“Assuming that Advice from Peers is an Acceptable Substitute for Getting Facts from Competent Sources”

A recent experience while delivering a seminar on implementing a drug free work place program is an example.

During the seminar an attendee insisted that West Virginia did not allow random drug testing. It turns out that person was not entirely correct. 

Employers can random test employees in safety sensitive positions in West Virginia.  To be safety sensitive, the job should be one that poses a high probability of risk to others or a risk of injuries that are severe.  The “immediacy” of the threat of injury and the fact that a single mis-performed duty could have irremediable consequences are important factors in determining the safety sensitivity of a job.  In regards to what qualifies as a safety-sensitive position, West Virginia courts state that the employee’s job responsibility must involve “public safety or the safety of others”.

And, given those parameters, there are many jobs that fall under that definition. How about the fact that an employee drives a car for an employer? How about nurses?  How about employees working with children, the aged, and other vulnerable members of society?  Get my point?

Jim Randisi, Randisi & Associates, Inc. helps employers protect workforce, clients and reputation through employment screening, drug testing and skills/behavioral assessments. He can be reached at either 410.494.0232 or jim@preemploymentscreen.com .

Information in this article r is not intended as legal advice.

There is much indirect evidence for showing the positive effects of conducting employment screening and drug testing e.g. reduction in personnel turnover rates, increased productivity, better morale, better safety record, lower rates of accidents, etc.

But, rarely, are we able to specifically point at how not hiring a particular individual saved a firm from a loss. This puts us in the position of trying to “prove a negative”. Proving a negative is usually virtually impossible to do, till now.

Recently, an article was published in The Daily Collegian, a newspaper associated with the Pennsylvania State University. The article reports how Juniata College did not hire Jerry Sandusky because Mr. Sandusky failed a background check in June 2010. This was more than a year earlier than the now widely reported numerous allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Sandusky.

By implementing a properly structured employment screening program, Juniata College avoided hiring an individual. This individual would have, at the least, exposed them to significant loss of resources in responding to the resulting publicity given evident indications of potentially dangerous behavior. And, at most, the individual may have continued potentially dangerous behavior while in their employ, thus exposing them to even higher loss of resources.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2011/12/08/sandusky_fails_juniata_college_background_check.aspx

The Society for  Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the Drug & Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA) recently polled 1,058 randomly selected Human Resources Professionals and found that drug testing helped to improve productivity, reduce absenteeism and reduce worker compensation costs.

Key Findings are located at  http://www.datia.org/eNews/2011/SHRM_DATIA_DrugTesting_Poll_SHRM_WEB_FINAL.pdf

A summary of key findings:

• In organizations with high employee absenteeism rates (more than 15%), the implementation of a drug testing program appears to have an impact. Nine percent of organizations reported high absenteeism rates (>15%) prior to a drug testing program, whereas only 4% of organizations reported high absenteeism rates after the implementation of a drug testing program, a decrease of approximately 50%.
• In organizations with high workers’ compensation incidence rates (>6%), the implementation of a drug testing program appears to have an impact. Fourteen percent of organizations reported high workers’ compensation incidence rates prior to a drug testing program, whereas only 6% of organizations reported similar rates of workers’ comp after the implementation of a drug testing program, a decrease of approximately 50%.
• Nearly one-fifth (19%) of organizations experienced an increase in productivity after the implementation of a drug testing program
• Employee turnover rates decreased nearly one-fifth (16%) in organizations after the implementation of drug testing programs.

An employer assuming that a pre-employment-screen drug test is the most effective method of keeping illegal drug use out of the work force.

A random drug testing program is 50% more effective at finding illegal drug users in the workplace. This is based on Quest
Diagnostic’s analysis of more than 5 million drug tests per year. Quest reports that pre-employment drug tests have a 3.6% positive rate while random drug tests have a 5.4% positive rate. For the general population of non-regulated employers, that means 5 of 100 or about 1 in 20 employees at an employer WITH a random drug testing program is using illegal drugs. The Society for Human Resource Management estimates that non-regulated employers WITHOUT a random drug-testing program could expect up to 11% of their workforce using illegal drugs. Random drug testing sends a continuous and powerful message to the workforce that illegal drug use will not be tolerated in the workplace.