accusations of discrimination. Employers around the country are seeking guidance. Te unfortunate truth is that the
drug screening industry cannot provide immediate answers because they, too, are seeking guidance and clarity. Te once-standard policy advice—simply state that your company policy does not allow the use of marijuana because it is still a Schedule I drug and still illegal under federal law—no longer applies. Screeners have struggled to keep up with the quick changes to state laws and the thousands of legal challenges to current drug testing policies. Additionally, when it comes to writing policies, the use of the term “impairment” is at the crux of the uncertainty and frustration because employers are supposed to follow the
datia focus 15
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
